House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
More than 82% of UK premises can now access gigabit-capable broadband, up from just 6% in January 2019. The National Infrastructure Commission recently reported that we are on track to meet our target of 85% gigabit coverage by 2025. Through Project Gigabit, we have already signed 31 contracts, with another this week, to bring fast, reliable connectivity to hard-to-reach communities across the UK. We have also created an attractive pro-competition environment to build networks in this country. Investment in fixed networks increased by 40% in real terms from 2019 to 2022, with more than 100 providers rolling out gigabit broadband across the UK.
Julian Sturdy
I very much welcome the Minister’s response, but does she agree that we need to ensure that we do not create a new digital divide where only parts of certain communities are upgraded, depending on where they are situated and where they are connected to the telecom box? This is causing a lot of concern in my constituency, where a continuing digital divide is being created.
Julia Lopez
Making sure that we do not have a digital divide is at the heart of Project Gigabit. By the time the programme is over, 99% of premises in our country will have gigabit-capable coverage, but during the roll-out process some will get that coverage sooner than others. We just had a new contract signed for Yorkshire, which will cover 3,400 premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right that we must ensure that premises between the commercial roll-out and the contract roll-out from Project Gigabit are not left out.
Jerome Mayhew
Fast internet connections are just as important in rural areas such as Broadland and Fakenham as they are in the rest of the country. I welcome the Government’s gigabit project. In Norfolk, it is rolling out 62,000 new connections and unlocking another 45,000 from the commercial sector, but will the Minister explain why it is taking so long and how we can accelerate the project even more?
Julia Lopez
We are rolling out gigabit networks faster than any EU country. I understand that the east of England has had particular connectivity challenges, which is why four contracts are being rolled out across that part of the country. As my hon. Friend said, there are 62,000 premises in Norfolk, 8,000 of which will be in his constituency.
Selaine Saxby
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication, I am pleased that the number of premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband in my constituency has increased from 3% in 2019 to 54% as of March. What more can my hon. Friend do to address the shortfall in coverage in the hardest-to-reach areas, and to expedite those awaiting a type C procurement contract, to ensure that we promote universal coverage across the UK?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend has probably been one of the strongest and toughest broadband champions in this House. I think of her and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) always when I have meetings with Building Digital UK. Let me reassure her that we are making very good progress on type C. We have named a preferred supplier for that contract and we hope to have a lot more news on that soon, which will be of interest to people across the country, particularly those in her constituency.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Hull already has high superfast broadband, and although we welcome competition, we do not welcome broadband poles being put up all across the constituency. What can the Minister do to force companies to share their infrastructure and stop the blight of ever-increasing numbers of poles appearing up and down our streets?
Julia Lopez
I have met the hon. Lady about this issue, and I have made representations to KCOM and Connexin, the companies involved in her neck of the woods. I believe that productive talks are under way between them, overseen by Ofcom. We hope that a lot more progress will be made, and that network roll-outs will be paused when there seems to be overbuild.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest. She is right that it is important to ensure that every person in the country can be connected. That is why we have encouraged social tariffs, which have been rolled out by a large number of operators. Constituents of hers who are on benefits will be able to access those. They cost from £10 a month, bringing cheap connectivity to everybody.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
For rural businesses, internet connectivity is essential. As we move into the summer, that will be the case for many tourism businesses. Sales can be lost and repeat business not return if tills and card machines do not work because of unreliable 4G and the internet going down. Very often, businesses suffer and do not see many sales. The National Audit Office recently said that the Government’s shared rural network programme is, like everything else, behind schedule. What message does the Minister have for businesses that will struggle to keep going this summer with no internet connection or poor broadband speeds?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but that is not a true representation of what the NAO said about the shared rural network. We are making very good progress and hope soon to be able to share very good coverage maps showing the progress made. On the roll-out of gigabit, he may be interested to know that the Welsh Government made representations to us about bringing it in-house, because we were making much better progress in England than they were in Wales. I am very pleased to say that ever since we took it in-house, we have had amazing progress on gigabit roll-out in Wales.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
The science and technology framework sets out our commitment to expanding STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—opportunities to the most diverse range of people possible. We have acted swiftly to identify and dismantle any barriers to entry. As a result, we have seen major improvements in recent years, although there is always more to do.
Mrs Hamilton
Today is National Numeracy Day. In my constituency, which is one of the poorest, all seven wards fall into the lowest numeracy ranking in the UK. What is the Minister doing to ensure that people in constituencies like mine are not locked out of jobs in STEM by a skills gap that does not recognise the disadvantages they face?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady raises a very important point on National Numeracy Day. While we must not be complacent, the Government have made outstanding progress on equality for all. I hope she will join me in congratulating teachers in her constituency, and up and down the country, on the fact that last year, under this Government, girls made up 52%—a majority—of all science entries at A-level.
Kim Johnson
The Institute of Cancer Research has made positive steps on diversifying representation in STEM through its apprenticeship scheme. Can the Minister say what, if any, lessons he is taking from that very positive initiative, in particular to increase representation in respect of ethnic diversity?
Andrew Griffith
I congratulate the Institute of Cancer Research on that progress. I would be delighted to meet the institute and hear what development it is making, as would my hon. Friends. This Government have increased the number of apprenticeships. Unfortunately, under the Opposition’s proposals the number of apprenticeships would halve.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Inclusion and diversity in STEM will be greatly increased and helped by the £6 million that Sir James Dyson has recently given to Malmesbury Primary School in my constituency, as well as by the STEM college he has locally. He has made it plain that it is available to all and that he intends to make sure that everyone in the town of Malmesbury and the surrounding area benefits from it.
Andrew Griffith
I commend my hon. Friend and Sir James Dyson for that initiative. It would be wonderful to see many more such initiatives across the whole country. My colleagues and I would be delighted to work with any philanthropists seeking to do something similar.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On National Numeracy Day, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the work of universities, such as the University of Birmingham, Imperial College London and Loughborough University, that go out of their way to attract women on to engineering courses?
Andrew Griffith
We are enormously blessed in this country with the quality of our universities, so many of which, together with the firms that sponsor undergraduate and postgraduate research, are making magnificent efforts in the important area of diversity in STEM.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says she wants to ensure that
“brilliant people can contribute and succeed, irrespective of their background.”
That is only right, but given that only 16% of practising engineers are women, it is like trying to play premiership football with half our players barred from the pitch. Can the Minister explain why not one of his major science strategies—the life sciences vision, the national AI strategy, and the UK science and technology framework—features an equality impact assessment? We have no idea whether those strategies are helping to break down barriers or not. The Secretary of State’s war on woke has so far cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds and delivered only damage limitation. Why can the Minister not fight for our scientists and engineers instead?
Andrew Griffith
As the hon. Lady well knows, diversity, STEM education and skills are at the heart of the UK science and technology framework, and we will be publishing skills frameworks for each of its priority areas.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
The Government could not be more committed to supporting our valued life sciences sector, which, in the financial year ending 2022, contributed well over £100 billion in turnover to the UK economy and employed more than 300,000 people.
Gary Sambrook
As the Minister will know, there is a shortage of laboratory space and clinical trials in the UK, and companies such as Precision Health Technologies Accelerator in Birmingham, led by the excellent Professor Gino Martini, want to be part of the solution to the problem. What help can the Government give businesses of that kind so that we can increase the number of clinical trials to help the advancement of lifesaving medicines?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is right: such is the growth of this important sector that we need more lab space quickly. I personally benefited from the advice of Professor Martini in the life sciences real estate working group. Precision Health Technologies Accelerator does some amazing work in my hon. Friend’s constituency to knock down barriers to building, many of which are sadly the fault of Labour councils.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease remain the largest cause of death in the United Kingdom. The Government pledged in 2019 to fund dementia research. What more is the Minister doing to ensure that we have early diagnosis, access to trials and support for life sciences to transform dementia outcomes?
Andrew Griffith
Dementia is a crippling disease for so many people, and will touch so many people’s lives. The Health Secretary and I recently hosted the heads of the Dementia Mission at No. 10 Downing Street to announce more funding, and I should be happy to meet the hon. Member and any representatives of dementia organisations in his constituency.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
A facility that would allow the production of good manufacturing practice phages would be an asset to many companies working in the field, and would play a key part in tackling antimicrobial resistance. What consideration has been given to repurposing the Rosalind Franklin Institute as a GMP facility for phage production rather than selling it off?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady has made some important points. My officials and I have met representatives of the institute and have considered a number of options for it, of which they and, I believe, she will be aware.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
The Government are providing record levels of taxpayer funding for research, and my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the opportunity to improve productivity. A priority for research councils is to focus on not just discovery but innovation, so that British taxpayers feel the benefits of faster economic growth, rising living standards and better health outcomes.
Theresa Villiers
As I saw during a recent visit to Chase Farm Hospital, better digital systems can dramatically improve NHS productivity, and artificial intelligence can contribute to that as well. Will the Government use their science and research budget to increase NHS output, improve outcomes for patients and get waiting lists down?
Andrew Griffith
That is exactly what we are doing. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced £15.5 million to roll out artificial intelligence radiotherapy that locates cancer cells two and a half times more quickly, helping to reduce those anxious days for patients and their families who are awaiting a diagnosis. That is affordable only thanks to the fact that our plan for the economy is working. Labour has no plan, and would end up having to cut the research budget.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
Through Project Gigabit, we have signed 31 contracts to bring lightning-fast broadband to a further 780,000 rural homes and businesses across our country. Gigabit-capable connections are already being made in Barrow and Furness through our investment in Cumbria, and the shared rural network has already delivered substantial improvements in mobile coverage.
Simon Fell
I thank the Minister for her answer. I am delighted to see that Project Gigabit is delivering for Barrow and Furness: we have Fibrus delivering to the procured areas and companies such as Voneus now delivering to Walney, and there is healthy competition. What consideration has she given to rolling out truly technology-agnostic solutions to make the final mile better connected?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his role as rural connectivity champion; I discussed that role yesterday with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I am pleased to see that he recently attended a visit to see how the supplier Voneus is investing in a wider solution for premises on Walney island. I assure him that we already take a technology-agnostic approach to our contracts, with some suppliers using wireless connectivity and exploring fixed wireless access and low Earth orbit satellites.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Government have been absolutely clear that no one should be left behind in the digital age. Digital inclusion is a cross-cutting issue spanning many different areas. I chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial group for digital inclusion to drive progress and accountability across Government, and we have increased the frequency of our meetings—that is how important we see this issue as being. I regularly meet relevant organisations, including by attending the Centre for Social Justice’s digital exclusion roundtable and the upcoming meeting of the digital inclusion APPG.
Richard Foord
Digital inclusion works only when people trust website links. My constituent let me know that by clicking on a dodgy link, he was tricked into making an investment of over £108,000, which turned out to be a scam. The Government’s latest digital inclusion strategy was written 10 years ago. Does the Minister accept that there are good reasons why many older people want to be able to look somebody in the eye when making investments or doing their banking?
Saqib Bhatti
Choice is important, which is why our digital inclusion approach cuts across many Departments. I am sorry to hear the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I am happy for him to write to me, and I can talk to him about our national fraud strategy as well.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The impact of the digital world on our lives is growing every day, but we do not yet know enough about the consequences for society, democracy or, indeed, our children, because the data held by tech companies is not visible to the Government, regulators, researchers or the public. Will my hon. Friend update the House on measures to open up access to this data, and will he commit Government support for the amendments to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill tabled in the other place by Lord Bethell, which would introduce a “data for researchers” scheme?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on this and other online safety-related issues; we have had a number of engagements. The Government said very clearly that we would explore the issue of data access for researchers into online safety during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. We are aware of the amendments tabled to the DPDI Bill, and I encourage my hon. Friend to watch this space, as we will be reporting in due course.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
The day when we are able to eliminate animal testing cannot come quickly enough, though we are not there yet. We are committed to supporting the strategy to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and since taking office I have doubled the investment in non-animal methods of research to £20 million this year.
Andrew Rosindell
The reduction and ultimate ending of the need to use animals for testing purposes is an important policy objective of my animal-loving constituents in Romford. Does the Minister agree that animals are not laboratory tools but sentient creatures, and that the policy of replacement, reduction and refinement must be at the core of Government policy going forward?
Andrew Griffith
I know that this is an issue close to my hon. Friend’s heart. He is a great animal lover, and I recall his past work as shadow Minister for animal welfare. This summer we will publish a plan, together with colleagues in the Home Office, to accelerate the uptake of non-animal methods of research.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
This Government have a plan to ensure that technology works for our people, not against them. Right now, the Secretary of State is in South Korea for the AI Seoul summit. She is building on the progress we have made and on the UK’s leadership at Bletchley Park last year to tackle the risks of artificial intelligence. Whether it is AI, quantum, life sciences or the next generation of advanced telecommunications, we are making the UK a science and tech superpower, backed by the highest ever level of spend on research and development. Our plan is working, and our scientists and entrepreneurs cannot afford to go back to square one with Labour.
Chris Elmore
The UK Research and Innovation chief executive has announced that they are stepping down in June next year. The recruitment process normally lasts eight months, yet the Government are speeding up that process. Is that because they are worried about the outcome of a general election?
Andrew Griffith
This Government are focusing on delivery every single day, and I make no apologies for cracking on with the process of making sure that our brilliant research institutions have the finest leadership that the best and brightest in the world deserve.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant work on connectivity in the border areas—[Applause.]
Mr Speaker
As you know, we do not allow clapping, but this is an exception.
Julia Lopez
Please allow me to say welcome back to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). What an appropriate way for the new bionic MP to walk in: on science questions.
To answer the question about broadband, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) has been a fantastic champion for connectivity on the border. There will be contracts covering North Shropshire and parts of Wales as we get the Type C off the ground, so I hope for better connectivity very soon for his constituents.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is good to see the hon. Member for South Thanet back in his place.
Last year, the UK hosted the AI safety summit and set up the AI Safety Institute. However, since then, developers of frontier AI have refused to share information with the Safety Institute, leaving it toothless. Labour has repeatedly called for binding regulation to support safety. With the Secretary of State discussing the future of AI this week, is it not high time for the Government to finally agree to binding regulation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
I do not agree with that categorisation. The truth is that the Bletchley summit was a world-leading summit. We took a front-foot approach and we are co-hosting the Seoul summit, which is bringing together AI nations, AI companies and top experts in academia and civil society. We have always been clear that we will ensure that our regulators do the job that they need to do, and of course at some point we will legislate. We have a plan, and our plan is working. The Labour party cannot tell us what it would legislate for. It does not have a plan.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Andrew Griffith
Funding councils must be accountable for their own individual decisions. My hon. Friend no doubt reflects the concern of his constituents, who expect, in return for our record expenditure on research, the discovery of life-saving medicines, or groundbreaking technology; that is what they expect in return for hard-earned taxpayers’ money.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Andrew Griffith
That is absolutely right. It is intrinsic to the scientific method that research is impartial, and that it is challenged, public, transparent and open. That is always our commitment, but it is also to fully fund research and to turn this country into the science and technology superpower that it deserves to be.
Mr Speaker
Before we begin Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure the whole House would like to join me in welcoming back our colleague and friend, the inspirational hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay).
Craig, it is so good to have you back among us. You are the man of the moment. I met your daughter, whose birthday is tomorrow. I say to you and your family that you are an inspiration to the people in this country who have suffered with sepsis. You have shown us the way forward. Thank you for everything—[Applause.] That is the only time I allow clapping.
May I also just mention that we have the Speaker of the Icelandic Parliament and the Premier of the Cayman Islands with us today?
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the whole House will join me in remembering the victims of the horrific Manchester Arena bombing seven years ago today. Our thoughts are with them and their families. I pay tribute to Figen Murray, who joins us in the Gallery, for the courage and bravery of her campaigning in her son Martyn’s memory. I look forward to meeting her later today.
I also add my personal welcome back to Parliament to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). No one who watched his interview last night could have failed to be awed by his incredible resilience.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gen Kitchen
I, too, welcome the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) back to the House and wish him well in his duties. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.
The Association of Dental Groups, in its May 2022 report, identified my Wellingborough constituency as one of England’s dental deserts. I welcomed the Prime Minister’s grand scheme to send dental vans to constituencies like mine but, months on, he is having to U-turn because there are not enough vans. Why can he not address this issue seriously?
The Prime Minister
That is not right. Actually, thanks to our dental recovery plan, we are delivering 2.5 million more dental appointments. There is a new patient premium and new provision for remote communities, and we know the plan is now delivering because, since it was announced in January, over 500 more dental practices are now accepting new patients. I also point out to the hon. Lady that, compared with her party’s plan, we are producing more than twice the number of extra appointments to get people the treatment they need.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are investing in better healthcare right across our country, and I am delighted to see that Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust was recently allocated over £6 million to upgrade A&E and will benefit from a new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton as part of the programme.
As my hon. Friend says, that is possible only because of the difficult decisions we have taken to bring inflation back to normal and grow the economy. Today’s figures show that the plan is working, and I am sure the whole House, perhaps including the Leader of the Opposition, will welcome the news that inflation is now back to normal.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I will begin by saying a few words to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). First, thank you for meeting me privately this morning with your wife and daughter, so I could personally convey my best wishes to all of you. Secondly, on some occasions—there are not many—this House genuinely comes together as one, and we do so today to pay tribute to your courage and determination in not only coming through an awful ordeal, but being here with us today in this Chamber. Thirdly, I want to acknowledge your deep sense of service. I think politics is about service, and resuming your duties as an MP and being here today is an example to all of us of your deep sense of service, and we thank you for it.
I also welcome Figen Murray, who is up in the Gallery, who lost her son Martyn seven years ago today in the Manchester Arena attack. We remember everybody who was lost in that awful attack. She is campaigning for Martyn’s law, which we must make a reality as soon as possible.
The infected blood scandal reflects a profound failure across almost every part of the British state. In our apologies on Monday and on the question of compensation yesterday, this House was united; however, we have too many times heard similar sentiments from that Dispatch Box and this one. There are many hard yards to go. Does the Prime Minister agree that we will make real progress only if we finally tackle the lack of openness, transparency and candour that Sir Brian Langstaff identified as having prolonged the victims’ suffering for decades?
The Prime Minister
The inquiry was established to get to the truth and provide answers, and this week’s report represents a hugely significant moment for the community. This was an appalling scandal. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the diligent work of all those who have supported Sir Brian Langstaff and the work of the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the bravery of every individual who has come forward and told their story in their fight for justice; their voices have finally been heard. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: we will listen to them and ensure that nothing like this can ever happen in our country again.
Keir Starmer
The infected blood scandal is truly shocking, but it is not unique. The story is familiar: concerns raised but ignored; reports written but not acted on; victims and their families campaigning for years just to be heard. If I may, I want to focus on the duty of candour—or lack of it—that has been a failing in scandal after scandal and injustice after injustice from Grenfell to Horizon, Hillsborough and now the infected blood scandal. I have read that the Government have called for evidence on the duty of candour in health, but I cannot think of a single example where that duty of candour should not apply to all public servants across the board. I do not think it is possible for any of us to stand at these Dispatch Boxes and honestly say “Never again” unless we address that. Does the Prime Minister agree that the time has now come for the duty of candour to be clearly enshrined in law across the board?
The Prime Minister
I am, of course, aware of the recommendation made by Sir Brian Langstaff in the final report of the inquiry on the duties of candour and accountability. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care previously introduced the duty of candour to the health service. It is important that the Government take the time to fully digest the gravity of the report’s findings. The wrongs that have been committed are devastating and life-altering for so many, and ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again is a priority. We are sympathetic to that, and are going through the recommendations in detail at the moment before providing a comprehensive response. Of course, given the situation and the gravity of the findings, it is a recommendation for which there is an enormous amount of sympathy.
Keir Starmer
I understand that the Prime Minister wants to look at the recommendations in detail and to come back to them in due course, but we cannot look away on this duty of candour. Can I ask the Prime Minister at least to expand the call for evidence on the duty of candour beyond health? We owe it to the victims of Hillsborough and Horizon to work across the House to establish a far-reaching and binding duty of candour as quickly as possible.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on Monday I said very specifically that the patterns of behaviour we have seen in this appalling tragedy have been replicated in others, and I mentioned Hillsborough specifically, so I am very aware that there are structural and behavioural cultural problems that we need to fix. There is an enormous amount of support and sympathy for the principle of the duty of candour. He will understand that we are digesting the full contents of the report, but of course we want to right the wrongs of the past and, crucially, ensure that nothing like this happens ever again.
Keir Starmer
In his report, Sir Brian identified a number of individual failures, even cover-ups, but alongside that he also found equally important and harder to reach institutional and cultural failings, including in the NHS: a defensive attitude that refused to acknowledge problems, the silencing of those who raised concerns and a total failure of leadership when faced with the truth. The NHS does a remarkable job every day, but those failings are indefensible. Does the Prime Minister agree that the very culture of the NHS needs to change?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Mr Speaker. I discussed this issue on Monday in my response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid). The NHS provides lifesaving care to so many people every single day, for which we are enormously grateful, but the report makes it crystal clear that there were significant failings. The NHS failed: it failed people and it let them down. It is right that the NHS is held accountable for that and learns the lessons. There clearly have been improvements and changes in medical practice since that time, but going forward we need to go through the full recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report and hold the NHS to account for bringing through the changes that are necessary.
Keir Starmer
We need reform. We need change. I saw at first hand how important reform is during my time running the Crown Prosecution Service, but I also saw how hard it is, particularly on cultural issues. It requires brave and difficult decisions. Eleven years ago, as Health Secretary, the now Chancellor said:
“The era of gagging NHS staff from raising their real worries about patient care must come to an end.”
Eleven years on from that and 10 months on from the Lucy Letby case, there are still clear examples of NHS managers still gagging staff and then being moved on, instead of being moved out. Will the Prime Minister now commit to ensuring that those who gag and silence whistleblowers will no longer be able to work in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Of course the behaviour that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes is wrong and, I believe, already illegal under our laws, but we will ensure people have the ability to raise concerns. One thing that I know has given many of those who have been impacted by the scandal some reassurance is the appointment of Sir Robert Francis to be chair of the inquiry. Obviously he is someone who does not just have a wealth of experience dealing with this particular set of issues, but has a long track record of working with the NHS on the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises.
Keir Starmer
Sir Brian’s report is a victory for all those campaigners and victims who fought so hard for this moment, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but it is also one of profound pain, anger and sadness for so many. There is a chance for us to make real progress on this issue and we must do that with victims in mind. Given the degree of cross-party consensus that we have already seen on apologies and compensation, and given the Government’s promise to ensure compensation by the end of the year, will the Prime Minister also now promise to deliver on all the recommendations in the same timeframe, by the end of the year?
The Prime Minister
Of course we want to deliver on the recommendations as quickly as practically possible. Indeed, our expectation is that we can do that before the end of the year. As I said, Sir Robert’s appointment will bring a wealth of experience; it is crucial that the chair has the knowledge, expertise and familiarity with the issues. His support for delivering the scheme and ensuring that compensation can be paid by the end of the year will be invaluable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the community. Over the next few weeks, Sir Robert will seek views from the infected blood community specifically on the proposed scheme, to ensure the scheme will best serve those it is intended for. Our shared priority is delivering compensation to all those infected and affected with absolutely minimum delay, and begin bringing justice to all of those impacted.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend gives a superb and passionate economic diagnosis. He is right: inflation is now back to normal, and, indeed, lower than that of France, Germany and the United States. Inflation is at its lowest level in years, our economy is growing faster and wages are rising, which is why we need to stick to the plan that is working. He is right to point out the risks of what the Labour party proposes: 70 new laws —70 new laws! Labour has caved in to its union paymasters, and what does that mean? It means that it will cost jobs and damage our economic recovery.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I begin by also welcoming the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) back to the Chamber? He is indeed an inspiration to all of us.
Mr Speaker, speculation is rife, so I think the public deserve a clear answer to a simple question. Does the Prime Minister intend to call a summer general election, or is he feart?
The Prime Minister
As I have said repeatedly to the right hon. Gentleman, there is—spoiler alert—going to be a general election in the second half of this year. At that moment, the British people will in fact see the truth about the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), because that will be the choice at the next election. It will be a party that is not able to say to the country what it would do—a party that would put at risk our hard-earned economic stability—or the Conservatives who are delivering a secure future for our United Kingdom.
Stephen Flynn
The Prime Minister continues to play games with the public, so while he does that, let us get back to some serious matters. I was taken aback this week when a former Prime Minister spoke some sense. Alas, it was, indeed, David Cameron. What he said in relation to graduate route visas was that if any restrictions were implemented, it would lead to job losses, university closures and a reduction in research. Universities Scotland outlines that £5 billion of economic value is at risk. So, may I ask the Prime Minister: does he agree with the Foreign Secretary?
The Prime Minister
The Foreign Secretary also said that the levels of legal migration to this country are too high. That is what I also believe, which is why it is right that we are taking decisive action to bring down the numbers. And that plan is working. In the first three months of this year, the visas issued are down by 25% and migration is on its way to being returned to more sustainable levels. I appreciate that that is a point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman’s party, and indeed the Labour party, and us. We believe that that level of migration needs to come down to more sustainable levels, so that we ease the pressure on public services. Everyone who comes to our country must contribute economically. That is the migration system that we will deliver.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran and to ensuring that they have access to the appropriate physical and mental health support that they deserve. That is why we have rolled out Operation Restore, Op Courage and Op Nova. NHS England has been introducing a suite of health services to work more closely with orthopaedic services. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue of funding with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who will be writing back to him with an update in due course.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join others in welcoming back to the House the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). We admire his courage, and send our best wishes to him and his family. I also join others in remembering all the victims of the bombing at the Manchester Arena.
Amanda claimed carer’s allowance when caring for her mother, but the Department for Work and Pensions is now hounding her to pay back £1,200. Karina, whose daughter requires round-the-clock care, has been hit by a bill for £11,000. Victoria is being forced to pay back £100 a month. They are just some of the tens of thousands of carers who are victims of the DWP’s flawed system, punished harshly for going sometimes just a few pounds over the arbitrary earnings limit. Family carers do a remarkable job. They should not be penalised for working, or for the DWP’s own failures. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government should be supporting carers, not persecuting them?
The Prime Minister
The Government recognise the contribution and sacrifices that carers up and down the country so often make to care for others. That is why we have increased carer’s allowance by almost £1,500 since 2010. It is why we introduced carer’s leave, and it is why the better care fund funds respite care breaks for carers, which I know have been warmly welcomed and used. In the rare number of cases where individuals have not appropriately informed the DWP about a change in their circumstances, the DWP has then rightly sought to recover overpayments, as it would be expected to in order to ensure the integrity of the system and protect the taxpayer, but of course it will work with anyone who is struggling with their repayment terms, and will always look to negotiate an affordable repayment plan.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we have announced an additional £8 billion for roads resurfacing over the next decade—money made available through the reallocation of HS2 funding. That will mean fewer potholes and smoother, safer roads across our country, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is of the utmost importance that these repairs are completed with high-quality materials. I join him in calling on Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council to make sure that they deliver that for his residents.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Those who seek to divide us, undermine our values, and indeed intimidate and threaten others have no place in our society, and we will not hesitate to use not just the full force of the law but our immigration regime to make sure that we have security and cohesion in this country.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I commend my right hon. Friend for his commitment to his constituents. I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) met both the Minister for Health and Secondary Care and the Minister for Social Care recently to discuss this issue. I understand that the ICB has extended its consultation by three weeks to ensure that more consideration can be given and voices can be heard, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister keeps my right hon. Friends updated on the progress of this.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. We are putting in more money and rolling out more elective surgical hubs to bring the waiting lists down. She talks about the difference that the Labour party would make to the NHS. Her constituents can just look to Wales to see what is happening when it comes the NHS: a quarter of the Welsh population on a waiting list, the worst emergency care performance in Great Britain, people on long waiting lists five times more than they are in England and, on average, people waiting 40% longer for treatment. That is the reality of Labour and the NHS—failing.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that today marks a major moment for the economy; not only have we halved inflation, but it has returned back to normal, thanks to the collective hard work, sacrifice and resilience of people up and down the country. That is further proof that our plan is working. Mortgage rates have come down, energy bills have come down, taxes are being cut and inflation is now back to normal. That shows that when we stick to the plan, we can look forward to a brighter future, but he is right to point out the alternative: the Labour party imposing £2,000 of tax rises—that is what would put the country’s stability at risk.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The level of overflows we have seen is unacceptable, but we have gone further than any other Government, monitoring 100% of overflows—up from only 7% under Labour—investing record amounts in our water infrastructure, enshrining in law strict targets and introducing unlimited fines for water companies to hold them to account. But when it came to this House the Labour party could not even vote for its own policy. That is because there is only one party with a plan to protect the environment—the Conservative party.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that our NHS is a world leader in medical innovation. That is why yesterday we announced funding to roll out game-changing AI to radiotherapy departments in England. The benefits are clear, because that technology can locate cancer cells two and a half times quicker than doctors alone. But we will not stop there. We recognise the huge potential; that is why the productivity plan announced in the spring Budget will modernise the NHS and ensure that our patients get the care they deserve.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to see any child grow up in poverty, and that is why I am pleased that the record of this and previous Governments has reduced not just the number of people living in poverty, but the number of children living in poverty, thanks to our measures to strengthen the economy. When it comes to food support for vulnerable children, we have extended the holiday activity and food programme with £200 million of funding, and we are investing £30 million in our national school breakfast programme, which will now run until the end of the summer term.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is exactly right in his analysis of how to help working families and our country. Thanks to the difficult decisions that we have taken, inflation today is back to normal, which is a very welcome moment. Of course, there is more work to do, and people are only just starting to feel the benefits, but it is clear that the plan is working, and that is why we have also been able to deliver significant tax cuts worth £900 to the average worker in our country. That is all progress that would absolutely be put at risk by the Labour party.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister
The Government are committed to supporting the UK shipbuilding sector right across the nation. I have seen at first hand what companies such as Harland & Wolff do, and the role that they play in the economy. Although, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment specifically on the details of any individual case due to commercial sensitivity, I can assure him that we are working closely with Harland & Wolff in its request for a UK Export Finance-guaranteed loan—that is under consideration. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for all his strong advocacy for that company.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents on their brand-new A&E unit at the Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, which is, as he said, a real game-changer for residents. It is not the only piece of delivery in his area. He mentioned the trans-Pennine rail upgrade delivering faster journeys, but there are also levelling-up projects such as Huddersfield open market and the new teaching block at Greenhead College. They show that it is the Conservatives who are delivering on the priorities of his local community.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This House does not aid and abet Hamas, but it does aid and abet Israel through the sale of arms, such as components for Israeli F-35s—known as the most lethal fighter jet on earth—which are raining down hell on Gaza. Will the Prime Minister uphold international law, drop the nonsense about the most robust licensing system in the world and end arms sales to Israel? If the ICC issues arrest warrants, will he comply by ensuring that those individuals are arrested if they enter the UK?
The Prime Minister
It is always nice to see the changed Labour party in action. When it comes to the ICC, this is a deeply unhelpful development, which of course is still subject to a final decision. There is no moral equivalence between a democratically elected Government exercising their lawful right to self-defence and the actions of a terrorist group, and the actions of the ICC do absolutely nothing to get a pause in the fighting, or to get the hostages out or aid in.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an emotional day for me, and if you will indulge me, I will say a few thanks, because a few are due. Apologies are due, actually, as I have caused the breaking of so many rules today: there has been clapping; I have got trainers on because my shoes would not go over the plastic feet; and my jacket would not go over the bionic arm.
First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for being there for me and for coming to visit. I will tell everybody this little story: the rest of the hospital thought I must be dreadfully ill, because they said, “That guy’s got the funeral director in already.” [Laughter.] But you have been, and you have cared for me throughout, and I thank you for that. The other person in this Chamber I would like to thank is the Prime Minister, who has been with me throughout. He has not advertised it, but he has been to see me multiple times. To me, that shows the true depth of the character of the Prime Minister, and I thank him for that.
I thank my wife, who is in the Chamber, my daughter and other family members—my father and my father-in-law. I thank my wife for being there every single day of those many months in hospital. She could only do that because of the support of family behind her. In the Public Gallery—they cannot quite see me, unfortunately—are many of the staff from the NHS. [Applause.] They took me from where I was, close to death, to where I am today, so I thank them for that. I am not entirely sure I am that happy that the two surgeons who took this lot off are there, but never mind.
There is a question here. Prime Minister, can we please ensure that we embed recognition of early signs of sepsis? It would not have worked for me—mine was too quick and too sudden—but many people do get a few days. If we can stop somebody from ending up like this, I would say that that is a job well done. I would also like to impress upon Health Ministers the importance of allowing the provision of appropriate prosthetics, particularly for multi-limb amputees, at the right time. Thank you, Mr Speaker; thank you, Prime Minister. [Applause.]
The Prime Minister
It is so wonderful to hear from my hon. Friend. I thank him for his kind words, but I also personally pay tribute to his family, who are here in the Chamber. I know first hand the extraordinary job they did to support him over the past several months, and they all deserve our absolute admiration and thanks for what they have done. Before I answer the substantive question he has raised, I also join him in paying tribute to the NHS workers who looked after him.
My hon. Friend is right that sepsis is a devastating condition; we are working hard to raise awareness of it, and I know that he will play a leading role in doing that. Without getting into all the details, I will just say that he is right: as the NHS itself has recognised this morning, more needs to be done, and I can assure him that we will do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will discuss with him shortly, as will I, his suggestions for how we can improve care and awareness for people, but I will end where I started earlier today: Craig, you have inspired each and every one of us. Thank you.
Arrests and Prison Capacity
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the impact on public safety of the request to chief constables to reduce arrests in response to the prison capacity crisis.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about public safety, about the record number of police officers in this country—3,000 more than under the last Labour Government—and about the fact that according to the crime survey there is less than half the crime today than there was under the last Labour Government. There were 620 homicides in the last year of the last Labour Government, compared with 577 in the last year. I am delighted to talk about all those excellent criminal justice results.
I believe this urgent question was prompted by a letter circulated about a week ago by Chief Constable Rob Nixon in his capacity as criminal justice lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, in which he referred to short-term prison place pressures over a period of eight days expiring tomorrow. I have spoken to Chief Constable Rob Nixon in the last half an hour and he has confirmed to me that the contingencies referred to in the letter were not required. He said the contingencies were not required because the prison place situation in practice did not merit it; he said there have been no delays to arrests that he is aware of; and he has said that while a small number of people were conveyed to court in police cars and there was a small number of delays to arrival at court, no one who should have got to court did not do so. I am delighted to confirm to the House that the contingencies referenced in the letter did not materialise, and that the short-term fluctuation referenced in the letter will be over tomorrow.
Yvette Cooper
I have to say that the Minister’s response is shocking: telling people they have never had it so good when faced with this crisis in the criminal justice system shows just how out of touch he is. The state of crisis in the criminal justice system after 14 years of Conservative Government is now so dire that police chiefs were asked to arrest fewer people because the system could not cope. At the Operation Safeguard silver update they were asked to consider pausing any planned operations where large numbers of arrests might take place to ease the pressure within the criminal justice system—because this Tory Government, in power for 14 years, had so catastrophically failed to manage the criminal justice system or build the basic prison places promised.
Last week alone there were 280 prisoners in police cells overnight; we have got early release, massively expanded, starting tomorrow, including for domestic abusers; and now this serious impact on public safety of Operation Early Dawn telling the prisoner escort service not to collect prisoners from police stations to take them to court because there are not enough places, with police forces having to pick up the pieces instead. The NPCC said in its letter in the strongest terms that that is unsustainable and that it risks public safety.
Will the Minister tell us what assessment he did when these letters went out, and when the crisis reached this point, of the scale of the challenge? Who, in these circumstances, does he think it is acceptable not to send to court because of his Government’s abject failure on law and order? Violent criminals? Domestic abusers? Repeat shoplifters? And which big operations involving lots of arrests does he think should be paused in these situations? Crackdowns on drugs rings or grooming gangs? Swoops on people smugglers? And when should they be paused until?
Where is the Government plan? Arrests have already halved since the Tories came to power, and charge rates have already dropped through the floor. The legacy of 14 years of Tory government on law and order is more criminals let off, more victims let down. Britain deserves better.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady likes to pontificate in an animated fashion, but the fact is that, according to the crime survey, crime has halved since the Government of which she was a part left office. She feigns indignation about the early custody release scheme, but she forgot to mention that, under the last Labour Government, it ran for three years and saw 80,000 people released early.
The right hon. Lady referenced the letter from last week. I have a message here from Chief Constable Rob Nixon, sent to me about 45 minutes ago, updating me on the actual situation, so let me just read out to the House what it says. The National Police Chiefs’ Council criminal justice lead said: “There have been no delays to arrests.” He said there have been some minor delays in getting people to court, but everyone who needed to got there. A small number were conveyed by police, but there was limited operational impact. He says: “There has been no compromise to public safety, and the contingency of delaying arrests was not activated as it was not necessary.” That is from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, sent 45 minutes ago. Those are the facts, and I suggest the right hon. Lady sticks to them. [Interruption.]
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important debate, which touches upon not only public safety but the whole way in which our justice system operates, is best dealt with in a calm fashion? It is perfectly reasonable to adopt contingency measures, which we hope are often not needed, but the most important thing is to ensure that all parties in this House commit to a consistent and sustained investment in all aspects of the criminal justice system, because we cannot decouple policing from the courts, prisons and the whole of the process. That is the sensible debate that the country needs to have.
Chris Philp
My hon. and learned Friend, as always, puts it very well. He is quite right that investment is important. That is why there are record numbers of police officers. It is why 20,000 prison places are in the course of being constructed, 5,900 of which are currently operational and 10,000 of which will be operational by the end of next year. It is why more money is being put into the Crown Prosecution Service. It is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is here on the Front Bench, is ensuring that legal aid is properly resourced, as is the criminal Bar. Those are all extremely important initiatives to ensure that the public are protected. The ultimate measure of public protection, of course, is the overall level of criminality, which, as I have said once or twice before, has halved since the Labour party left office.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Obviously, public safety is paramount in all of this, and I do want to say to the Minister that the fact that contingency plans were being drawn up is itself worrying. I accept what the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), says about this being a sensible step to take, but it is indeed very worrying that we have to have contingencies in place. If in the future these contingency plans are activated, what happens if the police decide not to prioritise an arrest and in the meantime that person goes on to harm someone? I am thinking of non-contact sexual offences and, in particular, retail crime, which the Home Affairs Committee has been looking at recently.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady is right to say that arrests of offenders of the kinds she describes are extremely important, and at no point would I ever expect, even in the contingency outlined—in fact, it never came to pass, as I have set out—that offenders of the kinds she references would not continue to be arrested. That is critically important. The ECSL 70 measure—end of custody supervised licence for up to 70 days—which comes into effect tomorrow, is designed to ensure that such scenarios never come about, because as Policing Minister I want to make sure that we never see the situation she describes.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the action by the leader of the National Police Chiefs’ Council is against the separation of powers principles? We make the law in this House, and we expect it to be implemented and administered without fear or favour. What seems to be happening is that unelected chiefs, such as the NPCC leader, are interfering with the administration of justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that things would be a lot better if the Criminal Justice Board had not failed to meet for two years, which is apparently what has happened? Will he accept that we need to start putting things right? The Times today describes it as a failure of administration.
Chris Philp
I am happy to confirm that the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, meets very frequently. Indeed, I attended its most recent meeting just three or four weeks ago—with the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers, police leads, senior members of the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service, and many others—so I can categorically confirm that it does exist and it meets regularly.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the police, the police are rightly operationally independent. It is not for Ministers to direct how they discharge their duties; they discharge their duties appropriately with their professional standards and professional judgment, and we support them in doing so. Operational independence for the police is important, as I am sure everyone on both sides of the House respects.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is obvious from the Minister’s demeanour that he does not like to be called to account, but he should reflect on the fact that the mere fact such a letter was written, and in the circumstances in which it was written, is a cause for concern, which he should be taking seriously. It is symptomatic of a wider malaise in the English and Welsh criminal justice system. Last year, 215,933 burglaries went unsolved across England and Wales—an average of 592 a day. Is that not something the Minister should be addressing, rather than getting a little bit worked up with the shadow Home Secretary?
Chris Philp
I may have got worked up, because the allegations being made were, in my view, unfounded and unsupported by the facts. I was simply trying to put across the facts—both the numbers and also the quotes from the relevant policing lead—which flatly contradicted the dystopian picture that the shadow Home Secretary, characteristically, was seeking to paint. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we of course take such matters seriously. The Lord Chancellor is working night and day to increase prison capacity, both by building new prisons expeditiously and by pulling every lever at his disposal to build more capacity within the existing estate. The prisons are pretty full because the police have done a good job at identifying, catching and incarcerating dangerous criminals. A thoughtful approach, of the kind called for by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), has been taken. That is why, with the implementation of the end of custody supervised licence tomorrow, the issues and contingencies provided for in the letter of last week will no longer be required. It was an eight-day period and, thankfully, those contingencies were not in fact required.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is reassuring to hear from the Minister that the contingencies were not required, but also interesting to see that the letter was actually issued. Given his reactions here today to that, what process has he put in place to ensure that he is consulted before any such instructions or suggestions are issued?
Chris Philp
As a former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this area. The police are operationally independent, but we liaise closely with them and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I have regular discussions with Gavin Stephens, who chairs the NPCC, and, in relation to this matter, with Chief Constable Rob Nixon, who is the criminal justice lead, and with Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp of Surrey, who is the lead for custody. I will take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to police up and down the country for their careful management over the past seven days, which has ensured that our fellow citizens have been kept safe.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police have just arrested 62 people in a county lines operation. They seized swords, a machete and a crossbow, and took 3 kg of cannabis, crack cocaine and heroin off the streets, alongside the misery and violence that characterises county lines gangs. I am so grateful to them for that work, but are the Government suggesting that they should have allowed it to continue until further notice under these contingency plans, all because the Government have so mismanaged the criminal justice system and the collapse in prison places?
Chris Philp
First, prison places have not collapsed; I think there are more prison places now than in the recent past. I congratulate North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police on that operation, which the hon. Lady said led to 62 arrests of dangerous criminals. As I have said, none of the contingencies referenced were activated, and there was never any question of dangerous criminals of that kind not being arrested. That is exactly the kind of operation we like to see. I am speaking from memory, but I think we have closed down something like 6,000 county lines in the past four years. I am delighted to see such operations successfully putting dangerous criminals where they belong: behind bars.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I am glad to hear that the contingency contained in the letter was not required. We can tell how tough this Government are being on crime and criminals by the very heavy population in our prison estate. The long-term solution is to build more prisons. Can the Minister update us on when he estimates the prison building programme will catch up with the prison population?
Chris Philp
The Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is also here, are building prison capacity rapidly. By the end of next year they will have added 10,000 prison places, including at sites such as HMP Millsike, which will be open shortly. We are embarking on a huge prison construction programme, which is on top of the fact that we already have record numbers of prison places. The fact that we have filled those up with criminals, serving typically longer sentences, is testament to the successful approach to law and order that this Government have taken.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Friday I attended a community meeting in my constituency with a group of residents, our local safer neighbourhood team and some of our elected councillors. It was in response to a fatal shooting of a young 26-year-old. The residents spoke about having the reassurance of knowing that the suspect had already been arrested, thanks to the work of the local police. What is the Minister’s message to my constituents, and many others across the country, where suspects will now not be arrested as a result of this guidance?
Chris Philp
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s local police for the work they have done. I gently refer her to my previous answers: there have been no arrests that ought to have taken place but did not as a result of this contingency. The way she framed her question completely ignored the answers I have previously given. The contingencies referred to in the letter were not in fact required, so her constituents and everybody else’s can be assured that the police are continuing to do their job of arresting dangerous criminals.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update to the House. In London we have the challenge of the Metropolitan police failing to meet their recruitment targets. The police are under incredible pressure at weekends, policing hate marches and other demonstrations in central London. Police are being drawn in from outside London to carry that out. Now that the mayoral election is over, what action is my right hon. Friend taking with the Mayor of London to ensure that the Met police meet their recruitment targets, and that the police are trained properly and can get on with the job of catching criminals?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to raise the question of police numbers in London. Whereas across England and Wales as a whole we have record police numbers and 42 of the 43 police forces met their recruitment target, there was one that did not: the Metropolitan police under Sadiq Khan. In fact, its numbers unfortunately have shrunk in the past year, rather than grown. I therefore attended the police performance oversight group, which is the special measures group chaired by the chief inspector, just a few days ago, attended by the commissioner and the deputy Mayor, Sophie Linden. Unfortunately, Sadiq Khan did not see fit to show up to that meeting. One of the points I made forcefully was the importance of growing police numbers in London. It is the only force in the country to miss its target, and that must be turned around.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me get this right: the Government are boasting that they appointed 20,000 extra policemen and women to prevent crime and protect the public; criminals create and undertake crime; and an instruction is given to the police not to arrest them because the prisons are full. The Government’s defence is, “It’s all right; the instruction was never acted upon.” Can the public have any confidence, if it is possible for the police to give instructions today, and maybe again next week, not to arrest criminals? Can we really believe that crime is being taken seriously in this country?
Chris Philp
Crime is taken very seriously, which why it has fallen by 6% in the past year and 55% since 2010. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a period of just eight days when a contingency was considered but not used. The Lord Chancellor, rightly and in a thoughtful and measured manner, has taken steps that will take effect tomorrow to ensure that such a contingency is not required in future. That is a responsible way of handling the situation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The Minister has stood in front of us today and said, “It would never be any of the kind of crimes you’re talking about.” The Prime Minister said last week at Prime Minister’s questions:
“No one would be put on the scheme”—
the early release scheme—
“if they were deemed a threat to public safety.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 249.]
The Minister is basically saying the same today, yet my inbox is full of cases of where perpetrators of domestic violence, rape, sexual violence and child abuse against multiple victims are being released early from prison. Does he think that someone who has raped someone, gone to prison, come out and done it again is not deemed a threat to the public?
Chris Philp
I can answer the hon. Lady’s question specifically: the early release scheme that the Lord Chancellor established expressly excludes serious violence and sexual offenders, including rapists. There is an additional safeguard, which did not exist in the previous Labour Government’s equivalent scheme: a governor’s veto of early release if they believe there is a threat to public safety.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister has brought the Lord Chancellor and the Prisons Minister with him, as they can explain how 70-day early release—Operation Early Dawn—means that criminals either will not be locked up or are being let out early. Is the truth not that he is presiding over operational failures in policing, the courts and the prison system, and is responding to them with ad hoc panic measures?
Chris Philp
The police are successfully reducing crime, for which I thank them. In the last calendar year—the most recent year for which figures are available—there were 30,000 more successful outcomes, which typically means a prosecution, than the previous year. The courts and prisons systems in England and Wales—as in Scotland and around the world—are under pressure, candidly speaking, largely as a result of the post-covid environment and delays that built up in the system during covid, which have not yet cleared. That is not unique to this jurisdiction. Those people released according to the criteria that I mentioned are closely supervised under licence, and subject to recall should they breach that licence.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
My constituent Johnny Wood’s sister Jackie was tragically killed by four men driving a stolen lorry in 2018. They were convicted of dangerous driving, but one of them has been released from prison, having served only half his sentence—just five years. He is reported to have broken his banning order from the local area while under supervision from the Probation Service. Johnny and his family have been let down by every part of the system over the last six years. What is the Minister’s message to Johnny, and what specifically can he do to help in this case?
Chris Philp
I have every sympathy for victims such as the hon. Lady’s constituent, and the truly tragic case that she outlines. If she would like me to look into particular policing aspects of that case, I would be happy to help. If it is a prisons, probation or sentencing-related issue, my right hon. Friends from the Ministry of Justice stand ready to help her and her constituent.
In relation to automatic release on to licence, under the last Labour Government all offenders ended up getting automatically released at the halfway point. This Government have substantially reduced that, including for offences such as rape. I recall in a Bill Committee a couple of years ago that Labour MPs voted against a measure to keep rapists in prison for longer.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Over the weekend I was almost in tears reading a letter from a local primary school of an account of one of their young mums who felt so intimidated by antisocial behaviour on her estate that she was unable to walk her young son to school in the morning. The school tried to provide a social worker to escort her, but they also felt intimidated. What message does it send to the school, the mum and her child about the safety of our streets when chief constables feel it necessary to deprioritise arrests on the Minister’s watch?
Chris Philp
Cases of the kind that the hon. Lady describes would not have been in the scope of the contingency outlined in the letter of a week ago. The antisocial behaviour that she described is completely unacceptable. I am sure that many Members are parents and would want their own children to go to and from school safely. The Government have launched an antisocial action plan, one of the elements of which is a funded scheme for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols. That started just a few weeks ago, so I would urge the hon. Lady to speak to her local police and crime commissioner—I think a newly elected one in Northumbria, if memory serves me correctly—and to ask that one of the funded hotspot patrols be set up in the vicinity of that school to try to tackle the issue that she described, because no parent should have to face that.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Figures published last month showed that Bedfordshire police has the slowest response time to 999 calls, because of understaffing. Does the Minister realise how ridiculous it sounds to ask the police not to police and to arrest fewer people, because his Government have broken the justice system and are allowing criminals to get away scot-free?
Chris Philp
That is a completely inaccurate characterisation of the situation. The eight-day period provided for a contingency that was not required. I have read to the House an assurance from the relevant National Police Chiefs’ Council lead that arrests were not forgone or cancelled as a result of the contingency. More widely, as I have said, we have record police numbers and lower crime than 14 years ago, and I would have thought that we would all welcome that.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The issue with prison capacity is partly a crisis of reoffending. Dartmoor prison was subject to an inspection last year, and was awarded only one out of four because of inadequate education and work opportunities. HMP Dartmoor holds a large number of people convicted of sexual offences, but the report says that there were no accredited programmes for rehabilitation. Sexual offences in Devon and Cornwall rose by 19% in the year to 2023. Does the Minister accept that the prison capacity crisis is partly about reoffending, and what is he doing about it?
Chris Philp
The Justice Secretary has assured me that Dartmoor is a well-run and well-regarded prison. One of the reasons why my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, here on the Benches, are presiding over such a large increase in prison capacity is to ensure that prisoners are better rehabilitated in the prison estate. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned reoffending: preventing reoffending is critical. Much offending is connected with drug addiction—some estimates suggest nearly half—so getting more people into treatment is important, both in the courts system and in the prison estate. It is critical that, as people leave prison and re-enter the community, the drug treatment they received in prison continues in the community. We call it continuity of care, and it has increased quite dramatically recently—I would like it increase even more. That is one of the ways that we will reduce reoffending, which, as he said, is an important policy objective.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could help me to get some answers. The Minister said during the urgent question that certain criminals who are a risk to the public would not be released, unlike Charlie Taylor, the inspector of prisons, who said that high-risk prisoners are being released under the scheme.
I have heard of a case where it took the court 29 months to hold a sentencing hearing on actual bodily harm against two different people as part of a domestic abuse situation. The prisoner was sentenced to four years, and was deemed to be such a risk because of previous sexual violence convictions that he was put on remand. On the day of the sentencing hearing, he was released immediately because he had been identified as suitable for early release. Yet the Minister told me today that no one with a history of sexual offending, who was a risk to the public or who had committed domestic abuse would be released. That is just one of many cases. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister has misled the House. Could you advise me how I could take that up?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am sure she meant to say that she was indicating that any misleading of the House would be inadvertent. I am not responsible, obviously, for responses from Ministers, but the Minister, who is still here, will have heard her comments, as will have those on the Treasury Bench. Does the Minister wish to speak further to that point of order?
Chris Philp
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady raises an individual case and I am sure the Lord Chancellor would be happy to look at an individual case for her. She mentioned someone released on sentencing. Of course, the court or the probation service will look at time served on remand already, so a prisoner may have been on remand for quite a long time at the point that they come to a sentencing hearing.
To repeat the more general rules, which are Ministry of Justice policy: the release under licence up to 70 days prior to the ordinary release point does not apply to any prisoner serving a sentence of more than four years; it does not apply to any prisoner serving a sentence for serious sexual or violent offences; and the prison governor can veto the release of a prisoner considered to be a danger. Those are the safeguards, but if the hon. Lady wants to debate the matter in more detail, I am sure my colleague the Lord Chancellor would be very happy to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for stating his position. I suggest that perhaps the offer of a further discussion with the Lord Chancellor would be appropriate. I am sure the hon. Lady will come back after that if she feels there are further points she wishes to make. She is very experienced in knowing how to make her views known in the House, so I am sure that that is probably the best way forward for now.
The Economy
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the economy, following the release of inflation data by the Office for National Statistics this morning and the conclusion of the International Monetary Fund’s annual article IV mission to the UK on Tuesday.
The ONS data released today shows that consumer prices index inflation has fallen to 2.3%—a return to normal levels last seen before the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this week, the IMF said that the UK economy is “approaching a soft landing”. It upgraded its forecasts for UK growth in 2024, having seen lower inflation accompanied by stronger than expected growth in the first quarter. These developments are proof that the Government’s plan is working, the difficult decisions we have taken are paying off and the UK economy really is beginning to turn the corner.
Let me start with the inflation figures. When the Prime Minister came to office less than two years ago, inflation was over 11%. The fall to 2.3% means that we have seen the fastest fall in inflation in nearly half a century. The UK now has a lower inflation rate than the United States, France and Germany. Food inflation is at its lowest level since November 2021, having fallen for 13 consecutive months, and staples such as milk, cheese and eggs are now cheaper than they were this time last year, although there is more to do. Energy bills have also come down, with the price cap for the typical annual bill now over 25% lower than a year ago, although they are still above where they were in 2021.
The fall in inflation has not happened by accident. The Government have had to make difficult decisions to get us to this point, as well as supporting the Bank of England as it has acted to bring down inflation sustainably. We have reduced borrowing, which is now forecast to fall in every year to 2028-29, and we are acting to boost growth without generating inflation. We have frozen fuel and alcohol duty, which the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates will reduce inflation by 0.2% in this financial year. Moreover, in the face of widespread pressure we have reached fair pay deals for public sector workers, instead of doing what the Labour party would have done: cave in to inflation-busting pay demands. We must always remain vigilant when it comes to inflation, but today’s numbers show the benefits of sticking to our plan. We know that recent years have not been easy for people, but with wages having now grown faster than inflation for 10 months in a row, families around the country will start to see their money go further.
And we are doing more, because on this side of the House we recognise that while the tax rises of recent years may have been necessary at that time of crisis, they should not be permanent. We will do the hard work to bring taxes back down, because we know that to do so will lead to more growth for our economy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already delivered tax cuts worth £900 for the average worker. Since 2010, the effective tax paid by somebody on an average salary has fallen under Conservative Governments from 24% to 19%. Combined with national living wage increases, that means the after-tax income of somebody on the lowest legally payable wage has gone up by 35% in the same period. Labour’s approach is different. All Labour Governments since the 1970s have increased the tax burden in both good times and bad. Given the fiscal rules Labour has set, the only way for it to pay for its spending commitments would be to raise taxes by considerably more than the £20 billion of tax increases they have already outlined.
I will now turn to the IMF’s annual article IV mission to the UK and what it said about the Government’s other economic priority, beyond inflation, to deliver growth and opportunity for the whole United Kingdom. The IMF’s message was, overall, a positive one. We have seen growth of 0.6% in the first quarter of this year that is stronger and more broad-based than many independent forecasters expected, and no other G7 country has grown faster in the first quarter on a quarter-by-quarter basis. The IMF has upgraded its forecast for the whole of this year from 0.5% to 0.7%, and in April said that the UK is expected to see the fastest cumulative growth of any major European economy over the next six years. That is partly the result of our focus on areas that the IMF says are critical to delivering sustainable economic growth: boosting jobs, boosting the labour supply and increasing business investment.
We already have a proud record on jobs. The president of the CBI recently described the UK as a job-creating factory. That is because, over the last 14 years, we have built one of the most flexible, dynamic labour markets in Europe. But we cannot take that for granted and we cannot let the Labour party impose new burdens on employers, which would turn a job-creating factory into a French-style inflexible labour market. Unemployment in France, as it so happens, is nearly double that of the United Kingdom—indeed, not far off where it was in the UK under the last Labour Government. We must not turn the clock back. The OBR estimates that cuts in national insurance will bring the equivalent of 200,000 more people into the workforce—enough to fill nearly a quarter of the vacancies in our economy.
We are reforming welfare. Labour has said it is against welfare sanctions—fair enough, that is its position—but that will mean more people on our welfare rolls, not less. The reforms of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will help 1 million people move from welfare into work, at a cost of £2.5 billion. Meanwhile, the introduction of full expensing, the biggest business tax cut in decades, will boost business investment by £15 billion in the coming years and give this country the most generous capital allowances in the OECD.
There is more to do, and the IMF is right to point out that further bold reforms will be needed and that boosting growth and productivity is the key challenge for the United Kingdom. However, in the words of the IMF’s managing director, the UK is in a good place. Inflation is back to more normal levels, growth is picking up, wages are rising and we are cutting taxes. The plan is working, and the difficult decisions that have been taken by the Government are starting to pay off. Now is not the time to change course, because given Labour’s policies on jobs, welfare reform and tax, we know that the difference, if it is elected, will be profound and damaging for every family in the country.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Of course it is welcome that the rate of inflation is finally slowing after three years of the Government missing every single target, but the tone-deaf victory lap we are seeing from the Government today will feel like a slap in the face to the British people who, after 14 long years of Conservative chaos, are still significantly worse off. While Conservative Ministers are popping champagne corks over the rate of food price rises, the cost of the typical family shop has gone up by nearly £1,000 since 2019—so those families will not be celebrating—and while the Chancellor and the Prime Minister gaslight ordinary British families by suggesting that the cost of living crisis is over, the costs for a two-earner household are more than £150 a week higher than they were before the last election.
The Minister claims that the economy has turned a corner, but in reality the Conservatives’ record on growth has been nothing short of pitiful. If the UK economy had grown at the average rate of the OECD in the last 14 years, it would now be £140 billion larger—that is not just about lines on a graph; it would have meant an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services, and more money in working people’s pockets.
I noted with interest that the Minister quoted selectively from the IMF’s report. In that report, which he cited so triumphantly, the IMF confirmed that under the Conservatives the UK was suffering from the lowest growth in the G7, and just this week the IMF said that the longer-term growth prospects of the UK “remain subdued”. This is the Conservative party’s legacy: a poorer Britain, working people worse off, and the public realm in disarray. I think the Minister may also be slightly confused about his Government’s record on tax. On the Conservatives’ watch, the tax burden is the highest in 70 years, and under the Prime Minister’s tax plans households will, on average, be £870 worse off by 2028. Those are the statistics that the Minister missed out.
In contrast to the Conservatives, who have consistently failed to explain how they will pay for their £46 billion unfunded commitment to abolish national insurance, we in the Labour party have ensured that all our plans are fully costed. Let me also make it clear that a Labour Government would not be celebrating the inflation target finally being met for the first time in years. We would not be doing a tone-deaf victory lap for overseeing a decade and a half of stagnant growth. Instead, we have pledged to deliver economic stability with tough spending rules so that we can grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.
The choice at the next election is clear: five more years of chaos with the Conservatives or stability with a changed Labour party. That is why the Government are running scared. Time after time, they have chosen to bottle it rather than go to the country, but I hope that, today of all days, the Prime Minister will do the right thing. It is time for this exhausted and failing Government to step aside in the national interest, call an election, and let the responsible party take charge.
Bim Afolami
Let me start by welcoming the shadow Minister’s remarks, and by saying that no one on the Government Benches—certainly not me—feels that times are not still tough for many millions of people. We are acutely aware of that, which is why we have worked so hard over the last few years to make the difficult decisions that are required for us to guide the country through the difficulties wrought by covid, the biggest pandemic in 100 years, and by the energy shock from the war in Ukraine. No one on this side of the House minimises the difficulties that people have gone through and that many are still going through.
Let me pick up a couple of points of fact. The hon. Lady quoted the IMF, and she mentioned selective quotations. I am afraid that she wins the prize on that one: the IMF was very clear about the fact that over the next five or six years, the UK will be the fastest-growing country in the G7 apart from North America. She also mentioned confusion. I think that she and her party are the ones who are confused: they are confused on the question of taxes. We have scored Labour’s tax plans, and they amount to an extra £2,094 over four years for the average person. Labour Members say that they want to grow the economy, and they say that they are pro-business—at least, that is what they tell business people outside the House—but they are putting in place a workers plan, led by their deputy leader, that will impose 70 new regulations on small businesses, far more power for trade unions and day-one rights on employment, and will ban flexible working. It will damage many of the things that make small businesses in this country successful.
Let me end by saying this: if we want a Government who will cut inflation further and grow the economy, we should not increase borrowing and increase taxes like the Labour party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which was crammed with useful facts and statistics. Yesterday, our Committee met representatives of the IMF in private, and we had a very interesting and informative discussion. As for yesterday’s report, the IMF points out that none of this good economic news would be happening had it not been for decisions made in previous Budgets. In particular, it states that the Government
“have delivered several helpful measures over the last three budgets…investment tax reliefs for businesses to boost investment, an expansion of childcare, and active labor market policies.”
This good news is not happening by accident; it is happening because a plan is in place, and the plan is working. Does the Minister agree?
Bim Afolami
I do agree, but let me draw attention to a specific point that is often ignored. The Chancellor’s decisions over the last two fiscal events have set the country up for growth in the future. My hon. Friend mentioned the policy on business expensing; that was a £10 billion tax cut for business. She mentioned childcare policies; those have helped millions of working families up and down the country. It is because of the cumulative effect of a series of important measures that we are able to stand up here today and say that while we are not there yet, the economy is starting to turn a corner.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The Government, understandably, would like to paint the latest inflation figures as a win, but I think the House will forgive me if I do not join them in their victory lap. The reality for numerous households across Scotland, many of whom are continuing to struggle, is that the cost of living crisis is far from over, and people are still feeling the pinch in their pockets. Food bank usage is skyrocketing, and mortgage rates are soaring. For people in Scotland, that is the cost of living with Westminster.
The inflation of the past three years has seen prices rise by 19% when they should have risen by 6%. Of course, falling inflation does not mean that those prices will now fall. With figures like this, it is little surprise, is it not, that polling this week showed that just 9% of people across the UK believe that the cost of living crisis is over?
On Friday, I attended a food bank drive at Asda in Parkhead, where residents were donating in their droves to Glasgow NE Foodbank in recognition of the fact that many of their neighbours simply cannot afford to eat. I have one simple question for the Minister: does he not realise that today’s statement, and all the fantoosherie that goes with it, absolutely flies in the face of the reality for many people who are still struggling today in 21st century Britain?
Bim Afolami
My response to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect deeply, is twofold. First, we are at an inflection point and the job is not complete. We know that many millions of people are suffering, which is why we are continuing to improve their incomes through cutting their taxes. It is why we are continuing to make sure that small businesses around this country can thrive, and why we are continuing to put more money into our public services and, indeed, to reduce inflation. We know that the job is not done.
Secondly, many people have had to suffer as a result of the difficult decisions that had to be taken over recent years because of the generationally unique shocks that we saw. It has been up to this Government to guide and help the country through that, which is what we will continue to do in the weeks and months ahead.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Inflation is now lower than in France, Germany or the eurozone, growth has been upgraded by the IMF, and Britain has become the world’s fourth biggest exporter, overtaking the Netherlands, France and Germany. Employment is at a historically high level, and the UK is the third biggest destination for inward investment globally. On financial services investment, we are top, attracting 108 projects last year, compared with France’s 39 and Germany’s 38. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can correct me—or did I miss the post-Brexit apocalypse that many, including the Treasury, predicted?
Bim Afolami
My right hon. Friend has put that incredibly well. Very good things have happened to our economy over recent months, particularly in my own area of financial services. I would add that many Members, on both sides of the House, were concerned about the impact of Brexit on the British economy. As he suggested, our record shows that this Government have been able to guide the country through the post-Brexit period and towards better times than ever.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Sometimes this House really is a theatre. The Minister has come to the Dispatch Box all jubilant, but my constituents queue outside food banks for hours, from nine o’clock in the morning until nine o’clock at night. Prices are more expensive than when the Tories first took office. This Government have had 14 years and they have destroyed the economy. People are paying £250 more a month on their mortgages, according to the Bank of England. I cannot believe that the Minister is saying that things are going to get better. Ultimately, I hope that, in a few hours, the Prime Minister will be outside No. 10 and call a general election. People can then make a choice and vote Labour.
Bim Afolami
My response is that this Parliament has seen an unprecedented hit to people’s living standards because of covid—a once-in-100-years impact. Might I remind the House that this Government spent £450 billion in supporting the economy? We supported people through programmes such as furlough, supported small businesses through discretionary grants, and supported the NHS. There are so many things that were opposed by the Opposition.
Labour Members mention borrowing and taxes. If it had been up to them, we would have been in lockdown for longer. If it had been up to them, we would have borrowed more. If it had been up to them, they would not have made the decisions that we had to make—tough decisions on public sector pay that meant that, by working in partnership with the Bank of England, we could bring inflation down. We are at an inflection point and not everything is complete—we are not there yet—but the economy is starting to turn a corner through the leadership of this Government.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Over recent months, we have had a number of statistics on the economy that have been unalloyed good news for this country. It is good news that the economy is doing better, that inflation is down, that growth is up and that trade is up. That makes us all richer, and provides more jobs and employment, which should be rejoiced in by everybody in this House, including the Opposition, who might actually end up in government and inherit the benefits of some of the things that this Government are doing. In truth, I am always a little surprised by how miserable the Opposition get when good news comes along.
Bim Afolami
My hon. Friend makes an important point about those on the Labour Benches. I must admit that I disagree with him on one key point: the idea that they might inherit this. We are not complete yet. We know that the economy still needs to continue to turn and that inflation needs to come down. We hope that that will lead to falling interest rates in due course, and that the measures we have put in place will come to fruition over the next Parliament.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The UK economy is smaller now, and living standards are lower now, than at the start of this Parliament—the first time this has ever happened. Does the Minister agree that it is a sign of the Tories’ increasing desperation that they consider it a cause for celebration that the UK economy has stopped shrinking? Growth is still lower than in Europe, Asia, the Americas and Australia, and we continue to pay the price of Brexit and Tory incompetence.
Bim Afolami
I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Lady on points of fact. I have already set out so many statistics that show that things are significantly improving in the economy, and at a faster rate than that experienced by most of our competitors in Europe. I completely disagree with her assessment.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister was right to update the House on the positive progress that we are making with inflation; right to make the point that people are continuing to find economic difficulties, and that we need to stick with the Prime Minister’s plan; right to point out the terrible risks to the economy posed by the Labour party’s polices on labour markets and taxes; and right to say that there have been external factors, and that policies to tackle one-off external factors are different from one’s policies looking forward.
This Government have ended the period of quantitative easing, or printing money, and moved to quantitative tightening, or paying back money. The IMF’s report says that, by 2025, the balance sheet for the Bank of England should be settled. Will the Minister look at the longer-range forecasts that the Office for Budget Responsibility has put out, and see what flexibility they provide for the Government to cut taxes or increase expenditure?
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for a characteristically thoughtful and informed question. I will indeed look at what he said about the Bank of England’s balance sheet being settled by 2025, and I will talk to him about that in due course.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Like the Chancellor, the Minister likes to talk about the difficult decisions that Conservative Administrations have made. The cost of a family shop has risen by £1,000 since the last election. The difficult decisions are the ones that families in Newcastle have to make every time they go to a supermarket. Is it not the case that the decisions that his party has chosen to make—austerity, stealth taxes on working people, and crushing growth out of the economy before crashing it altogether—are why my constituents are worse off?
Bim Afolami
I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Lady. It is very important that this House recognises and admits that, because there was a once-in-a-generation pandemic that cost the Government over £400 billion in supporting people, it was necessary for the tax burden to rise for a time to help pay for that. That was a difficult and responsible decision. Now that we have moved into a period of relative calm, there is choice about what we want the economy and our fiscal position to look like over the medium term. On this side of the House, we choose high business investment, high growth and lower taxes on working people, whereas the Opposition choose more union power, higher borrowing and higher taxes. I think the British public are going to stick with us.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The latest UK economic data is welcome news, with inflation falling again, real wages rising and the UK forecast to grow faster than many of its peers. The International Monetary Fund is now recommending that the Bank of England cut interest rates, and I agree. What does the Minister think of the IMF’s view?
Bim Afolami
As my hon. Friend knows, it is for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to determine the policy on interest rates, but we hope that working in partnership with the Bank of England to cut inflation will mean that at some point later in the year interest rates will start to come down, as the IMF has suggested, as a result of inflation being at target.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to the Minister’s last reply, even if interest rates are cut later this year, that will not make an impact for a number of my constituents in Vauxhall. According to the Bank of England, people have seen their mortgage and rent go up by over £240 a month, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said. Over 10.1 million people are falling behind on their bills, according to research by Stop the Squeeze. The Resolution Foundation has found that annual bills in 2024 are now 67% higher in real terms than in 2021. This is not a time to celebrate. I know that, at my advice surgery in a week’s time, my constituents are going to come to me raising these issues. The fact is that they cannot afford to heat their home or keep up with their bills. Yes, these statistics may look good, but will the Minister accept that for real people this is another slap in the face?
Bim Afolami
What I will certainly accept is that there are millions of people in this country for whom the cost of living crisis is still real. That is why we are taking the action that we are taking. That is why working people—[Interruption.] As a result of cutting national insurance, a person on an average salary is £900 better off than they would have been a year ago. That is why we are focusing hard on making sure we bring down borrowing, rather than increase borrowing as planned by the Labour party. What I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituents if I were to speak to them at her surgery is that the economy is on the right track, that we are at the point where the economy is starting to turn the corner and that, if they go with Labour’s leadership, things are going to get a lot worse. That is why we need to keep on the plan that we have set out.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the encouraging economic update. It is so disappointing when we get good news on the economy and it is talked down by the Opposition. Inflation coming down to 2.3% really shows that the economic plan from this Government is working. With national insurance reductions, pensions increases, boosting jobs and a growing economy, does he agree that it is only the Conservatives that can be trusted to manage the economy soundly?
Bim Afolami
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion for his constituents in this House, as everybody in this House knows. The only thing I would add to what he has said is that we on this side of the House know what it is to take responsible decisions and take them for the long term.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given the global macro-shocks faced during this Parliament, particularly the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is quite remarkable that we have got inflation back down to 2.3%. It is testament to good fiscal policy, and we are leading the way within the G7. Does the Minister agree that, for those constituents living in Bracknell Forest who want low inflation, higher employment, higher wages and higher growth, sticking to the plan is absolutely the right thing to do?
Bim Afolami
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for Bracknell Forest, a part of the country that I know well, and I completely agree with his remarks.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
This positive economic news is extremely welcome, and I have also welcomed the action taken by the Government to reduce the amount of tax on working families. Given this positive economic outlook, will my hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor about increasing the personal tax allowance, particularly to help working families but also to take more pensioners out of paying tax?
Bim Afolami
As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review. I will ensure that he has heard my hon. Friend’s comments and pleas.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that today’s good news would have been even better if the Government had implemented the public sector exit payments restrictions that were legislated for in 2016 and were the subject of a consultation that ended 17 months ago, in respect of which they are apparently unable to agree a response? Surely the Government should be able to do something about this and save the £2 billion that this has so far cost. Is not this an example of a proposal being sabotaged by the civil service?
Bim Afolami
I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend a few months ago on this very question, and I would be happy to engage with him on it again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
With permission, I will make a statement on Lord Walney’s report entitled “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”. Lord Walney was appointed in 2019 to advise the Government on political violence and extremism. Throughout the course of his review, laid before Parliament yesterday and available on gov.uk, he has consulted an extensive evidence base and engaged Government, public bodies, international partners, academia, civil society and those personally affected by violent disruption and extremism.
Lord Walney’s timely and compelling report identifies a rising tide of extremism in this country. Its central finding is that political intimidation and the incitement of hatred by extremist groups and individuals are infringing on the essential rights and freedoms of the British people and those they choose to represent them in politics. In recent months, we have too often seen intimidatory and aggressive protest activity, with frequent disruption to our democratic processes, be that protests outside MPs’ homes and council meetings or shutting down events where people from both sides of this House have been speaking.
Lord Walney eloquently describes the threat posed by the extreme right as well as the extreme left, whose activists, in his words,
“systematically seek to undermine faith in our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.”
This has a very real impact on the elected representatives who choose to dedicate themselves in service to the public. Lord Walney highlights the 2023 Local Government Association survey’s finding that 70% of local councillors felt
“at risk at least some of the time”
while fulfilling their role. It also has an effect on the public servants working to make their communities a better place up and down the country.
I was particularly struck by the section on protests at schools. The purpose of schools, as I am sure we can all agree, is to educate our children and to teach students how to think, not what to think. Our teachers must be free to do this without fear or favour. While it is right that schools consult parents on sensitive issues, it is not their job to appease pressure groups, self-appointed community activists or religious institutions. That is why I was deeply concerned by the aggressive protests targeting schools detailed in Lord Walney’s report. It is unacceptable that, in Birmingham, one assistant head had to be escorted in and out of their school for their own safety. It is unacceptable that, in Batley, a teacher and his family are reportedly still in hiding after being accused of blasphemy.
There is no right not to be offended in this country. No religion or belief system is immune from criticism or exempted from our liberal democratic tradition. Blasphemy laws are incompatible with British values and principles. The effect that these incidents have had is utterly unacceptable. Every politician and public servant, at all levels and across all parties, must be able to perform their duties without fear. This transcends party dividing lines. We must all stand up for our shared democratic values and freedoms.
This Government will take every possible step to safeguard the people and institutions upon which our democracy depends. We recently committed an additional £31 million to bolstering the protection of elected representatives and our democratic processes, an investment that will be used to enhance police capabilities, increase private security support for those facing a higher risk, and expand cyber-security advice. This investment is underpinned by the defending democracy policing protocol, agreed with police chiefs, to ensure a robust policing response to disruptive activity, including the provision of dedicated, named police contacts for all elected representatives and candidates to liaise with on security matters.
As Lord Walney sets out, it is vital that we take action to manage and limit the impact of protests that descend into violence and disruption. These have not just resulted in vile displays of antisemitism on our streets and aggressive, disruptive tactics deployed by some protestors; they have also drained police resources, as officers are redeployed away from their frontline duties to protect the British public from criminals who target them with fraud, theft and violence.
We must not forget that it is the British people who pay for this. We must not permit the selfishness of an extremist minority to deprive them of the services they are owed and should rightly expect. That is why, over the coming weeks, the Government will look carefully at Lord Walney’s recommendations on public order, and will look at changing the thresholds for imposing conditions on protests and the way in which they are applied. This includes amending the threshold to prevent protests from going ahead on account of the cumulative impact of serious disruption, or where there is the threat of intimidating and abusive conduct based on the persistence of previous arrests.
In addition, we will consider Lord Walney’s recommendation for putting greater responsibilities on protest organisers to limit disruption, and to allow the police to account for demands on their resources in setting conditions, to ensure wider public safety in their jurisdictions beyond protests. The Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I will be considering the merits of these suggestions over the coming weeks.
The Government are already introducing measures through the Criminal Justice Bill to crack down on dangerous disorder, many of which were inspired by working closely with Lord Walney over recent months. The Government have also introduced serious disruption prevention orders to allow courts to place requirements or prohibitions on an individual aged 18 or over that they consider necessary and proportionate to prevent that individual from causing serious disruption.
We must go further in tackling the root causes. In this vein, the Government have updated the definition of extremism to be used by Government Departments and officials, alongside a set of engagement principles. This is to ensure that they do not, inadvertently or otherwise, provide a platform, funding or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that would deny our fundamental rights and freedoms.
I thank Lord Walney for his tireless effort in bringing the report together, and we will continue to work closely with him to ensure that his findings inform ongoing policy development. We will, of course, update Parliament on our progress at the appropriate time.
There is no doubt that extremism poses a threat to our democracy. Left unchecked, it would eat away at the very foundations of our society and the liberties of our people. This Government will not allow that to happen. We will hold ever faster to the values of freedom and tolerance that make our country great. We will use every available tool to combat those who seek to divide us and the poisonous ideologies they espouse. And, in the end, we will defeat extremism in all its ugly forms.
I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in thanking Lord Walney for his work on this report.
It is important to say from the outset that the Opposition absolutely respect the fundamental freedom to make legitimate, peaceful protest but, when that freedom is abused to intimidate, harass and harm others, safeguards must be put in place to protect the public and our democratic system as a whole. We have seen in recent months that people have been intimidated and have felt threatened due to protest activity.
I therefore agree with the Minister that this is totally unacceptable, and there must be no no-go areas in our country. That is why we have been crystal clear that where there are public order offences, hate crime offences or terrorist offences on marches and demonstrations, they must face the full force of the law. The police have our full support in taking swift and robust action. Furthermore, we have been crystal clear that our police forces need the utmost clarity and support to carry out sometimes complex policing operations around protests.
The Walney report on political violence and disruption deals with some of the most fundamental and sensitive cornerstones of our democratic society. The Opposition will therefore go through and consider the report’s 41 recommendations very carefully, with an approach that our long and proud tradition of the right to peaceful protest must never be undermined by criminal or threatening activity on Britain’s streets.
In the first instance, I will touch on two points discussed in the report before asking the Minister a couple of questions.
The first point relates to whether the police should have more powers to ban protests that are intimidating or disruptive. It is important to note that the police already have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to place conditions on protests, including amending routes and timings. They also have the power, in cases where there may be serious public disorder, to apply to the Home Secretary to prohibit a particular protest from taking place.
In addition, we have already had several new pieces of public order legislation in recent years that, in some cases, police forces are still getting to grips with. With this in mind, we believe the focus should be on making the existing framework work to make sure that the police can take robust action against those engaging in hateful or criminal behaviour on our streets. That said, we will look at this recommendation in more depth and see what the Government bring forward, because it is vital that everyone in our country feels safe on our streets.
The second point relates to protest organisers paying policing costs. The report’s recommendation raises a series of practical considerations about which organisations would be forced to pay and under what circumstances. Again, we think the focus at the moment should be on making existing legislation work but, as with the rest of the report, we will examine these recommendations in more depth and see what the Government bring forward.
Before asking the Minister a couple of questions, I welcome that the report raises serious concerns about the growing intimidation of Members of this House and local councillors. The Minister knows that, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, we will continue to support the Government in their important work. He also knows that I stand ready to work closely with him to support his vital work in this area.
The report has been published amid activity across Government to counter extremism, bolster community cohesion and protect our democracy from malign forces, not least the work under way in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities after the definition of extremism was published in March, and the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. I therefore ask the Minister to explain how other relevant Ministers in other relevant Government Departments will be involved in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Walney report.
Lord Walney’s work started in 2021 and, entirely understandably, had to be revised in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks. Although there had to be proper consultation and careful thought applied to such important matters, does the Minister think it would have been helpful if the report had been published sooner? I also point out to the Minister that the counter-extremism strategy is nine years out of date, while the hate crime strategy is now four years out of date. What plans does he have to update them?
To conclude, let me be clear that we on the Labour Benches will work to ensure that these threats are countered. We will work to defend the values of freedom and tolerance that are the cornerstones of our democracy, and we will work to defeat all those who seek to harm and undermine our way of life—in that, we will be unrelenting.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way he has approached this matter. He has always been extremely pragmatic in areas of national security, and has certainly been a very capable partner with whom I have been able to work. I am grateful for his approach today.
I am particularly grateful that the hon. Gentleman is open to looking at certain areas of this report seriously, such as the question of where costs should lie. Football clubs have to contribute to the cost of policing matches, and Wimbledon has to contribute to the cost of policing tennis, and yet here are organisations costing tens of millions of pounds in policing costs each year, and doing so as though this was their own private fiefdom. It strikes me as a very odd way of behaving. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach to the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the support he has offered for it today.
Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions briefly. We will be discussing with DLUHC—as he knows, it is an important participant in this discussion—and other relevant departments, including the Ministry of Justice, how to take these recommendations forward and which to adopt. I am sure he understands that I will update the House in the usual way at the appropriate time. I am also grateful for his support on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I personally find it reassuring that this matter is being debated by two gallant hon. and right hon. Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)—who first met, I believe, fighting extremism in a foreign country.
I wish to draw particular attention to Lord Walney’s recommendation 20 on requiring the organisers of repeated protest marches to contribute to the cost of policing. Last Sunday, the relatives of the wartime Telegraphist Air Gunners held their commemoration service in a nearby church, rather than at the Fleet Air Arm memorial on the seafront at Lee-on-the-Solent, because to do the latter would have involved a road closure and policing for which their little association would have had to pay. Even if one says there should be a wider regime where political protest is concerned, after one large protest on a particular cause, the repetition of the same protest week in, week out—possibly for intimidatory purposes—should certainly not be cost-free to the organisers.
Tom Tugendhat
The challenges we are seeing with different churches and communities across the land are where individuals organise protests surrounding areas that are used for different purposes, and that is exactly why this report is so important. When people assemble at sites that should otherwise be free for groups to associate in, whether that is churches or village halls, the important thing is that our democracy is able to be performed there. What my right hon. Friend spoke about may not sound like part of the democratic process, in the sense that it is not party political—it is not a ballot box or an election—but it is part of that process because it is about people getting together, with people able to associate together, feel a place in our community and know that they are part of a rich tradition, all the way from those Fleet Air Arm Telegraphists to those serving today. That is why this report is so important, and why we will be putting so much effort into it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On the SNP Benches, we stand firmly against intimidation, violence and extremism anywhere. We stand against antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate in all its pernicious forms. But this report goes nowhere near tackling the causes of hate and violence. To recommend—as it does in many different ways—clamping down further on people’s right to protest is entirely inappropriate.
Just yesterday, Liberty won a notable victory at the High Court. The Tory anti-protest laws have led to substantially increased exposure to criminal sanctions on the part of protesters exercising their civil rights, and the court found that the Home Secretary had failed to consult groups who may be affected. Last year, when we debated the statutory instrument on which that court case was founded, I criticised the wide and vague definitions within that SI, which led the Government to that challenge. We certainly do not need more illiberal legislation—that goes against our democratic principles, does it not?
It is in that context that we have Lord Walney’s doorstop of anti-democratic measures in front of us today. I note that Lord Walney has a serious conflict of interest in this matter, as a paid adviser to defence and oil and gas interests—a matter of public record. To say that there should be further restrictions on groups such as Just Stop Oil or anti-war demonstrators smacks of a conflict of interest. It certainly strikes me, as somebody who has been on many protests over the years, that the author of this report must have been on very few, based on his lack of understanding of such protests, how they are organised and the types of people who attend them.
I also ask the Minister if he will take this opportunity to clarify what the Prime Minister said the other week when he put people who support the democratic self-determination of their country in the same bracket as those who support extremist regimes around the world. Scottish nationalists are not extremists. We have been asking for our independence for a very long time and in democratic ways.
I also wish to—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very long report. I also wish to criticise in particular recommendation 4, which says:
“Serious incel-related violence in the UK should not be routinely categorised as terrorism”,
which I think is extremely worrying. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that. In the online space, I also feel there are a lot of contradictions, as the report says that platforms should not use artificial intelligence but that the police should be empowered to do so.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady and I have a slightly different perception on many things—that is true—but certainly on liberty. Over the past few weeks and months, I have seen members of our communities terrified to walk the streets of our country. I have seen people, particularly from the Jewish community, but from many others as well, fearful that the radicalisation and violence threatened by some of the protests is threatening them. I have also spoken to friends in the Muslim community who are terrified that their children will be radicalised into groups that advocate violence. I think it is the job of this Government—of any British Government—to defend the interests of all our citizens. I make absolutely no apology for standing up against extremism; whether it seeks to target Jews, young Muslims or anybody else, it is simply unacceptable.
The suggestions that Lord Walney has set out are just that—suggestions. They are suggestions that the Government will look at, consider and come back to, and I will update the House as soon as we have been able to do that. However, if liberty means anything, it means the ability to travel freely to the synagogue on Saturday, to the mosque on Friday, and to the church on Sunday. It means being free from intimidation. It means the ability to enjoy life in the United Kingdom free of those pressures and terrors. This Government will always stand up for those freedoms.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Having organised a number of demonstrations myself, I am nervous at the prospect of being invited to contribute financially to their policing. Nevertheless, clearly there are public order issues and issues of great public nuisance, not least to retailers, commercial businesses and ordinary people going about their business. When there are a repeated series of demonstrations, may I suggest that the Government explore the possibility of confining them to a static demonstration, be it at Speakers’ Corner or elsewhere?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, touching on some of the issues covered by Lord Walney’s report. He highlights the important aspect that, time and again, we have seen protests stretching and spreading, and being allowed to effectively close down large areas of a city or town, when in reality the point is made long before the march.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I have fought extremism since I have been in this place, and I will continue to do so. I fought against it in Birmingham, over the Trojan horse schools matter, and I continue to do so. I deplore right-wing extremism. Having had death threats made against me, I have gone to the police, to the House and to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The latest report from the West Midlands Police says that they are not prepared to take any action, so I will proceed further with the IOPC. The report raises the issue of the protection of Members. When Members do not get protection, as we saw outside schools in Birmingham, Hall Green, or when candidates were intimidated in Batley and Spen, it is not appropriate. I hope that the report will lead to some conclusions on that.
Tom Tugendhat
I pay a huge tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He has been a voice of sanity and courage for many years, on many of these issues. His leadership on the Trojan horse scandal was inspirational, and his voice of clarity, standing up for members of the British public who do not wish to see their children or themselves pushed into supporting extremist ideology, has been an example to many of us. I am enormously grateful for his support and I would be delighted to work with him on the appalling issues he has faced himself.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Lord Walney has come up with a marvellous report. I am not surprised: I knew him when he was a Member of Parliament and he was an excellent Member of Parliament too. His report talks about preventing protests from going ahead on account of the “cumulative impact” of serious disruption. He is right to identify that; it is intimidatory and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said, many Jewish people, Muslims and others are frightened of going on the streets because of it. If the report now leads to more legislation by this Government, how certain is the Minister that individual police forces, in particular the Metropolitan police, will implement those new laws?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the noble Lord Walney is still a Member of Parliament, but he has the misfortune to sit in red, not green. The truth is that many police forces are taking effective action already. It is sad that some of those who hold the office of police and crime commissioner do not always feel that it is their role to insist that that leadership is offered; in that case, we are, of course, speaking of London. We may need legislation, but not necessarily. At the moment, we need decisions.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Where there is a threat to democracy and to people giving service in public life, surely the most effective response will always be one that commands the support of all those who are part of that democratic process. We can only do that by building consensus. The Government have tabled late amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill involving the policing of demonstrations, some of which include the removal of defences of lawfulness. We do not have a consensus around those amendments. Will the Minister go back to the Home Office, get the agreement of his Department to pause the amendments and convene talks involving all parties to see if we can build genuine consensus in this House, and beyond? That is surely the best and most effective threat to the extremists.
Tom Tugendhat
I am rather enjoying the idea that the former Deputy Chief Whip is now telling me that we need to build consensus; that was certainly not the impression I got when he held that office. [Interruption.] The recovery is going extremely well, if that is the case. In reality, of course we try to work across all parts of the House and try to build consensus, but I am here to serve the British people not the whims of other hon. Members.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I welcome the report and thank Lord Walney for his excellent work. It contains 78 references to social media, which of course has been instrumental in allowing extremists not only to organise but to spread their message. The social media algorithms reward radicalism, fake news and division. Lord Walney makes some excellent recommendations, but does the Minister agree that it is the anonymity of online accounts that is particularly pernicious? When we speak in real life, our free speech comes with accountability, but that is not the case online because there are so many anonymous accounts. Should the Government look at whether anonymous accounts are appropriate in a democracy, as supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie)? Cracking down on such accounts would go a long way towards sorting out the problem.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome my hon. Friend’s approach to this, and to many other aspects of social media and online harms. She has been an example to many of us in how campaigns can be led to include, not exclude, and she has made her voice heard extremely clearly. All of us in this House will have had that Jekyll and Hyde experience of meeting someone in person who has previously been utterly vitriolic online—like seeing a country parson walking down the lane, and then discovering from their social media that Satan himself could not have come up with more bile. It is quite remarkable.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point that we need a little bit of recognition about who we all are—not just elected Members but others who are campaigning in favour or against a political issue. By and large, people approach issues in our democracy from a position of interest in the common good and support for each other, their families, communities and neighbours, but the treatment that somehow comes out of people when they are anonymous can be simply vile.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Earlier this week, I met a female chief fire officer who explained to me some of the intimidation, harassment and abuse that she had experienced, alongside some of her female colleagues in senior leadership roles in our emergency services, up to and including credible death threats. As far as I can tell, that is for no other reason than that they have the audacity to be women in senior leadership roles in our emergency services. The Walney reports considers the intimidation of academics and journalists, but I urge the Minister to speak to colleagues across Government to see what other protections we might need to offer those people doing incredibly important work, who under no circumstances should be subject to that type of intimidation?
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments; she makes some very good points. Yesterday I was talking to Festus Akinbusoye about the racism he faced as police and crime commissioner. Whether people are in a public-facing role in our emergency services—our ambulance, police or fire crews, for example—or they hold an elected position, from Prime Minister to parish councillor, the idea that they should face any hostility at all is unacceptable, but the idea that they should be targeted because of their sex, race, gender or religion is even more unacceptable.
This country is extraordinary for many reasons. One thing that I love about it is the fact that many people from many different backgrounds have found their home here and have found their voice here and made it strongly. The transformation that has made to our country for the good is remarkable. I am hugely proud of that. To see that voice silenced by people, as the hon. Lady says, because they happen to be a female fire officer, is simply unacceptable, and I will certainly talk to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to see what more we can do.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that at the next election it would be wrong for parliamentary candidates to be intimidated into not disclosing their home addresses on their nomination papers? If we change the conventions on that, we will be giving in to these threats. Does he also accept that if a person hires a public hall for a protest meeting, they are liable for public liability insurance? Might it not be better to say that if someone is organising a large public event in a public open space, they should also be liable for public insurance? Would that not be a better way of doing things, rather than expecting fees to be paid to the police?
Tom Tugendhat
As usual, I will listen very carefully to my hon. Friend’s suggestions. As for addresses, I do not think the election system will change between now and the second half of the year, as we have now learned. I look forward to standing in that election, whenever it comes, and for my address to be recorded as an address in the Tunbridge constituency.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
There are aspects of this report that I welcome. For example, the careful cataloguing of the harassment and intimidation of gender critical feminists across the United Kingdom is a valuable contribution to our public debate. However, I consider the recommendations to be largely far too draconian. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, has repeatedly stressed that public authorities, including the Government and the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to peaceful protest, and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest. Yesterday’s High Court ruling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), gave a very clear message that, in regulating protest, the Government must act within the law, and they must not pursue an anti-protest agenda at the expense of human rights, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. I would like a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and the right to protest will be at the heart of the Government’s consideration of the report’s recommendations.
Tom Tugendhat
I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Lady for her courage in speaking out on women’s rights, which she has done with enormous dignity and integrity, when others have sought to silence her by shouting her down, closing her out, or using genuinely quite vile language against her. She will, I hope, excuse me when I say that I have had the misfortune to see what some people have said to her on social media, and they are things that should not be said to anyone.
The hon. and learned Lady’s approach is pragmatic, as usual, and I am grateful for that. This is a challenging report. The points that she makes about our having the civil rights to assemble, debate and discuss are correct. This Government are not trying to—and never will try to—silence the British people. Hearing the voices of our fellow citizens in the ways in which they choose to express them is, of course, part of a democracy, but the ways in which they choose to express them is also mitigated by the ways in which we choose to live as a community. Those choices we call laws, as she knows. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right in holding all of us to the principles that we have agreed in advance. What we are looking to do is ensure that those prior agreements—those laws—reflect the reality that everybody has the right to express their views and to live freely in our society, and that extremism and extremists have no place in it.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
This is a welcome statement. I have previously discussed some of these issues with Lord Walney. He is an incredibly thoughtful individual, and this is an incredibly thoughtful report. Some of those ridiculous smears that we heard earlier were completely unnecessary.
As somebody who believes in freedom of protest, do I believe that there should be an unlimited, totally unfettered right to cause huge disruption to the majority of people who just want to go about their lives, no matter the economic cost? That includes, for example, Suffolk constabulary having its resources pulled to help out with the management of these protests. No, I do not think that there should be a totally unfettered, unlimited right, so I would welcome it if this report could help to address that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to hate—be that anti-Muslim hate or some of the antisemitism we have seen in recent months—it should be tackled and be seen to be tackled as it is happening, not simply after the event?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the police taking some very good action on some of these protests. I think about 600 or 700 people—I might be slightly out on the numbers, so forgive me—have now been arrested following the protests that we have regularly seen on these weekends. About 50 or so have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which is just to say that these are not small arrests, but serious crimes with which the police are dealing.
I would like to make my next point extremely clearly. It is a point that was made to me by a middle-class Muslim family—not in my constituency—who have been friends of mine for many years. One of them said to me something that struck home very hard. They have been trying to protect their teenage kids, as we all do, from the kind of hatred and inspiration to hatred that is now all too prevalent online, through social media and sometimes other means. They do what responsible parents do: they make sure that their kids are home at a reasonable hour, and that they are part of community groups that support their lifestyle and values. Then they see broadcast on national media the kind of despicable hatred that inspires people to radicalisation and extremism and, sadly, they say, “It is not your son who is likely to be radicalised into Islamist hatred; it is mine.” I am afraid that he is absolutely right.
It is the responsibility of this Government, and any British Government, to protect the interests of every British citizen. Frankly, it would be racist and deeply unacceptable to consider that the radicalisation of one child is worth more or less than that of another. It is not, and it is wrong. That is why we will stand up against it. That is why, as my hon. Friend said, some of these protests are not just public order offences, but incitement to radicalisation and hatred, and they should be treated as such immediately.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I wish to put it on record that things have been said today, on both sides of the House, with which I agree, but that fundamentally I disagree with this report. I also wish to put on record my commitment to the protection of democracy and to the hard-won rights that we enjoy today, but this report contributes nothing to those rights—in fact, it undermines them. This morning, I spoke to a legal mind and expert on these matters who, last night, had the pleasure of reading all 300 pages of the report. He told me that it was broad, sprawling, poorly written, littered with errors, not proofread, entirely confused and, frankly, ludicrous. I shall provide an example, on which the Minister may wish to comment on. Paragraph 1.12 of the report said the Government can
“convene a process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism”.
We have enjoyed the right to trial by jury in this country since before Magna Carta, and this report is undermining that. It is a sham report, and I hope the Government understand that.
Tom Tugendhat
As the hon. Member will understand, I will not answer every single page of the report at this stage. I will look at all the pages that have been submitted. In fact, I have looked at many of them already. The reality is that this will take a little bit of work, so I hope that he will understand.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister talked earlier about the difference between online and offline, but for many of us there is now no distinction in the intimidation and aggression that we face. If liberty means anything for elected officials, it means being able to take time off and go to the park. Last week, a man made my toddler cry because he would not leave us alone in the street, and was instead determined to call me a child killer in front of her because he did not agree with my views on abortion, a matter that I have debated with many others in my constituency. I should say that he was not a constituent.
I am not alone in being targeted on my own—many Members present have talked about it—but the parliamentary police tell me that such behaviour is completely normal and acceptable within a democracy, that this man had a right to express his opinion, that MPs should expect to be contacted wherever they are in the street and whoever is with them, and that if our families are distressed that is just unfortunate. The report talks about a Speaker’s Conference. We have an election in the offing. Many of us have spent years encouraging a diversity of candidates to come forward, particularly women with children. Does the Minister agree that we need an urgent Speaker’s Conference to get the balance right in how we can all protect our families, because we are parents and carers as well as politicians?
Tom Tugendhat
I offer my deepest sympathies to the hon. Lady, because that is completely unacceptable. I would be happy to take that up with her afterwards and have a specific conversation about it. I do not think that a Speaker’s Conference is necessary right now because we have set up the defending democracy taskforce, and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and hon. Members from other parties are already on it, as is Mr Speaker, represented through the parliamentary head of security, Alison Giles. We have effectively the same thing being assembled, with the ability to draw on information from the intelligence services, GCHQ and the police. While I agree entirely with the spirit of the hon. Lady’s suggestion, I merely argue that we are already doing it, and I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others will pull me up if they do not think that we are getting it right.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I stand against extremism, hate and violence in all forms, but I still think that the report is extraordinarily dangerous, draconian and undemocratic. The pretence that it is in any way independent is totally undermined by a quick glance at the entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests of its author, who works for lobby companies that represent arms manufacturers and fossil fuel companies. Will the Minister at the very least reassure us that the Government will reject recommendation 27, which undermines jury trials in cases related to climate change and anti-racism, and instead uphold our great legal tradition of allowing juries to decide as they see fit? Will he also accept the High Court’s judgment in Liberty’s case against the Home Office and abandon any further restrictions on the right to peaceful protest, and instead protect all our rights to freedom of expression and association?
Tom Tugendhat
We are reviewing the decision in the courts yesterday, and we will look at whether or not to appeal.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his kind words about Lord Walney, who reminds a friend to many on the Labour Benches, including me. London bears a disproportionate burden of the protests and countering extremism, so how will the Minister ensure that the Met’s operational costs are met by this Government for the rising challenges outlined in the report? Also, he mentioned protecting all British nationals. Will he meet with people from Hong Kong who have British national overseas status, who are increasingly the target of Chinese Communist party agents in the UK, including with those who live in my constituency who are very concerned about their safety and security?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member knows that he and I share a strong interest in the BNO community in the United Kingdom. Hongkongers being targeted by state actors is deeply wrong. One of the things that I have focused on in the period for which I have been the Security Minister is the threat of foreign states here. We know that China has acted deeply wrongly by threatening individuals here in the United Kingdom, and we will never stand for it. We have been extremely clear that Hongkongers or BNOs are first and foremost British nationals. We will defend their rights, as we will defend everyone’s rights. I have already met them, and I will continue to meet them. They are fantastic members of our society, and they are welcome.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I completely agree with a lot of what he said. As somebody who has been harassed a lot, I am against harassment, discrimination and all of that, but let me ask a question on procedure, because I think his responses today are superior to the report itself. I queried the Table Office about unopposed returns, and was told that they are essentially a way for the Government to publish a document or papers so that, according to paragraph 7.32 of “Erskine May”, they can be protected by statute. Unopposed returns cannot be debated or voted on, and there is no opportunity for Members to object. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government used that procedure, and are they scared that the report will not stand up to scrutiny, whether from the public or within this Chamber?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Lady for her very kind comments about my responses. I was somewhat surprised to hear them, but I am delighted none the less. [Laughter.] I see I am not alone in my surprise. It is perfectly standard to introduce an independent report conducted in order to help the Government through this process, in order to prevent any form of vexatious prosecution. We were not expecting any; this is merely a formula that is very often used to afford parliamentary privilege to a report.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he takes the issue seriously, and I hope that he will agree that liberty also means the right to protest. That is a cornerstone of our democracy, and people have the right to protest in a peaceful and respectful manner. A number of these protests go through my Vauxhall constituency, and police are often abstracted to cover them. We know that protests can be difficult and complex, and remain an operational issue. I note some of the report’s recommendations, but does he agree that for this to work Ministers and politicians must respect the operational independence of all police forces?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady is right that the police are operationally independent, but they are not independent of the considerations of the people they serve—in her case, the people of Vauxhall. She knows that the people she represents have a legitimate voice in discussing policing and having their representation heard; indeed, she champions them in this place, and the Mayor of London is supposed to champion them through the policing bodies. As she also knows, it is important to balance different rights. Of course there is a right to protest. People have a fundamental democratic right to raise their voice in opposition to things that they find objectionable. People also have a simple right to be able to feed their family, take their kids to school, or attend a place of worship. When the two are in conflict, it is right that the police set a reasonable balance. I think Lord Walney is suggesting that that balance should be looked at carefully.
Points of Order
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the country’s equalities watchdog, launched an investigation into the Department for Work and Pensions over its potentially discriminatory treatment of sick and disabled people within the social security system. This is absolutely unprecedented. The investigation has been escalated following two years of the EHRC trying to agree remedial action with the Department, following the section 23 notice issued to it by the EHRC regarding potentially discriminatory action against disabled people.
The EHRC will investigate whether the Department has acted unlawfully by failing to protect disabled people over a number of years, including by failing to prevent their deaths by suicide or other means. With a recess fast approaching, the next DWP orals over a month away, and discussions this week in the Chamber about the importance of a duty of candour for all public servants, has Mr Speaker been given information about when we can expect to question the Government regarding this?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She raises the issue of whether a Minister will come to the House to make a statement. I am not aware that Mr Speaker has received any such notification, but the hon. Lady has put her views on the record and I know that those on the Treasury Bench will feed back her comments.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the DWP’s permanent secretary told the Work and Pensions Committee this morning that he was unaware of the nature of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s challenge to his Department, but in January last year he told the Select Committee that the negotiations with EHRC were “going well” and an agreement would be secured. The Secretary of State also told the Committee in November 2022 that negotiations were “constructive” and that he expected agreement to be reached. It is wholly unprecedented that a full formal investigation is now under way.
The ministerial code makes clear that the Secretary of State is responsible for
“correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”,
and that
“Ministers should…require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees…to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information”.
Has the Secretary of State requested a statement to set out why the House has inadvertently not had access to an accurate representation of the negotiations? How can we as Members ensure that the House is updated on why those negotiations have failed and on the impact for disabled people and for the Treasury of this full EHRC investigation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Obviously the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of evidence given to Select Committees; again, I know those on the Treasury Bench will take on board his comments about a Minister coming to make a statement. The other way that he may wish to get further clarification is through the Select Committee itself, given what he has said about the evidence being given to it.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With apologies, I used some figures I was not entirely sure of. I have now had them confirmed and just wanted to correct the record very slightly. I said that there had been more than 600 arrests from those protests, and that is correct, but it was 15, not 50, under the Terrorism Act 2000. My apologies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the record so quickly. Thank you.
Immigration and Asylum
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2023-24 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
15:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the annual approval by the House of Commons of maximum numbers in respect of immigration and asylum; to provide that asylum may only be granted to individuals identified as refugees by the UN Refugee Agency, other than in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
I am delighted to be bringing in this Bill. The British people want Parliament and their representatives to get to grips with immigration, both illegal and legal. That is a widespread conviction held by constituents across parties and across regions. According to YouGov, 64% of voters think immigration has been too high over the last 10 years, and only 6% believe it has been too low. On the Island, according to my most recent survey of 2,000 constituents, it is the second most important issue after the NHS. My Bill helps to reinforce parliamentary sovereignty, encourages transparency in decision making and focuses responsibility on Members of Parliament, and in doing so helps to restore faith in Government and in Parliament.
We have made a considerable success of immigration in the past 50 years, in the post-war period, and there is an accepted case that moderate migration is a good thing for our country. I am hugely proud to be English and British, but I am half-immigrant myself; I do not necessarily think of myself often in those terms, but my mum ended up in Dresden in a displaced persons camp after world war two. For two centuries, her ancestors came from the Russian empire. They were a mix of German and, as I understand it, Polish and Ukrainian ancestry and farmed near Zhitomir, 60 miles west of Kyiv. The other half of me is solidly English.
Wherever we come from, however, there is a shared sense that migration should be moderate and controlled. This Government are doing more than any other in recent years; we hear today that the removals of illegal people are up 25%. The Rwanda scheme is due to start later this year, whatever people think of it, and we have growing numbers of return agreements with other nations, but I think we need something more permanent, because all of that requires political will.
For me, the only way that ultimately we will solve this issue and give our voters and our constituents confidence in it is for Parliament to take responsibility on itself to set annual legal limits for legal migration, including for asylum. The only way MPs will be serious about this issue is if we have to look our constituents in the eye and explain our actions. There will be no hiding behind quangos or behind agencies.
My Bill would require the Government to present a figure or range of figures to Parliament. MPs would have access to the same data, so that we and the British people could see what each figure would deliver in terms of costs and benefits and what the effect would be on housing, on public services, on the economy and on social cohesion. It is extraordinary that the debate has happened thus far without reference to many of those important issues, as if somehow immigration can be debated without talking about housing, education or healthcare provision.
Either way, at the end of the day, MPs will own that figure and they will have to explain it to their constituents. That is called democracy, and in my mind it is a good thing. If there are emergencies, such as Hong Kong or Ukraine, Ministers can come back and ask for a waiver for specific numbers, in line with our international obligations. The critical point here is that I am not stipulating a figure or plucking one out of thin air. This is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which I would have thought we should all as parliamentarians want to support.
In theory, the Labour party could say, “We want 1 million-plus a year on migration.” The Lib Dems—they are meant to be here to oppose this Bill, but they are so concerned about it that I cannot see a single one of them here to speak in opposition—or the SNP, who are here in force, could suggest 2 million. In theory, Parliament can decide what it wants; this Bill is about giving power back to Parliament.
For me, this debate touches on wider issues about parliamentarians passing their powers and responsibilities to others. In scandal after scandal, we see experts failing and politicians effectively having to cover for them, whether it is the Post Office scandal or the contaminated blood scandal. The answer is not less power to Parliament, or more quangos or experts; it is more debate, more scrutiny and more transparency, so that people can see what is happening in their name, and they can test and judge the people who make those decisions.
Granted, if there were a Conservative Government, the practical outcome of my Bill would be to lower legal migration from its current levels to something—dare I say it—in line with our manifesto commitments. However, it would also allow greater thought on what our nation wants and needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in their excellent Centre for Policy Studies report, demolished many of the lazy arguments about migration, such as that it is automatically associated with economic growth—arguably, the era of mass migration has seen slower economic growth per capita. We know it exacerbates pressure on social and other housing and health services. By historical standards, our build rate is pretty healthy at the moment, but it is dwarfed because of the high net migration.
My Bill would force us to think whether we really need to grant visas for jobs British people could do with encouragement or higher wages. One of the great ironies of this debate is that large-scale immigration comes at the price of suppressing wages of some of the poorest people in this country. One would have thought that the SNP, the Lib Dems and the Labour party, who profess to care for working people, would consider some of those arguments. Rather than hoovering up computer programmers, doctors, dentists and care workers from other countries, why not train up some more ourselves?
My Bill would also make civil servants think more carefully about getting the numbers correct. The Department of Health and Social Care forecast that 6,000 people would use the health and social care visa route. In fact, 146,000 people did last year, with 203,000 dependants—a population one and a half times the size of Portsmouth. We need to think about the impact of the decisions we are making when civil servants are getting the numbers so phenomenally, dramatically wrong.
I would like to touch briefly on asylum as well. We have granted asylum to nearly half a million people since 2015—an extraordinary number. There are nine safe and legal routes into this country; there were 10 at the time, because that included Syria. However, to prevent a pull factor and to ensure that people have confidence that refugees are refugees, I would like this Bill to have all refugees coming via United Nations programmes.
I do not think that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees behaved particularly well on the Rwanda ruling, but it is still the only global body that looks after refugees. My plan would see our country take only bona fide UN-approved refugees that come from genuinely war-torn areas. Again, that would strengthen people’s confidence in the system and give the added benefit of cutting back on our own asylum system, which, I am sad to say, is increasingly unfit for purpose. What sane system gives 50% of people from Albania asylum when they come from a safe European country? It is simply not credible.
My Bill enhances democracy, accountability and transparency—that is certainly its intention. I am grateful that SNP Members have turned up, and I wish the Liberals had—apparently they were also going to speak against the motion—but I say respectfully to those who oppose the Bill that they are opposing parliamentary scrutiny, opposing the handing back of powers to Members of Parliament and opposing transparency, and they are setting themselves against the will of the people of Scotland and Britain. We need more transparency in our national decision making; we need to question civil servants and experts more, not less; and we need greater scrutiny and a bigger role for Parliament to allow MPs and the public a level of scrutiny that enables good government. That is the purpose of the Bill: to give Parliament the power to set migration numbers.
The British people want a fair but robust immigration system. They are right. My new law would deliver that and ensure that we, Members of Parliament, are answerable to our people.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I stand to speak to this motion on behalf of the SNP—but not on behalf of the Lib Dems, who have clearly chickened out and run away, and not for the first time.
I am very proud to say that I support immigration, which is an economic good. We thank people for coming here and contributing their best talents and skills to this country—they contribute so very much. It is an act of absolutely bizarre economic damage to try to restrict their numbers in the way that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has set out in his ten-minute rule motion.
The issue that we have had for many years in Scotland has been emigration, not immigration. Immigration is an essential part of a thriving economy. Scotland is set to experience considerable population decline in the absence of net international migration, and that will have a significant impact on our economy, because the people who come to work here contribute. They pay the pensions of our older people, they look after people, and they contribute and bring their skills to our economy. They are welcome and we should not tell them otherwise.
The hon. Member’s Bill, in seeking to put a cap on the number of people coming, should really be entitled the “Cutting off our nose to spite our face” Bill. A cap on numbers is entirely illogical and impractical. If he said the cap was 1,000 people, he would shut the door on the 1,001st, regardless of what talent and skills they may bring and the economic benefits or otherwise they may generate. That is absolutely illogical. He mentioned that people bring him their concerns about migration, but the evidence is that people consistently get migration numbers wrong. It is our job as MPs to inform people, not to pander to some of their worst prejudices.
It is also the case that people in areas with the lowest migration seem bizarrely to fear it most, whereas those who are fortunate enough to live in constituencies such as Glasgow Central welcome migration because they see its benefits. It is absolutely bizarre. In work published in recent days, Migration Policy Scotland says that people’s views of migration remain more positive than negative. The hon. Member does not speak for us when he talks about the will of the people of Scotland. He does not and cannot speak for the people of Scotland, who thank those who come here to work and contribute in whichever way they do.
The hon. Member also talked about pressure on health services. Again, the reality is that we are more likely to be treated by a migrant than to be in the queue next to one. People come here to work in our health and social care sector, and we thank them for it, because the sector faces significant shortages and we need them desperately. It is not the case that people migrating to this country suppress wage growth. In fact, countries with higher immigration than us have higher wage growth than the pathetic and insipid wage growth that broke Brexit Britain has had, so he is wrong about that.
We have significant labour shortages in the UK as a result of the Conservatives’ ridiculous Brexit policies. The Office for National Statistics says that a third of UK businesses are experiencing labour shortages, which has an impact on productivity. Sectors such as hospitality, farming, health and social care, professional services and scientific and technical services are crying out for skills—skills that we do not have. If the hon. Member had come here to argue for further investment in education and universities, which the Tories have cut back over many years, I would have been interested in that argument, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying, “Turn off the tap and everything will be fine,” which could not be further from the truth.
Let me turn to the point about the graduate visa and international students. My Glasgow Central constituency is the one that most benefits from international students. I see very clearly that international students bring significant benefit. There has been much chat about the graduate visa and, although the Migration Advisory Committee did not approve of its introduction in the first place, it has said that the UK Government should keep it. Unlike any other UK Government policy, that one has actually been a roaring success, having met and exceeded its targets, so of course, perversely, Tory Members want to scrap it. You couldnae make this up.
The changes that the Conservatives have made in removing dependants from visas have already knocked 0.5% off our GDP. If they continue down that road, they will see further economic damage, as well as significant damage to our educational institutions, because the fact that those institutions require international students has been built into their model over many years. The policy also benefits our students, who can sit next to international students in classes, and learn from them and grow. International students bring so much by way of their experience, as well as helping financially.
The UK is already 300,000 workers short as a result of the Conservatives’ damaging Brexit policies. That shortfall is not being made up because of the poor decisions that the Government are making in pursuing the end of free movement, which the Labour party also believes in. They are damaging the economy of Scotland, which did not vote for Brexit, because of their ideological obsession.
The hon. Member has talked about the role of the UNHCR. I am not sure that he has actually spoken to the UNHCR, because what he has described is not its job—that is not what it does. Its role is not to determine who is a refugee and who is not. In very limited circumstances, the UNHCR operates a resettlement policy, but it says itself that resettlement is “the rare exception”: it is available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide, and a very small number have arrived in the UK through resettlement programmes. That is why we have an asylum system in the country just now. It is very poorly run, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make an argument about reforming the Home Office and its terrible policies, I would support him, but that is not what he is saying. He seems to be suggesting that the Home Office’s immigration policy areas should be removed altogether and handed over to an international organisation to determine. Again, I do not think that is quite what he means, but that is what he is saying.
The UNCHR has a very important role. It carries out international functions; it has also very damningly criticised the UK Government’s immigration policies, including the Rwanda plans and others. However, the hon. Gentleman is asking the UNHCR to do a job that is not its job, which just points to the ludicrousness and unenforceability of the Bill that he seeks to introduce today. It is simply not practical.
The Bill speaks to a very small and narrow group of people within the Conservative party and in the rest of the UK: people who want to close the doors, pull up the drawbridge and let nobody into little Brexit Britain. The hon. Gentleman does not speak for Scotland. Scotland wants to be part of the world and to decide these policies for ourselves—yes, to have a migration policy that decides who comes in and who does not, but not to shut the door, nor to pretend that by doing so, Britain will somehow be some special little land that it once was.
Britain has always welcomed people from around the world, and also has a legacy of going out into the world—empire and everything else. We have those links. We want Scotland to be that international country, but Britain is holding us back, preventing us from allowing people into our country and having the migration policy that we need. I have supported the devolution of migration policy, but I cannot wait for the day when we get full control over all policies, so that Scotland’s economy and future can be in Scotland’s hands, rather than those of a Westminster Government who do not see our needs, do not recognise what we as a country want, and do not speak for us, either at home or on the international stage.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 May, be approved.
This instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 May 2024, relates to Prevent in Scotland. After the approval of both Chambers last year, the Prevent duty guidance for specified authorities in England and Wales came into effect on 31 December 2023.
As many Members will know, Prevent is one of the pillars of the Contest strategy, the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism strategy which has been replicated around the world. The aim of Prevent is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It also extends to supporting the rehabilitation and disengagement of those already involved in terrorism. Put simply, Prevent is an early intervention programme to help keep all of us safe. To do so effectively, it requires frontline sectors across society, including education, healthcare, local authorities, criminal justice agencies and the police, to support this mission.
That is why we have the Prevent duty set out in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It sits alongside long-established duties on professionals to protect people from a range of other harms, such as involvement in gangs or physical and sexual exploitation. The Prevent duty helps to ensure people susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it is too late.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that I was the security Minister who introduced the Prevent duty he has just set out, the first time there was a legislative requirement on the organisations he described to participate in that programme. He will also know there has been a review of Prevent by Mr Shawcross and that that has made some useful suggestions about how it can be refined. My right hon. Friend may well speak about that in his speech, but I would like him to focus particularly on how that affects the Prevent duty.
Tom Tugendhat
Perhaps the best way for me to start this response is by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was instrumental in ensuring we got the Contest strategy through and in holding the Department to account to make sure that it not only delivered when it began but that it continued to deliver. It is a hugely important part of our protection and I will indeed be coming on to Sir William’s work. It is worth saying that Sir William is a fantastic public servant who has done brilliant work for our country in many ways, and his recent review was one of those many areas in which he has contributed. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to put on record my tribute and thanks to him for all his work.
As I have said, the Prevent duty helps ensure people who are susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it is too late. None of this is easy because, as there is no single track to a person being radicalised, there are many factors which can, either alone or combined, lead to someone subscribing to an extremist ideology, which in some cases can lead to terrorism. These factors often include exposure to radicalising influences, real and perceived grievances, and an individual’s own susceptibility. The Prevent duty guidance exists to help those working in frontline sectors to navigate these challenging situations. The 2015 Act requires specified authorities to have regard to this guidance.
It is challenging but we must always strive for excellence. The Government are committed to ensuring that Prevent is effective. The report of the independent review of Prevent—the IRP—was published on 8 February 2023 and set out Sir William Shawcross’s 34 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government in response. Last year, we implemented the Prevent duty guidance for England and Wales, responding to several of Sir William’s recommendations. The updated guidance for Scotland, which is the subject of this statutory instrument, was issued on 7 May, and it will ensure that Scotland too can benefit from updated guidance and best practice. The Home Office worked quickly with the Scottish Government to ensure that the updated Prevent duty guidance for Scotland is closely tailored to the Scottish context.
It is worth saying that all parts of the United Kingdom face slightly different challenges on Prevent, because different political views and ideologies affect different communities in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is as true of Scotland as it is of anywhere else. The guidance has updated Prevent’s objectives to make it clear that Prevent should tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. It sets out requirements more clearly, articulating the need for high-quality training so that risk can be identified and managed. It provides an updated threat picture, and gives details of the strategic security threat check, which helps Prevent recognise and respond to the greatest threats. This will ensure that Prevent is well-equipped to counter the threats we face and the ideologies underpinning them.
As well as responding to the independent review of Prevent’s recommendations, the guidance reflects current best practice. It supports and exemplifies the excellent work that we know takes place across the country to keep us safe and help prevent people from becoming terrorists or from supporting terrorism. The guidance will assist specified authorities in Scotland to understand how best to comply with the duty. It includes details of the capabilities they should have to be able to identify and manage risk. It also advises on how they can help create an environment where the ideologies that are used to radicalise people into terrorism are challenged, not permitted to flourish.
People with responsibilities relevant to the delivery of Prevent were consulted on the guidance. A range of key Scottish governmental partners were engaged throughout the development of the updated guidance, and their feedback has been positive. The Government have been working closely with these partners to roll out the guidance and support its implementation. Subject to the approval of this House, this statutory instrument will bring the new guidance into effect on 19 August, replacing the 2015 guidance. It will strengthen the Prevent system and help to keep us all safe, which is why I commend it to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his remarks. It is always good to see him in his place. At the outset, I want to put on record that we on the Opposition Benches believe national security—the defence of our homeland—is an issue that as much as possible should rise above the political fray and unite us in common cause.
Given that this statutory instrument relates to Scotland, I think it is right that we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary Scottish men and women serving in government, our intelligence services, our police and our armed forces who work tirelessly from Land’s End to John O’Groats to keep Scotland and all of the United Kingdom safe. These men and women protecting our country must of course work within legislative frameworks. Today, we are debating the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2024 in the Chamber, some seven months, as the Minister said, after we debated a fairly similar statutory instrument to update the Prevent duty guidance in England and Wales.
Before I turn to the details of the statutory instrument before the House on the updated Scottish Prevent duty guidance, I want—with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—to very briefly put on record my great affection for Scotland. Home to beautiful highland countryside from Glen Affric to Glen Urquhart, breathtaking coastline from the Mull of Galloway right the way round to St Abb’s Head, and bustling cities on the Clyde, the Forth, the Dee and the Tay, Scotland is a truly special place. Add to that the fact that Scottish people are some of the most warm-hearted and generous people anyone could wish to meet, and I am so proud that Scotland stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of our United Kingdom to counter the threats of an increasingly more volatile and polarised world.
Sir John Hayes
I am slightly hesitant about interrupting this eulogy to all things Scots, but has the hon. Gentleman noted that a Scot has just taken the Chair?
Dan Jarvis
I had made that observation, and that in part gave me the confidence to continue going perhaps longer than otherwise might have been the case. I sense, given the beady eye you have on me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I should probably—
Dan Jarvis
Madam Deputy Speaker says it is fine to keep saying nice things about Scotland, but I am slightly conscious that the Minister may have somewhere to go in the not-too-distant future. I do not want to detain him for too much longer, given that there is apparently quite an important meeting taking place at 14.15—
Dan Jarvis
At 16.15—the Minister has admitted it—but although I would like the opportunity to spend even longer talking about what a fantastic place Scotland is, I should probably begin to turn to the substance of these matters. I do so by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the update to the Scottish Prevent duty guidance, although there are some questions about how it sits within broader efforts to counter extremism and terrorism, which I will come to in a moment.
Regardless of where in the UK extremism rears its ugly head, it is fuelled by fear and hate, and stoked by malign individuals whose motives are abhorrent to the vast majority of decent people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have felt the devastation that extremism can cause through terrorist attacks around the world and in our country. With every act of terror, there was a path starting with radicalisation and ending with lives lost and lives changed forever.
At this point, I want to take the opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will join me in doing so, of paying tribute to Figen Murray. She is the mother of Manchester Arena bombing victim Martyn Hett, and she is a campaigner for Martyn’s law. Just today, she has completed her walk down from Manchester to London to meet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The dignity and tenacity shown by Figen reminds us all of the painful legacies left by terrorism that are faced by too many people in our country.
That is why Prevent practitioners in Scotland and across the UK need confidence and clarity in Prevent duty guidance, as this guidance should ensure that the right interventions are taking place at the right time to detect, disrupt and defeat extremism wherever it presents itself. These interventions save lives, and we should not understate the crucial role played by Prevent practitioners. We therefore welcome changes in the guidance to improve the quality of Prevent referrals to multi-agency panels in Scotland by giving clearer advice on how to understand and manage risk, including through training and risk assessments and reducing permissive environments as a key theme to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism and broader radicalising influences. These are important steps, as there can never be any excuse for extremist violence anywhere on Britain’s streets or the glorification of any violence linked to any ideological cause. As the extremist threat landscape continues to shift across the UK, there must be full confidence in Prevent’s work in Scotland.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. First, since we debated the Prevent duty guidance regulations for England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published the UK Government’s new definition of extremism—an update from their 2011 definition that the Scottish Government did not adopt. Can the Minister outline what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Scottish Government about adopting the new definition? To what extent can he say whether it was discussed as part of a wider discussion on community cohesion at the inter-ministerial standing committee meeting on 12 March?
Secondly, and still touching on the intergovernmental work, Sir William Shawcross stated in his review his concern about the lack of oversight and support for Prevent delivery in the Scottish education sector. He recommended that the Scottish Government restructure Prevent in line with the wider UK model. Although guidance for higher education institutions in Scotland was published alongside the updated Scottish Prevent duty guidance, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what feedback was received from the Scottish education sector ahead of publication. What will the next steps be with the Scottish Government regarding Prevent and the Scottish education sector? Furthermore, Sir William said in February this year that Ministers had ignored some of his key recommendations. Has the Minister discussed those concerns with Sir William?
Thirdly, in his review, Sir William challenged the perceived extremist threat landscape in Scotland as identified by Scottish officials and recommended that more frequent assessments be made to enhance understanding among practitioners and officials alike. It was not clear in the UK Government’s response to this recommendation that they would work with the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on increasing the frequency. Can the Minister outline what is being done to improve this vital intelligence-gathering work in Scotland?
To conclude, the Opposition will work constructively with the Government as much as possible on these important matters, and I know that the Minister will take my points and questions in that spirit. All of us on the Opposition Benches want to ensure that the Scottish public and the wider UK are spared the terrors of extremism and shielded from the depravity of terrorist violence. We will work closely with the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that they succeed in that vital task.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for his kind words about Scotland. I was rather worried, given the lengths he was going to, that I might not get back to Scotland this evening.
In responding to this statutory instrument today, I very much welcome the engagement that the Home Office has had with the Scottish Government and partners and organisations in Scotland. We have been able to tailor Prevent to the Scottish context, and it is important that we do so, because some of the threats we face are not quite the same, as has been acknowledged.
I will also take this opportunity to thank Figen Murray for all the work and advocacy she has done following the Manchester Arena bombing. I ask the Minister for any update he can give on the status of the proposed legislation. We would all like to know what exactly the Government are planning for that. In that light, I also pay tribute to Eilidh MacLeod from Barra, who also lost her life in that bombing, and remark on the wonderful work that the trust in her memory does to develop youth music as a lovely legacy from something so terrible.
The Scottish Government have tailored Prevent to emphasise early intervention, safeguarding and preventing people from becoming alienated or isolated, with the aim of reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to toxic extremist narratives. According to the review, “Understanding extremism in Scotland”—those research findings were published in July last year—stakeholders, public sector practitioners and members of the public often found it difficult to articulate a precise definition of the concept of extremism when asked. Extremism is often depicted as views or behaviours in opposition to societal and cultural norms, values and morals. The use of advocacy of violence to promote a viewpoint or in pursuit of a particular aim is also a common feature of the definitions found in that research.
Broadly, in that research, public sector practitioners felt that because there are smaller ethnic minority populations in Scotland, as compared with England, the response is slightly different. People may feel less marginalised in Scotland, less susceptible to some of those messages and less vulnerable to radicalisation.
It would be negligent of me not to mention the wider concerns about Prevent. A few months ago I met Amnesty, which has concerns about Prevent and has produced a report. It was worried by some of the extreme examples where Prevent had gone horribly wrong and people had ended up stigmatised. People with neurodiversity or learning disabilities have sometimes been caught up in Prevent, for example. What safeguards are the Government putting in place to prevent the awful things that have happened to people, and the impact that can have on their day-to-day lives? People who are no threat should not end up in Prevent because of a misunderstanding by someone who has the right to report them.
Let me reflect on my wider concerns about the Walney report and some of the comments of the Levelling Up Secretary earlier this year. Some in the community felt that they were being stigmatised undeservedly. I worry that their involvement in groups may push them towards radicalisation and Prevent when they should not be. We should try to draw people away from being stigmatised. I repeat what I said earlier—we should think about the far right in our definition of extremism, because it is a serious worry for me and many others. We should also be concerned about extreme British nationalism. Many of the people who come after me on social media have Union flags in their profiles. They are not any other kind of extremist but definitely British nationalists who come at me because I believe in independence for my country. Those people should be acknowledged in the report.
I encourage the Minister to go further on misogyny and incel extremism, because that is a clear and definite threat to women. Our young people are at severe risk of radicalisation, and are already being radicalised. As the mother of a teenage boy, I am deeply worried by the kinds of things that teenage boys see on their social media feeds. Will the Minister to do more about that within the Prevent strategy?
The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government on Prevent, developing the necessary guidelines, co-operating with anti-terror police and tackling extremist violent threats wherever they reside. The numbers of people referred to Prevent in Scotland have been small. I do not want the number of reports to increase greatly, because that would cause wider concerns about where we are going as a society. I urge caution and the need for community cohesion, because that is the very best defence against people being drawn into extremism—if the community stands around them and they do not feel isolated and excluded but part of something, rather than feeling marginalised and driven apart.
Tom Tugendhat
Let me start with some of the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made. I want to make it absolutely clear that incel violence is a form of extremism that draws on an ideology based on the hatred of women. It is completely unacceptable and, sadly, it has led to terrorism not just here but in other parts. It is utterly vile, and it is as serious and pernicious as any other form of terrorism or extremism. It is not quite as prevalent as some other forms—that is to be welcomed—but it can be kept down only if, as she said, we include people in our community and cut off the routes to hatred before they emerge and become passages.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), as usual, has approached this in a calm and professional manner. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this, as it has been in many other areas. It has been an absolute joy to work with Figen Murray on another area. She has been a remarkable advocate for individuals across our country who have been victims of terror. Seven years ago, almost to the day, she lost her son Martyn. I know we all pay enormous tribute to her for the dignity and professionalism with which she has approached her campaign—one that has led to an awful lot of support, including from the Prime Minister and others. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this. Sadly, I cannot offer any updates at this stage. As he knows, we are going through the necessary consultation process. I will bring forward further updates as soon as I can, but that will be in due course, I am afraid.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting question about DLUHC’s conversation with the Scottish Government. Forgive me, but I will have to leave the DLUHC Secretary to speak for himself on that, as I am not aware of his conversations. I speak regularly to the Scottish Government on these areas, some of which are reserved matters. As he knows, national security is a reserved matter and therefore the responsibility of the UK Government. That said, there is an awful lot of co-operation not just with the Scottish Government but with other administrations in Scotland, including different councils in different counties.
While we are on this matter, the hon. Gentleman’s paean to Scotland would not have anything to do with his desire to get in campaigning mode, would it?
Tom Tugendhat
I appreciate what he said, but for somebody who decided to throw himself out of aeroplanes in the south of England rather than join our great and glorious core training in Arbroath—that is just a very strange thing to have done, for who claims to have that unbelievable love for the north! It is a huge privilege to tease the hon. Gentleman—we have been friends for far too long for me to miss the opportunity.
It is always a pleasure to be in Scotland and to see the extraordinary achievements made by the Scottish people, not just in this area but in many others. This is one of those areas where I just want to pick up on something. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the way in which Scotland is dealing with these cases. I want to pay enormous tribute to those who are gathered together in Gartcosh: over 20 different agencies, including everybody from Police Scotland, MI5 to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and various environmental agencies. It is absolutely extraordinary to see what they have brought together. It is a real power centre not just for keeping Scotland safe, but for fighting crime and disorder all across the United Kingdom. It is a fantastic resource and really impressive.
If we are giving this paean to Scotland, I should also say that the head of MI5, whose Scottish tones have informed me of some of the worst abuses of humanity in this country, demonstrates the level of commitment that many have. I place on record my extreme gratitude to all MI5 officers, counter-terrorism police and the National Crime Agency, who do a huge amount to keep us safe, alongside the territorial forces, whose work is absolutely essential.
None of that would work unless there was the underpinning, and the underpinning is making sure that society does not breed more extremists. The way we avoid that is by making sure that people are part of our community. The Prevent programme is absolutely essential to making sure that when somebody strays, they are assisted to come back into the fold. This is the work, as was said, of the good shepherd. That is what is so important today: making sure that we keep people in our society and within the fold, able to contribute and able to feel part of a wider whole. That is absolutely essential.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks. As someone who takes a huge personal interest in our counter-terrorism capabilities, I want to put on record the fact that we are working cross-party. That is very welcome indeed. Does the Security Minister agree that while state-on-state aggression is back at a scale that we are now having to advance our defence posture, the threat of non-state actors and extremism is very much there? In particular, we are seeing the rise of ISIS-K and potentially overtaking the scale of threat that al-Qaeda posed. It is now out of control, taking advantage of recruitment, indoctrinating and tasking in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Does he agree that we should all be concerned about ISIS-K?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that ISIS-K—naming that area of Afghanistan after the older Arabic name, Khorasan, for that region—is a pernicious threat and it has been spreading in Afghanistan. Sadly, we have seen it act, including most recently in Moscow. It is a deeply pernicious force and one that we are acutely aware of. The agencies I cited earlier are extremely cautious to keep a very close eye on it. The tragedy is that these organisations have the ability to form and organise under the Taliban, that hateful organisation which has taken over the territory of Afghanistan and is not only bringing violence, pain and suffering to millions of Afghans, but ensuring that women and girls do not enjoy the liberties that they should—that they are denied education, prevented from work, and prevented from seeing the progress and opportunity that we would all hope for others around the world.
Scotland now has a Prevent adviser, which brings it into line with England and Wales. The adviser’s work is extremely important to ensuring that we are all working together. As I have said, while it is certainly true that extremism has a local characteristic, it is not the same extremism that we see in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, or any other place where we might be campaigning in the second half of the year—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. The efforts we are making in all parts of the United Kingdom are essential, because keeping the United Kingdom safe, together and whole is this Government's priority, and one that we will never stop working on. I say that as a passionate Unionist/ I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) will understand that we may disagree on that, even though we work together in this regard.
I am grateful for the contributions made today, and I am grateful for the support of Members in all parts of the House for this statutory instrument. Let me just reassert that the core objective is to strengthen the Prevent system, which is a vital component of our counter-terrorism operations.
Question put and agreed to.
Licences and Licensing
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 8 May, be approved.
It is a genuine pleasure to speak about this motion. It is certainly a much greater pleasure than answering the urgent question earlier this afternoon, but admittedly the bar was set fairly low.
This summer the Euro 2024 football championships will take place in Germany. I am delighted that both the England and the Scotland men’s national teams have qualified to take part, although I am sure the House will share my sorrow that the Northern Irish and Welsh teams did not on this occasion. Hopefully, they will be joining England and Scotland in 2028. This draft contingent order seeks to extend licensing hours for venues across England and Wales in the—I hope, extremely likely—event that England or Scotland reaches the semi-final or the final of the upcoming tournament. I am extremely confident that one or even both of those teams will make it to that stage. In fact, I confidently predict that it will be an England v. Scotland final when it comes around. That is probably about the only thing that it is safe to predict at the moment, given the fevered and febrile speculation that is currently under way in these parts.
If England or Scotland, or indeed both teams, reach those stages, the order will extend licensing hours in England and Wales from 11 pm until 1 am on the days of the semi-finals, which are due to take place on 9 and 10 July, and the final, which is scheduled to take place on 14 July. I have no idea whether any other significant events may be taking place around that time as well. People will want to watch those games in the pub, and if there is extra time or there are penalties—or, indeed, any recounts—they will want to be able to enjoy a drink while the penalties or, indeed, the recounts take place. My own experience of a recount in 2010, when I lost a parliamentary constituency by 42 votes, was a painful one that I am not looking to repeat anytime soon.
I know that pubs in my constituency will appreciate being able to stay open a bit longer—pubs such as the Wattenden Arms, the Pembroke in Coulsdon, the Tudor Rose and the Fox. I was just talking to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who said that pubs in his constituency would like to stay open too—although apparently some of them sometimes show rugby as well as football. He is a great champion of pubs in North Cornwall, and I know that all of us in this House want to support pubs in our respective constituencies.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I am very pleased to see the motion before us today. I wonder whether the Minister shares my slight disappointment that the quarter-finals are not included in this order, given that the first quarter-finals are on Friday 5 July and there may be other things to celebrate on that day—possibly a new Government.
Chris Philp
Well, we have to strike the right balance. These types of orders can be used only for events of exceptional significance, and we have chosen to draw the line at the semi-finals and the final. As for other events of significance that may be occurring around then, I am afraid I am as much in the dark as the hon. Gentleman is, but I know that he will join me in wishing pubs in his constituency well. Hopefully, they will be able to enjoy the Euros in a spirit of conviviality as the tournament unfolds. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on beer, sends his good wishes to pubs in his constituency, and to those up and down the land.
As the House will be aware, under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State can make an order relaxing licensing hours to mark occasions of “exceptional national significance”, which is the very high threshold to which I referred a moment ago. The decision to lay this draft order stems from a consultation that the Home Office conducted earlier this year. Over 80% of respondents were in favour of extending licensing hours for the semi-finals and final if one of the home nation teams reach those stages. Respondents agreed with the proposed duration of a potential extension, which, as I have set out, would extend licensing hours until 1 am the following morning, and they agreed that the order should apply to both England and Wales. Respondents also agreed that it should apply only to sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises, rather than off it.
This order will ensure that premises will be allowed to remain open until 1 am without having to notify the licensing authority—typically the local authority—via a temporary event notice, benefiting both businesses and local authorities. Businesses will save time and money by not having to give temporary event notices, while licensing authorities will save time and money by not having to process them. Of course, temporary event notices can be applied for, but it is a somewhat bureaucratic process. Later closing times will be a welcome boost for pubs and bars at a busy time should either England or Scotland be involved in the semi-finals or final. As I have said already, I fervently hope that both England and Scotland make the final, given that I am a passionate Unionist.
It is right that I acknowledge that the police have expressed some reservations about extending licensing hours—indeed, they say that they are not in favour of it—given the potential for increased crime and disorder. We have carefully considered those representations, and although police deployments and resourcing are operational matters for policing, we know that police forces will put in place plans that will minimise the risk, as they have done in the past. It is worth noting that there have been no significant large-scale disorder incidents linked to licensing extensions during previous tournaments, which is a testament to the fact that forces are well versed in managing these matters, and I am sure the House will join me in thanking police forces up and down the country for everything they do to maintain order and reduce the risk of crime.
I also emphasise that this is a limited two-hour extension to licensing hours, which is a proportionate approach marking these events, and that the contingent order we are considering only covers sales for consumption on the premises after 11 pm. It does not cover premises that sell alcohol only for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets.
Before I finish—normally the most popular words in any speech I give—I will make just two further points of clarification. The first is that if either England or Scotland is successful in reaching either the semi-final or the final, this extension will apply only to licensed venues in England and Wales. This is because licensing is a devolved matter, and it would be for the Scottish Government or the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to make arrangements for extending licensing hours in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which I would strongly encourage them to do. Hopefully they need very little encouragement to do that. Secondly, if neither England nor Scotland reaches the semi-final, normal licensing hours will apply on 9 and 10 July. If either or both teams reach the semi-final but neither team is in the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 14 July, the date of the final.
The House will be aware that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill—which I think had its Report and Third Reading stages just last Friday, and which the Government fully support—to make orders such as this subject to the negative resolution procedure in the future. This would, of course, rob the House of the opportunity it is currently enjoying to hear my words on this topic, which I am sure would come as a sore disappointment. But if that private Member’s Bill completes its passage through the other place, debates such as these will not happen because we will be using the negative resolution. Obviously that law is not in force now, so we are debating this today in the normal way.
However, if, as we hope and expect, this order currently before the House commands universal support—perhaps even enthusiastic universal support, and we will find out in just a moment when the shadow Security Minister stands up and we are able to determine his level of support and enthusiasm—it will give weight to the point that the hon. Member for South Shields and others have made that debating these orders is not necessarily the best use of precious parliamentary time, given that they are pretty uncontentious and generally matters of unanimous assent, and sometimes even enthusiastic unanimous assent.
In conclusion, we have brought forward this order in recognition of the huge interest there will be in the Euro 2024 tournament, and in particular, the huge interest in the fortunes of England and Scotland, which I know are dear to the hearts of many Members and members of the public up and down the country. Like all England fans, I am hopeful that this will be the year that football finally comes home again, and I am sure that many Members will want to join me in expressing encouragement and support to Gareth Southgate and his team, and also of course to the Scottish team, who I hope also do very well in the tournament. With that thought, I commend this order to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Can I begin by thanking the Minister for his remarks? My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) unfortunately cannot respond today, so I have been brought off the substitutes’ bench. To cut to the chase, I am pleased to be able to confirm to the Minister our enthusiastic support for this motion.
Football is a positive, powerful force that brings people together. Whether it be the European championships or the World cup, international tournaments can bring our nation together. The Euros this summer will be another focal point and will be watched keenly by millions across the country and indeed around the world. Each of the nations of the UK will have fond memories of supporting and celebrating its national team, and in a world that can sometimes seem pressurised and stressful, these moments have been genuinely joyous. It is no wonder that England and Scotland, and I sense that I would be pushing my luck if I tried to say anything more positive about Scotland—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, the hon. Gentleman would not be pushing his luck while I am in the Chair. He may proceed.
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Scotland fans, along with England fans, will be particularly looking forward to this summer’s tournament, and hopefully celebrating great success. We therefore welcome this statutory instrument to extend the licensing hours of premises by two hours, should a home nation reach the semi-finals or final of this summer’s Euros.
Many will welcome this change to allow people to come together to get behind their country, and pubs, clubs and the wider hospitality industry across the country will also appreciate this move. The hospitality industry struggled immensely during the pandemic, and many are still suffering with the effects of that unprecedented disruption. Sadly, dozens of pubs continue to close each month across the UK. These will have been community hubs, places to meet friends and family, and ever more important social spaces when society can sometimes feel increasingly atomised.
Pubs, bars and social clubs are a part of our country, serving an important function that we must work together to protect and support. The opportunity to extend opening hours during what promises to be a very busy period for the sector will, I am sure, be greatly appreciated, so the Opposition are pleased to support the order.
I seek assurances from the Minister on a few points. Have the Government consulted trade bodies to ensure that the hospitality industry is best placed to reap the rewards of this change? It seems sensible to bring them into the process to ensure that this is done in the best possible way to support the industry.
Many will also have concerns about how this change will be policed, and the Minister touched on that. The recent Netflix documentary “The Final: Attack on Wembley” again brought into sharp focus what happened during the Euros in 2021, with public disorder a shameful feature of the latter stages of the tournament, so have the Government had discussions with the police or local government to hear any concerns they might have on these matters? How do the Government intend to respond in such circumstances, should those bodies require any assistance? They will be on the frontline of this change, so their assessment of the situation is, of course, invaluable.
Finally, on a point of process, many were disappointed that an extension of licensing hours was not agreed in time for the Lionesses’ appearance in the women’s World cup final last year. Indeed, many businesses say that they missed out on increased trade due to the extension not being agreed. The process of agreeing temporary relaxations of licensing laws is perhaps over-bureaucratic and potentially not flexible enough to allow quick relaxations to be agreed in time for sporting occasions.
The Minister helpfully mentioned that, last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) steered her Licensing Hours Extensions Bill through Third Reading, with Government support. Her Bill will dramatically improve the process for making temporary extensions to licensing hours, making it less cumbersome. I wish her every success as the Bill now progresses to the other place, and I hope the Government will continue to support it to become law.
In the meantime, the Government, football fans and the hospitality industry can all be assured of the Opposition’s support for the order. I wish both England and Scotland all the very best for the forthcoming tournament.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for his support. I am not sure that it was enthusiastic support—
Chris Philp
I certainly take that in the spirit in which it was intended. Who knows, perhaps this is the last time we will face each other over the Dispatch Box.
Chris Philp
Yes, for a while. I know that Barnsley Central is close to the top of our target list. I am ever the optimist.
The shadow Minister asked one or two questions about the consultation and the hospitality trade, which was included in the consultation. We have studied it very carefully, and it was 80% in favour. I think much of that enthusiasm came from the hospitality industry itself, which saw this as an opportunity, but of course, hospitality venues need to ensure that they are responsible in the way they look after and serve football fans in their pubs and bars.
The hon. Member mentioned the disorder around the Euros finals three years ago, particularly around Wembley and in central London. Of course, we are talking about licensed premises rather than stadiums, so we are confident the police will be able to operationally manage the extension of licensing hours to 1 am should the extension be activated.
On the actual event itself, we are working very closely with the German police and have a good policing plan in place to ensure we deal with any English fans who we think may cause problems. There is also a good policing plan in place for the Champions League final, which will take place at Wembley in a couple of weeks between Dortmund and Real Madrid. The policing of those tournament football games is being very carefully attended to.
I am glad that we have unanimous consent, I believe, on this topic. It is a nice moment of harmony on which to conclude the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Holocaust Memorial Bill: Business of the House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I want the House to know what the Government know, which is that, were there to be many votes, it would squash the time between the remaining stages and Third Reading. That is why I will not take time now; we are using the time that is there. However, I hope that, during the debate, Government can put on the table, first, the specification laid out by the Government and their agency in September 2015, saying what they wanted the memorial to do and to be, and the fact that they wanted the local authorities to support it. Secondly, I hope that the Government put on the table an up-to-date estimate of the capital cost of the memorial and the recurrent costs. As the House will remember, on Second Reading, information was placed in the Library stating that, in the previous 12 months, the cost had gone up from £102 million to £137 million in one year.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I emphasise that this is not the main debate; I understand why the Father of the House wanted to make that point now, but I remind Members that this is the business of the House motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
19:08 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should address the Chair not as Madam Deputy Speaker, but as Madam Chair, or, preferably, Madam Chairman. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(d) educational purposes and activities related to the memorial and the centre for learning”.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Expenditure incurred under this section must not exceed £50 million.”
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert
“in so far as those paragraphs relate to a Holocaust Memorial.”
This amendment would provide for restrictions, in relation to certain land under the 1900 Act, to be removed only for activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1(1), in relation to a Holocaust Memorial.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 18, at end insert
“subject to the total area used for such activities not exceeding 1,429 square metres (including in that total area any entrance pavilion, courtyard, ramp, associated hard standing, service access, access paths and any areas which are inaccessible to the public or inaccessible without tickets).”
This amendment would limit the area of Victoria Tower Gardens for which restrictions are lifted for the purposes of the construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to 1,429m2.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 18, at end insert
“provided that any such activities shall not cause any harm to any other memorial in the land described in section 8(1) of that Act or to the setting of such memorials.”
This amendment would permit works to be carried out on land subject to restrictions under the 1900 Act provided that no harm is caused to other memorials in that area.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of security arrangements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, prior to the commencement of construction of a Holocaust memorial or learning centre—
(a) carry out a review of proposed security arrangements for the proposed Holocaust memorial or learning centre;
(b) lay before Parliament a report on the outcome and findings of the review of the proposed security arrangements;
(c) by regulations, specify the security arrangements which are to be implemented for the proposed Holocaust memorial or learning centre.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)(c) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 2—Review of sites—
“The Secretary of State must, prior to a decision being made in relation to the site of a Holocaust Memorial or Learning Centre—
(a) carry out a review of potential sites for a Holocaust memorial or learning centre, which must include—
(i) consideration of the views of professional property consultants,
(ii) consideration of the way in which each site would meet the objectives of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report 2015,
(iii) consideration of the way in which each site would meet the objectives of the Search for a Central London site 2015,
(iv) consideration of estimates of costs for construction for each site, and
(v) a full public consultation on the shortlisted sites;
(b) lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”
This new clause would require the Government to carry out a review of potential sites for a Holocaust Memorial or Learning Centre, and lay a report on its findings, before a decision is made in relation to the final site.
Sir Peter Bottomley
When someone asked me if there was going to be a general election soon, I thought they must have read the carry-over motion for the Bill and that had misled them into thinking we were about to have an election. Perhaps, by the end of the debate, we will know whether that was right or wrong.
In one of the explanations of the present proposal, to put a box with 23 fins in the middle of Victoria Tower Gardens, a design that was not accepted for Ottawa before it was submitted for London, we were told that people would come out of the experience looking at Parliament—at democracy. In fact, if it happens, they will come out and look at the House of Lords. Although the House of Lords is an important part of our democracy, it is not necessarily democracy itself; it has the remaining hereditary peers, as well as people who are appointed. The House of Lords will have the opportunity to consider the Bill, if it reaches their lordships’ House, and I believe it will pick up the points made in the Select Committee that considered the hybrid Bill in more depth than this House will.
In the specification in September 2015, the Government and their agency made plain they did not want most of the money spent on construction and building; they wanted most of it spent on education. In terms of education about the Holocaust, we are in difficult times. Protests in London mean the existing Holocaust memorial gets covered up for protection and, if the present proposal goes ahead, it will be quite often be closed on security grounds. Other hon. Members will speak to the security considerations that were heard in front of the Select Committee.
When the Government put forward their proposal, the indication was it would cost £25 million from Government and £25 million raised from charitable sources. Since then, my guess is—I hope the Minister will correct me—that £40 million has already been spent without anything being achieved. As the Select Committee set out, the costs go way above the £137 million plus contingencies indicated a year ago. I believe the Government should recognise that they went off on the wrong route when they considered the site options proposed by consultants that were put forward after the consultation starting in September 2015.
When the Government responded to that early in 2016, they did not co-locate the learning centre with the memorial. As Ministers and those advising them know, in the consultation and specification in September 2015, there was no mention of having the memorial close to Parliament at all. Page 10 of the specification document shows a map of what the foundation regards as the acceptable area of central London; it went from the west of Regent’s Park to Spitalfields and down to the Imperial War Museum.
In the eight or nine years since then, the Imperial War Museum has totally reordered and expanded its Holocaust Galleries, the Jewish Museum has closed and the Wiener collection is in some difficulty. If the Government were serious about getting most of the money spent on education, they would have already diverted money to the Wiener collection and the Jewish Museum, and they would have charged up the Holocaust Memorial Trust with money. Last year, the trust had an income of £5,000 and spending of £6,000, which is apparently dedicated on the presumption of getting the Government’s proposal through. If they were serious about education, the Government would not have waited to get some kind of memorial up, and possibly some kind of learning centre associated with it, before they started to get on with the educational work.
When the Holocaust Commission was set up, its purpose was to get education going now. Its work was taken over by the foundation and then pursued by Government Ministers. We have used up eight years because the Government have made mistake after mistake after mistake. The most recent one was to believe that their Bill to overcome the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 was in some way not hybrid; it clearly was hybrid. The next mistake they made, one they made both before and after, was not to say there had never been a comparison between the present proposal and the best alternative. It took me three years to discover that they had not done that. If I am wrong, the Minister can lay that on the table, and I hope that he will do so now. It is the only time in modern times when the Government have brought forward a proposal without showing why it is better than the alternatives. They commissioned consultants who came forward with 26 schemes, three of which would have been put to the Government. But in a moment not of genius or necessarily of madness, but of peculiarity, those who were making the decision chose not to pay any attention at all.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
May I just clarify something that my hon. Friend has just said? He stated that £40 million has already been spent on a scheme that has not moved forward in any way.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I think that is the right figure, but the Minister will know. I am just a Back Bencher, and have been for quite some time, but I think that is the figure. I believe that it was between £35 million and £40 million. That could have paid for a prominent memorial and we could then have enhanced the learning and educational facilities.
The arguments against using Victoria Tower Gardens are clear. It is an area of quiet recreation for people who live locally. I live nearby. It is a place where people who work round here can quietly enjoy the open space.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He is making an important point about how Victoria Tower Gardens is a local park. Does he agree that there are thousands of social housing tenants, living 10 or 15 minutes’ walk away, who benefit from having the green space that Victoria Tower Gardens offers and would be concerned if it were overtaken by a memorial and an education centre?
Sir Peter Bottomley
My hon. Friend is right. She has the advantage of having led Westminster City Council and will not need reminding that the Government originally said that they wanted their proposal to have the support of the local authority. When they gained the impression that, on merit, the local authority was not likely to give its approval, they took the proposal away from the local authority.
On a number of occasions, the King’s counsel leading for the Government in front of the Select Committee, said that what has been considered by the Committee was not planning permission. He constantly said that planning would be dealt with in the normal way. The normal way is for an application—because the present one has been squashed—to go to the local authority. The Government can, if they choose to do so, call it in if they think that the local authority has got it wrong or it is of national importance. They should not, in this case, have regarded it as of national importance to stop the local authority having the option of considering the interests of local residents, as my hon. Friend has remarked.
Between Vauxhall Bridge and Victoria Street or Birdcage Walk, there is no other large green space open to the public. The Minister will know that. He will have walked around Victoria Tower Gardens as many times as I have. He may also have walked the extra 1,200 yards to the Imperial War Museum, where there is a big park dedicated to peace. Why was the Imperial War Museum not allowed to put forward a detailed proposal? And why did the Government then turn round and say, because it had not put forward such a proposal, it could not be considered?
We all know that massive pressure was put on the Imperial War Museum trustees, and that their chair was made a member of the foundation. I do not think that the Government have approached this in the right way. Let me put the Government’s words on the record. The United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial is seeking
“a prominent location in Central London with significant existing footfall so as to draw in and inspire the largest possible number of visitors.”
Under the present proposals, we will not be able just to walk in. We will have to be cleared by security and that, at times of heightened security, the memorial will either be closed or there will be airport-style security, which is not the point of a memorial to the victims and to the dedication that it should not happen again.
To return to the Government’s words:
“The site will support several features and activities, the number and extent of which will depend on the size of the space available. Sites capable of accommodating 5,000-10,000 sqm of built space for the UKHMF over no more than three contiguous floors will be considered.”
That is not what is being proposed, but the proposal would, in effect, take over about a third of the park regardless. The Government claim that it would be a much smaller proportion, but if we take all the associated parts of the proposal, it would be much more than the Government say.
The final sentence of that section says:
“In order to achieve the maximum benefits for the public, the UKHMF needs to allocate as much of its funds as possible to educational purposes rather than to land and construction and so the site must be highly cost effective.”
The only cost-effectiveness in this site is that the Government believe that they can get it for free. They had not factored in the additional costs of building a box by a river and by a main road, where people are trying to enjoy the park. Some estimates suggest that the park will be basically out of action for up to five years. If the Government say, “You shouldn’t believe that kind of estimate,” I will tell them that for the past 12 months it has not been possible to walk along the river walk in Victoria Tower Gardens because Ministers who are responsible for the state of repair of the Buxton memorial fountain have allowed contractors to barrier it off way beyond what was needed to stop people going over the fountain itself.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We could have had a fantastic, beautiful, moving memorial—roughly the same size as the Buxton memorial, or the memorial to the abolition of slavery or to the campaign for women’s votes—eight years ago, if only the Government had not persisted with the crazy idea of an underground learning centre in a totally unsuitable location.
Sir Peter Bottomley
My right hon. Friend is right, and most people will agree with him, even if their job is to stand up and say something different.
I will not spend much time on the planning permission, because it is not the subject of the Bill. When the inspector’s report was received by the Government and considered, this was the conclusion under the signature of the planning casework unit:
“This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing in line with the published handling arrangements for this case…and signed on his behalf. In particular, those handling arrangements state that:
‘Christopher Pincher MP (the Housing and Planning Minister) will be responsible for exercising the functions of the Secretary of State under sections 70 and 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act’”
and so on. Who here believes that a Minister of State would, on merit, turn down an application by their own Secretary of State? I will give way to anybody who wants to make that suggestion. It is just incredible. It would not happen.
I will now change tone a bit. During the Select Committee hearings, the Government counsel suddenly switched from saying who the lead designer and architect for the proposal was. The Government’s press notice announcing the winner contained 13 references to Sir David Adjaye, now Order of Merit, four references to Ron Arad, and no references to Asa Bruno. Proper tribute has been paid to Asa Bruno. It is true that he was the one who put a number of points to the inspector. He is recognised as a leading designer, and his obituary, which I refreshed my mind on just now, showed that he was a startlingly good person. However, when the Government announced the lead designer and architect for the proposal, they named Sir David Adjaye, who could hardly be mentioned by the promoters at the Select Committee for reasons that I will not go into now. They are well known and in the public domain.
Let us turn to the points that the Government made to the Select Committee after I raised that issue:
“On 24 January, in a debate on the Business of the House (col 439), Sir Peter Bottomley MP referred to the proceedings at the seventh public session of the Holocaust Memorial Bill committee and suggested that counsel for the Promoter may have ‘inadvertently told the committee things that are contradicted by the facts…’ in relation to responsibilities for the design of the Memorial.”
I was then told that what was said was right. I think that that leading counsel, over and over again, was trying to write Sir David Adjaye out because of the embarrassment to Government. If it was Asa Bruno who was responsible for the Ottawa proposal, so be it, but that was not what Government said seven years ago in public.
I am going to go on fighting this, but not so long this evening, because my colleagues have more to say. I say to those watching the proceedings, “Look into the details of what has happened.” I commend to them early-day motions 711, tabled on 1 May, and 775, tabled on 21 May. In particular, the latter “regrets that the promoter” —that is, the Government—
“has failed to understand the justified requests for a detailed comparison of the present unsatisfactory scheme with the alternatives studied by the Government’s consultants; further regrets the continuing lack of updated costings for capital and recurrent costs; disagrees with the suggestion that planning permission and all other necessary consents were obtained in the usual way; regrets there is no known plan to spend more available resources on education rather than on construction; further regrets that known and growing security restrictions are not being adequately addressed; and believes the promoter is not meeting its obligation to achieve an appropriate memorial at a justified cost in a suitable location, associated with opportunities to learn and to understand the Holocaust and to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the atrocities of the Holocaust.”
I end with words from the Holocaust survivors who gave evidence at the Committee, who said, in summary, that the proposal is too big for the gardens and too small for its purpose.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I wish to speak only on Third Reading.
The Chairman
Certainly—I was calling the hon. Lady because she is the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches who had indicated she wished to speak, but there is no need for her to contribute at this stage. We will save her contribution for Third Reading and continue with the Committee stage, with the Chair of the Committee that has examined this Bill, John Stevenson.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I wish to speak to amendment 1 and new clause 1 and take the opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for his contribution and his dogged determination, and for covering many of the issues that are relevant to this discussion.
Before making my other remarks, I would also like to say that I fully support the idea and concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre; indeed, I voted for it on Second Reading. I recognise that this is an incredibly important project, and one that is probably as important now as it ever has been in the past. The idea of a specific memorial is entirely appropriate, but the concept and idea of a learning centre is in many respects vital and, in my view, the most significant part of the project. It is coming up to 80 years since the end of world war two and there are fewer people who have a direct link with that time or indeed with what happened during the second world war. Therefore, it is even more important we do not forget and that we ensure that we learn from what happened then and educate for the future.
Please be in no doubt, therefore, of my support for an appropriate memorial and a worthwhile learning centre—something that I am sure the whole House will support. However, having had the privilege and responsibility of being part of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, I have concluded that there are some serious issues that need to be properly addressed before this specific scheme potentially proceeds—if it does at all. My advice to Government would be to take a step back and pause. Is this really the right scheme? Is it really the right location? What about the appropriate costs involved?
We all want to see a successful scheme. We want to see it constructed in a timely fashion, and arguably too long has already passed. We want it to be built in the right location, and at a cost that is realistic and fair. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that such a scheme could be built quite quickly at the Imperial War Museum and fulfil all the ambitions and wishes of the original Committee and everybody in this House.
Nickie Aiken
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious issue regarding the security of Victoria Tower Gardens if the memorial and education centre are built? We have already seen the current Holocaust memorial that is based in Hyde Park covered up by the authorities to protect it during a recent pro-Palestine march that went through Hyde Park.
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Security issues should be one of our key considerations as a Committee, which is why I think somewhere like the Imperial War Museum would be a far better location.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I will address the security issue in my speech, but I think it is all the wrong way round to make a decision about where to place a memorial to 6 million murdered people because some protesters and activists might threaten it. That is giving in to bad behaviour.
John Stevenson
Security is one of the many considerations with regard to the site, and I think it is a valid one to look at, but what we want is somewhere that is actively attended—somewhere that people go to on a regular basis, and are not hindered from doing so because of security concerns. My new clause 1 asks the Government to get a security review and bring it to Parliament. That review may well conclude that there is no issue and we should proceed, or it may suggest to Government that there are active concerns and we should respond accordingly.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I apologise if I am taking words out of my hon. Friend’s speech before he gets to them, but was it not Lord Carlile, the Government’s terrorism adviser, who made the point about security very strongly?
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend is exactly right—he certainly did so at that time.
I have tabled two amendments to this Bill: one is about cost, and the other is about security. Overall, the security issue must have priority, and I will certainly be looking to push that amendment to a vote, but I will just make some final comments on those amendments and, indeed, the whole project.
I believe the amendments to the Bill are sensible and appropriate, and sadly, I feel that unless the Government take a step back and give serious thought to the proposed project, there can be only two ultimate outcomes. Either at some point in the future, someone will have a lightbulb moment, reassess the whole matter, review where we are going with it and maybe draw back from the ideas that are being put forward, or we will press on and potentially create a very expensive white elephant, which will defeat the worthwhile aim of creating the memorial and learning centre that I believe we all want to see. I hope it is the former, rather than the latter, that prevails.
Nickie Aiken
First, I thank the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee for its very hard work. That Committee was excellently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), and its report makes for interesting reading. It was clear that that cross-party and impartial Committee shares many of the concerns that I and many of my constituents hold.
I would go as far as to say that the Committee’s findings mirror our own criticisms of the Government’s handling of the whole question of the merits of building a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Those are that no proper consultation or assessment took place of the merits of Victoria Tower Gardens as a proposed location; there is no grip on the costs to build it or to maintain it once completed, specifically the cost to the public purse of the ongoing security that will be required; and no thought has been given to security plans for protecting the park, its visitors, or the children’s playground at a time of heightened national security risk.
I wish to speak to amendments 2, 3 and 5, as well as new clause 2, which stand in my name. I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and to which I have added my name. As we reach the Committee stage of this hybrid Bill on the proposal to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, a small but much-loved park in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster, I wish to reiterate my long-held view that this is the right memorial but the wrong location. I say that as a huge supporter of the Jewish community not only in my constituency but across the nation. I have friends who would not be here if their families had not escaped eastern Europe during the 1930s and ’40s. One of my closest friends, Daniel Astaire, certainly would not be here because his grandmother was one of the final children on the Kindertransport and she lost her entire family in what is now the Czech Republic.
Having read last summer the outstanding book by Lord Finkelstein, “Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad”—I recommend everybody read that brilliant book—I concluded that we really do need a Holocaust memorial in this country to remind ourselves of past events but also to pay homage to the many British Jews still affected by the Holocaust and who lost so many of their families. This is not about being anti the brilliant idea of a Holocaust memorial, but about its location only.
The Select Committee report concluded that no public consultation was undertaken regarding possible locations for the memorial. In fact, Victoria Tower Gardens came about as the idea of an unnamed individual. We cannot permit such a precedent to stand: that an individual and then a Committee can decide on a location for such an important memorial without proper consultation. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the potential merits of alternative sites for the Holocaust memorial. I absolutely believe—and find it astonishing—that no such consultation was carried out before Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen as the Government’s preferred location.
When the Holocaust memorial was first mooted, it was suggested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) have said, that the Imperial War Museum, less than a mile from Parliament, would be an appropriate location. I have visited the Imperial War Museum, including its outstanding Holocaust galleries and exhibitions, numerous times and I believe tourists, school groups and others would sincerely benefit from being able, having visited the galleries, to then spend time in a garden of the Imperial War Museum, which I believe would make an appropriate location for the Holocaust memorial.
I remember the first time I visited the Holocaust galleries: I came out after what was a very harrowing experience—a real human harrowing experience—and felt I wanted to sit down and reflect on what I had seen. I absolutely think that having the Holocaust memorial in the Imperial War Museum gardens would be appropriate, because after visitors see the exhibits in the museum they need time to reflect and remember those who have been lost.
With such a major proposal as the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it is imperative that those who would be directly impacted by the construction and then the continuing existence of such an installation—local residents, local businesses, organisations and relevant public bodies—should have been, and should still be, properly consulted.
We should also hear the voices of those who have been directly impacted by the atrocities of the Holocaust that took place across eastern Europe during the 1930s and ’40s, and the subsequent genocides across the world that we have witnessed since then. Indeed, the Select Committee heard from Holocaust survivors who expressed objections to Victoria Tower Gardens as the chosen location.
Lia Nici
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for all her hard work campaigning on this issue. I was on the Select Committee, and what came to light, as she knows, was that residents and a significant number of petitioners from the Jewish community, including some Holocaust survivors, were against this location. One of my biggest concerns is that if this legislation is allowed to go through, it will set a precedent by lifting a covenant on the gardens that will mean they are no longer there for people to enjoy for recreation. It could have planning permission on it, which could open up all sorts of cans of worms across the country. Does she agree?
Nickie Aiken
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Having read the Select Committee’s report, it is clear to me that there is a genuine concern about the Bill setting a precedent, which I will talk about slightly later. The London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 is clear about protecting public spaces. In a constituency such as mine in central London, we do not benefit from huge amounts of neighbourhood green spaces, where a family can just pop out on a Sunday morning after breakfast to give the children a run around. As I have said, thousands of social housing tenants live on Page Street, Regency Street and in the Peabody blocks just behind Great Peter Street, and they do not benefit from having their own gardens and are desperate not to lose their local park.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to be in Victoria Tower Gardens on a Saturday or Sunday morning and seen at the south end, where there is a developed play space, large numbers of local mums with their toddlers—not always mums, of course, but often they are—playing in exactly the way we would hope in a green space?
Nickie Aiken
I have seen that. It goes back to the point that for many of us in this Chamber this is a workplace. I am obviously an exception, because this is my constituency, but for most Members of Parliament this is our workspace and then they go home. But this is my home, and I know from local residents—my neighbours —that Victoria Tower Gardens is a much-loved and much-used park. It is not just a workplace for people to do radio or TV interviews; it is also where people take their children and their dogs for walks. It is much-used and much-loved, and it would be an absolute tragedy if we were to lose an inch of it, in my personal opinion, but I may be in the minority.
Madam Deputy Chairman—sorry, I mean Dame Eleanor. This could be my last speech in this place, so I have to get that right. Let us not forget the array of statues situated in Victoria Tower Gardens. They carry special meaning and make it a unique place, and they include the Buxton memorial fountain, which celebrates and commemorates the emancipation of all slaves in the British empire in 1834. It is in the centre of the gardens and has the most amazing location, for absolutely the right reasons. I note that in the special report from the Select Committee, Mr Richard Buxton, representing the Buxton family and the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society, highlighted concerns that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should
“not cause any degree of harm either actual or to the setting of any other memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens”.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Lady her for her amendment, which I am happy to support. Members of the Buxton family live in my constituency, so if the Government were to agree to it, that would go some way towards alleviating their concerns.
Nickie Aiken
I did not realise the family connection with the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Buxton memorial is unique and should be protected. We would not want any other memorial encroaching upon it.
It is also important to remember that half the entire park itself was a gift to the nation from the newspaper retailer William Henry Smith—the founder of WHSmith —who donated £1,000 to preserve it as an open space, on the condition that it would be a place for recreation, particularly for the children of Westminster. The Government of the day agreed. To this day, local schoolchildren and even younger children continue to take advantage of this rare green space in central London. The notion of charity may have been undermined by this proposal. One may ask what it might mean for the future of other such bequests, if other gifts to be used as public space for the benefit of the environment and local people are similarly overridden.
Amendment 2, which stands in my name, seeks to limit the damage to the park to just the memorial, should the proposal go ahead. The Bill in its current form does not provide for the location of the memorial and the learning centre to be on the same site, and it was not stipulated as a prerequisite in the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report in 2015. I remember that there was a proposal for the learning and education centre to be in Millbank Tower, as part of the redevelopment. That did not see the light of day, but it would have been a good compromise.
We risk Victoria Tower Gardens being completely overwhelmed as a green space by this development spoiling the setting of Parliament, the gardens and the other memorials and, in particular, overshadowing the Buxton memorial. It is my understanding that the learning centre will take up more space than the actual Holocaust memorial, and the Bill does not state that the memorial and the learning centre are in the same place. Amendment 2 would only lift the 1900 Act restrictions for a memorial to be built, not a learning centre. With the passing of the Bill, could it be that no park is protected from similar applications in future? That is a real concern of the Select Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, characteristically both passionate and knowledgeable, on behalf of her constituents. I want to put on the record now one point about precedent, given its importance—she is right to highlight it—so that it does not get lost in my remarks when I reply to this wide-ranging Committee debate. This does not set a precedent for the release of other designated open or leisure green space in London—if it did, I would not be advocating for it. Any proposal needs to be adjudged on its merits. It does not create a Trojan horse. It does not open a Pandora’s box. I say that from the Dispatch Box, should anyone ever challenge it during a planning inquiry, a planning committee or a judicial review on an application for another parcel of green open space, as designated either by the 1900 Act or by other Acts. The view of the Minister, and of the Government, is that it does not create a precedent on which anyone could rely in law. That is an important point to clarify, and I wanted to do so with your leave, Dame Eleanor, as a clear and freestanding point.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I absolutely welcome that. That is a very powerful message to send to any future Government or future Minister who may be sitting in his place. He makes a very good point about any future planning applications, too.
Simon Hoare
I am not entirely sure what has amused my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), but there we are. Some people are easily amused.
Let me just make this point. That is not just a binding statement on behalf of the actions of subsequent Governments, but for local authorities, the royal parks and any speculative developer in the private sector. I do not carve it out as a niche, bespoke protection, but as a general blanket cover.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the Minister once again for that very clear steer and clarification.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It may be too late for a manuscript amendment to the Bill to be accepted by Dame Eleanor—or Madam Deputy Speaker, if we get to the next stages—but would it be possible for the Minister to offer the House an assurance that when the Bill gets to another place, assuming it does, the Government will move an amendment to make plain what he said here?
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend, the Father of the House, for his intervention. He makes a very clear point. Perhaps that could be taken through in the Lords.
Andrew Percy
On this whole question of precedent, as anybody who has served any period of time as a local government councillor knows, it is the whole basis of our planning law and has been the case since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He may recall that the planning authority chose to not grant this application when it was first introduced, but was then steamrollered by the Government via the Planning Inspectorate, so I do not think my constituents would be very happy with his comments.
Amendment 3 is designed to ensure that any development of the holocaust memorial and learning centre does not exceed the current proposal of 1,429 square metres. In its current form, the Bill removes obstructions to any Holocaust memorial and learning centre being built in Victoria Tower Gardens, rather than a specific proposed memorial and learning centre. Indeed, one of the Select Committee’s concerns was that without being attached to a specific plan, lifting the obstructions would risk providing a blank cheque for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens to take a radically different shape than has been anticipated.
There is a genuine concern among local people that without the proper checks and balances the memorial and learning centre may take up much more of the gardens than is currently proposed, and it is unlikely that the current planning system is able to provide a safeguard against that. Therefore, I consider the amendment is completely necessary to safeguard the gardens from over-development. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the matter and assurances that if the Bill is passed, the proposed 1,429 square metres will not be increased.
Finally, amendment 5, the final amendment tabled in my name, is once again tabled to protect the future of Victoria Tower Gardens from over-development. As I mentioned earlier, there are already treasured memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens and we must do all we can to protect them. The park is a much-loved and much-used public space, and, as I have said, thousands of social housing tenants live within a 10 to 15-minute walk from it and greatly enjoy it. It is a local neighbourhood green space, one of very few in my constituency. I am deeply concerned, as are residents including the Save Victoria Tower Gardens group, about the impact that the large-scale construction of the memorial and learning centre will have. Amendment 5 would ensure that works cannot commence if other monuments already in the gardens are likely to face any harm whatsoever, including harm to their setting or to that of the world heritage site that is the Palace of Westminster.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. Amendment 1 highlights a real concern, raised by the Select Committee in its report and shared by me and by many of my constituents, about the lack of any proper scrutiny regarding the overall cost of building the memorial and learning centre and—equally important—the ongoing costs of maintenance and security. It seems that the true cost of this project, and the ongoing maintenance and security costs, have yet to be established. The Government’s initial promise in 2016 to provide £50 million of funding has proved to be completely inadequate.
I was shocked to learn from a ministerial statement that in the last 12 months the costs had increased from £102 million—double the original figure—to £137 million, and that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had recently recommended a provision for a further £58 million in contingency costs, which brings us to a cost of £191 million today. What will it be tomorrow, what will be next week, what will it be next year? I understand that in the case of all projects keeping to budget is increasingly difficult, but I must ask whether we are really getting value for money when we are spending hundreds of millions on a memorial and learning centre rather than spending it on educating young people properly about the horrors of the Holocaust.
Lia Nici
Does my hon. Friend agree that that that cost is just one example of a system that does not work effectively for the desired outcome? Virtually everyone in the country would want to see a national Holocaust memorial and a national learning centre, but this is being railroaded through, and that is not the way in which it should happen. People need to feel that they are being taken along rather than being imposed on.
Nickie Aiken
I completely agree. Many of my constituents feel that this is being steamrollered and imposed on them without any consultation. They have campaigned so hard over the last eight years, and I pay tribute to them.
I note with interest that the construction of the Buxton Memorial Fountain cost a little over £70,000 in today’s money, and I have no idea why the cost of the current proposal runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. Given the increasing pressures on public finances, I urge the Government to take a proper deep dive into the costs of this project, and to consider whether it is still an appropriate use of public money.
New clause 1 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I note the Select Committee’s recommendation in its special report for the review proposed in the new clause to be undertaken “expeditiously” before any planning application is progressed. I believe it is imperative that a review of the security arrangements of this proposal be undertaken immediately. That is not only financially prudent, but necessary from a national security perspective. Sadly we live in uncertain times, and the dreadful events currently taking place in the middle east are being felt on our own streets, perhaps nowhere more than on the streets of Westminster surrounding Parliament. Let us remember that even if this memorial goes ahead, the playground and part of the park will continue to exist. I note that Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has expressed his own concern that the site proposed for the memorial and learning centre presents a very real terrorism risk.
It would be unfortunate if, due to increased security concerns, the authorities insisted that the area around the memorial and learning centre should be surrounded by railings and gates, cutting off a wide part of the park from the public, which would be contrary to the idea of Victoria Tower Gardens as a public green space that is accessible for all. I therefore support amendment 1’s call for a full-scale security review to be undertaken before the proposals are permitted to proceed to the next stage. Let us recall that the Holocaust memorial located in Hyde park, which I mentioned earlier, was covered up for its own safety during a pro-Palestinian march only a few weeks ago. If the authorities were so concerned about the safety of that Holocaust memorial, surely they would be equally, if not more, concerned about having a major memorial adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.
I absolutely agree that we need a memorial to the Holocaust, but as the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee clearly concluded in its report, and as reflected in the amendments tabled by its Chair and by me, having read the report, it is clear that there is more work to be undertaken by the Government on consultation, the consideration of alternative locations, costs and security before the House can have confidence that this Bill can be supported.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, who have made very important and serious speeches that the House would do well to consider. I support this Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who made some excellent points about the cost of the memorial. Any project that the Government support must make sensible use of taxpayers’ money, so he is totally right to focus on the cost cap. He is also right to call for a review of security arrangements, for all the reasons that he said.
As a former Planning Minister, I am extremely familiar with the labyrinthine processes of consultation, appeals and delays at various stages, the difficulties of addressing the natural demands to protect an area that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke about so eloquently, and the importance of siting a national memorial of this significance in the heart of London, next to our Parliament. Now that I have been freed from the duties of making such planning decisions and someone else wears that mantle—at least for now—I can simply say that the impetus for a memorial at this time, and in this place, has never been greater following the 7 October attack, which was the largest pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust.
I am sure that no one is watching this debate, because they will all be glued to Twitter and looking at what is happening at No. 10, but these issues will outlive us and our time in this place. People may wonder why I speak about the Holocaust, and they may say, “You are not Jewish, and you do not have a large Jewish community in Redditch,” but even if there is only one Jewish person in my constituency, I should speak up in support of the things that matter most to them at this time.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities gave an excellent, first-rate speech at a Jewish community centre in north London. He spoke about some things that should shame us all. He spoke about the fact that it is now, in 2024, an arrestable offence for people to be “openly Jewish” near pro-Palestinian marches on the streets of London. He reminded us that there is only one group of people—the Jews—who are told that they are not tolerated in this country, and he said that growing antisemitism
“is a mark of a society turning to darkness and in on itself… It is a parallel law that those countries in which the Jewish community has felt most safe”
are countries where freedom and freedom of speech prosper, and the memorial is a vital part of bolstering Jewish people’s freedom of speech and their freedom to live in our country. Let us not forget that British Jews who have lived all their lives in our country are the only group who are routinely held up to blame for the actions of foreign Governments.
We are all desperately concerned, of course, about the position of innocent Palestinians caught up in the conflict, and we all wish to see the humanitarian relief and a lasting and safe peace in the middle east. I support and applaud the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who are working tirelessly to achieve those goals, but it should not be necessary to make those points and those caveats over and over again when speaking about the position of British Jews.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is dealing with a highly emotive subject, and I think that we would all agree with most or all of what she has just said, but this is the Committee stage of a Bill about a particular structure in a particular place. It is not a time for general speeches about the geopolitical position of the world in general, and I would be grateful if she would confine her remarks to talking about this Bill, which is short and to the point.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate and value your guidance and I will absolutely abide by it. I hope that the House will see that the reason I make these remarks about the general geopolitical situation is that I wish to show my support for the importance of the memorial in this place at this time, but I will bring my remarks to a conclusion in line with your guidance.
I wish to make it clear that I believe that this Holocaust memorial should be placed in Westminster, next to our Parliament; that is, of course, the matter under consideration, as outlined by the Select Committee. That is because this is where we debate foreign and domestic policy. And of course it is right that we look at all the considerations that have been highlighted by other Members. I would like to ask the Chair’s permission to make one final comment, which is that the safety of the Jewish community is the canary in the mine, so let us build this lasting memorial with the education centre next to our Parliament, to focus on the existential threat to our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill in its entirety and against the amendments, which I think will only delay through prevarication getting the Bill on to the statute books. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, as well as an ambassador for Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. I think there is universal agreement that there is a need for a Holocaust memorial and that there should be a learning centre as well. It appears to me that the debate today has centred around where this should be located, what conditions should be imposed and the funding for it, which is the subject of the amendments.
We in this country are deeply involved in Holocaust education. It is a requirement on our schools to ensure that young people learn about the horrors of the Holocaust and where the ultimate destiny of antisemitism leads. But the reality is that the survivors of the Holocaust are getting frailer by the day and the Holocaust is fading into distant memory, so it is vital that we capture those survivors’ testimony and ensure they have had the opportunity to speak to as many people as possible before they unfortunately pass on. It is therefore vital that we have a permanent national institution to preserve the collective memory of the Holocaust. We have to understand the history, what went on and why the Holocaust happened. It is very difficult to contextualise the systematic murder of 6 million people because they were Jewish. It is tough to impart that.
Of course, there are memorials and centres around the world, including in Washington, Paris, Cape Town, Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong, New York, Boston, Berlin and, of course, Jerusalem. Although we were not occupied by the Nazis, we were part and parcel of defeating them. Tens of thousands of Jewish refugees came to this country to make it their home and, of course, our troops liberated Bergen-Belsen and discovered at first hand the horrors of what had happened to the Jewish population, but that saved countless lives.
There are concerns, of course, about Britain’s role. We should remember that children were almost orphaned by the end of the war and their parents were denied entry to the United Kingdom. Our role is not always to say how wonderful we are, and some of the decisions taken at that time need to be explored. Why, for example, were the train tracks into Auschwitz-Birkenau not bombed? We had the ability to bomb them to prevent many people from being transported. In the Channel Islands, British police officers actually carried out German policies. We have to recognise this and face up to it, and the learning centre will give us that opportunity.
There are obviously concerns about the site’s location. I take a strong view that it needs to be alongside the principal democratic institutions of our time, namely, the Houses of Parliament. It is clear that this will be a nationally significant building, and the monument will serve to remember those people who were murdered during the second world war.
The history is that the then Prime Minister, now the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, had a report from the Holocaust Commission that recommended the construction of a striking and prominent new national memorial to be located in central London. The report recommended that the national memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre, so the Bill requires co-location.
There is cross-party support. Lord Pickles and Ed Balls, who chaired the commission, committed the Government to providing a site in Victoria Tower Gardens, next door to the Houses of Parliament. I remind colleagues that the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed us to delivering the construction of the planned UK Holocaust memorial.
Planning permission for the memorial and learning centre was granted in 2021, but the High Court ruled in April 2022 that certain sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 were an obstacle to construction and therefore quashed the decision to grant planning consent.
This Bill is specific in dealing with the restrictions to the siting of the memorial and learning centre. Importantly, it does not grant planning permission, which will still have to go through the normal process. We have heard that some colleagues are concerned about the appropriateness of Victoria Tower Gardens. The reality is that there will still be a requirement for the gardens to remain open to the public. The Bill disapplies only the relevant sections of the 1900 Act to ensure that it does not block the building of this memorial and learning centre in the gardens. I would say that no place in Britain is more suitable for a memorial and learning centre than the gardens next door to Parliament, the very institution where decisions on Britain’s response in the lead-up to, during and in the aftermath of the Holocaust were made.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The point my hon. Friend is making now was not one put forward by the commission, and it was not one put forward by the foundation. Would he agree?
Bob Blackman
I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. It is clear that the site was chosen by the commission; it recommended this. The reality is that the development of the planning application followed thereafter, and obviously the impact on the gardens has to be considered. It is right that only Parliament can change the law, and it is right that Parliament should consider whether the unique significance of the Holocaust justifies seeking an exception to the protections it put in place more than 100 years ago.
The proposals for the memorial include sensitive landscaping that will improve Victoria Tower Gardens for every user, and more than 90% of the area of the current gardens will remain fully open after the memorial is built. I understand that my colleagues are concerned about this, but local residents and workers will be able to visit and enjoy the gardens just as they do now. The Holocaust Memorial Bill lifts restrictions in relation only to Victoria Tower Gardens—no other piece of land—and in relation only to a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, and no other form of development. The Bill does not seek to override the planning process, so all the arguments about the use of the park can be properly considered against the benefits of the memorial.
Landscape improvements to Victoria Tower Gardens will ensure that this important and well-used green space, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), is made more attractive and more accessible than ever before. The new development will take about 7.5% of the site. All the mature London plane trees will be protected, and additional planting and improved drainage of the grassed area will increase the overall attractiveness of the gardens. Alongside the riverside embankment wall, new raised boardwalks will be constructed, helping to make the seating more accessible and making it easier for everyone to enjoy views of the Thames. New pathways will link existing memorials and monuments within the gardens, and additional seating will enhance the visitor experience. The playground will be improved. The objective is to ensure that all current uses can continue after the memorial is constructed. All these matters are fully considered as part of the planning process. During his consideration, the planning inspector produced a detailed report with a careful assessment of the impacts on trees, traffic, gardens, playground and all other relevant matters, and then recommended that planning consent be given.
The construction phase of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre is expected to last around three years. The project team aims to make phased closures and reopenings of different sections of the park to ensure that as much of the park as possible is available for all users while the work carries on to produce this important memorial.
The learning centre will include a powerful exhibition that will provide context for the memorial and encourage reflection on the relevance of the Holocaust for Britain today.
Sir Edward Leigh
From visiting really serious Holocaust museums, as I have done in Washington and Berlin, I know that they are vast spaces. This is a story that takes a huge amount of time and space to explain. The trouble is that the proposed learning centre is really a tiny space, and it simply will not do justice to the horror of what we are talking about.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. I am one of those who visited the original Yad Vashem in Jerusalem before it was expanded. Personally, I found the original Yad Vashem even more intimate and poignant than the current Yad Vashem. I understand what my right hon. Friend has to say, but I think this centre will be appropriate for what we are seeking to achieve.
One aspect that has been discussed is security. The learning centre will obviously have entry security arrangements similar to other public buildings in Westminster. I know that the Government—I look to the Minister to comment on this when he contributes to the debate—are working with security experts, agencies and the Metropolitan police to develop the necessary level of security measures. Victoria Tower Gardens will continue to be freely accessible to all. Therefore, the security threats should not be an argument against this memorial; rather, they are an argument for why the memorial is needed in the first place.
As I have said, only 7.5% of the land will be taken up by the memorial at the very southern point of the park. There will still be a clear view of Parliament from all other parts of the park. The Buxton memorial has been mentioned, with concerns about overshadowing.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I do not want to be nit-picking, but the southern part of the park is a children’s playground. Although some people say it will not be reduced in size, others think it will be reduced in size by 30%. The 7.5% figure is challenged by very many people, but it is probably not the time to go into ground plans.
Bob Blackman
We can debate whether the figure is 7.5% or 10%, but the key point is that more than 90% of the park will be preserved. The plan for the memorial is that it will be no higher than the Buxton memorial and its bronze fins will step down progressively to the east, in visual deference to the Buxton memorial. The memorial was designed by Ron Arad specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens.
Some suggestions have been made about the Imperial War Museum. To my knowledge, the Imperial War Museum supports the memorial being situated in Victoria Tower Gardens and has no wish for the memorial to be built in its grounds. A detailed flood risk assessment was prepared as part of the planning application. It concluded that Victoria Tower Gardens is heavily protected by the River Thames flood defences, significantly reducing the risk of flooding on site.
On the issue of antisemitism, I do not think anyone would claim this memorial will be the answer to solving more than 2,000 years of antisemitism. However, it will be a reminder to those in the Houses of Parliament of the potential to abuse democratic institutions to murderous consequences, in stark contrast to the true role of democracy in standing up and combating racism, hatred and prejudice wherever it is found.
Some hon. Members have suggested that certain members of the Jewish community do not support the proposed site. As everyone knows, the Jewish community is not a homogeneous group and there will be multiple differences of opinions, as within any community. Supporters of having the memorial on this site include the Chief Rabbi, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the chair of the Jewish Leadership Council and chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, to name but a few, plus many Holocaust survivors. The funds assigned to the project are for a Holocaust memorial. The funds have not been diverted from educational budgets and there is no reason to think that abandoning the memorial would mean funds being reassigned to any other project.
The Jewish Museum was not consulted before the joint letter from different members of the Jewish community was written, but the museum plans to reopen in a central London location in the near future, so its concerns should be noted. The aims of the memorial and the Jewish Museum are complementary, but not the same. The memorial will set the Holocaust within a context that includes the history of antisemitism, including in Britain, and of subsequent genocides.
There have been multiple consultations with members of the Jewish and survivor communities. At every stage of the planning inquiry, individuals and groups have been able to give written and oral evidence. The planning inspector took great care to allow all voices to be heard at the inquiry and he recorded all evidence in his very detailed report. After taking account of all views, he recommended that planning consent should be granted.
Some people say there is no rush. The original proposal was made in 2015; we are now nine years on. Even if the Bill makes rapid progress and the development takes place, the memorial will take longer to develop than the extent of the Holocaust. We owe it to the survivors to get on with the job as quickly as possible. The survivors themselves are asking for that. Harry Bibring spoke to Sky News back in 2017, but sadly passed away a few days after the interview. He said:
“I’m very much looking forward to the completion of the new Holocaust Memorial in the Victoria Tower Park next to the Parliament, which we’re going to have a learning centre as well as just a monument and I don’t know whether I’ll live to see it, but it’s in planning stage in Westminster Council and I hope nothing goes wrong”.
Manfred Goldberg, a Holocaust survivor said in May 2023:
“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament. Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”
Sir Ben Helfgott, a Holocaust survivor and an Olympic weightlifter, who sadly passed away last year, wrote in 2021:
“I look forward to one day taking my family to the new national memorial and learning centre, telling the story of Britain and the Holocaust. And one day, I hope that my children and grandchildren will take their children and grandchildren, and that they will remember all those who came before them, including my mother, Sara, my sister, Luisa, and my father, Moishe.”
Susan Pollack, a Holocaust survivor speaking at a parliamentary reception earlier this month:
“I am 93 years old. My dream is to see this memorial and learning centre finally built and to see the first coachload of school children arrive and ready to learn. That is what it is all about. And, hopefully, those students will learn what happened to me and become beacons of hope in the fight against contemporary antisemitism.”
I end by expressing my hope that we can complete the Committee stage of the Bill, get on to Third Reading and usher the Bill rapidly through the House of Lords, so that those brave survivors of the Holocaust will live to see the development of the memorial and the learning centre.
Andrew Percy
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Given the news that has just broken, this may be the last time that I speak in this Chamber—and the last time that anybody from the Brigg and Goole constituency speaks, given that we are being abolished and split four ways. If it is the last time that I speak, I would like to say that it has been an absolutely huge privilege—the privilege of my life—to serve the people of Brigg and Goole and the Isle of Axholme. It is also a privilege to speak on a subject such as this, which is so close to my heart and something that I feel so passionately about.
First, let me pay tribute to Lord Pickles and Ed Balls for the work that they have done on this memorial, which is going to happen. I have absolute confidence that this memorial will be built. I was in the tent pavilion just a couple of weeks ago when representatives from the Government and the Opposition attended an event for Yom HaShoah. Both Front-Bench teams attended to confirm yet again, in front of Holocaust survivors and members of the community, that this memorial will be built and that it will be built next to Parliament. I was very grateful for that confirmation, as were the members of the Jewish community groups and the survivors who were there.
I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). I did not necessarily agree with what he had to say, but he did chair the hybrid Bill Committee. As a fellow Chair of a hybrid Bill Committee, I wish him every success, because his Bill actually made it back to this place. On the HS2 Bill, which I chaired, we spent a year or more listening to petitioners, as he had done, but that turned out to be in vain. We should not worry, though, because those three afternoons a week that we lost were not without some value.
I also want to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for speaking on a matter that is in her constituency. I suppose that it is the burden of representing this area. I would be very protective and my hackles would be well and truly up if I had people interfering in my patch, so, although I apologise for that, I am going to be a hypocrite and now interfere in her constituency. But I may not be the first person in here to have engaged in hypocrisy.
Last night, I hosted an event here for Terraforming, a civil society group from Serbia. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I recently visited that organisation in Serbia. We held that event here in Parliament to showcase the story of Serbian Jewry and what happened to them during second world war and the somewhat unique way in which Serbia was divided up. The process of the Holocaust in Serbia was very different depending on where in Serbia the Jewish community lived, but the result was of course the same. The group was so proud to hold that event here in Parliament, the seat of the British Government. It meant so much to them to tell that story here. That is why having the memorial next to this building—intrinsically linked to it, emotionally and physically—is so important.
As we told the story of what happened to the Jews of Serbia, I was reminded of the visit that I made back in April on the 80th anniversary of the deportation of the Jews of Novi Sad, in the part of Serbia that was occupied by the Hungarian fascist regime. Those Jews were herded into a synagogue on, I believe, 26 April, held there for two days without drink and food, and then shipped off, largely to Auschwitz, and murdered. That synagogue still stands, and we stood in it 80 years to the day on which the Jews of Novi Sad were rounded up and forced into it. Again, that reminded me of the value of having a place to memorialise and remember what happened. We are lucky in Britain, with the exception of the Channel Islands, not to have had that experience ourselves, so we do not have venues in which what happened during the Holocaust took place. That is why it is so important to have a memorial close to the seat of Government.
I am probably the only person present who, when I had a proper job, which I now may well have to return to, taught the Holocaust curriculum to our young people as a history teacher. Such education is perhaps more important than ever, as living memory of the Holocaust fades. People of my generation—officially I am 35, but that may or may not be the truth—had grandparents and family who were directly involved in world war two, so the Holocaust and the experience of world war two was living history for us. For anybody who is below my generation, that is not the case. We have increasingly less living testimony, which is why it is more important than ever that we create new resources and facilities where that testimony can live on for those who are not connected in the same way that people of my generation were, because of our grandparents, or that the generation before was, because of their parents.
As a history teacher, I would have very much valued having a place in the nation’s capital to which we could have brought young people to not only tell them the story of the Holocaust and its horrors but then relate it to how this place, and the decisions that were taken here, played such an important role in ultimately demolishing the machinery of murder that led to the herding of human beings on to cattle trucks in the millions, their transportation to concentration camps, and then ultimately their murder in gas chambers. To have had a place to bring my students, next to this place, which is so important in the story of how the Nazi regime and the Holocaust were ended, would have been so valuable.
Despite the brilliant work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, we sadly cannot take all the young people in this country to Europe to see the concentration camps. That is not possible, but the ability to bring young people to somewhere central in this country where we can tell them about not only the experience and the horrors of the Holocaust but the very proud role that our democratic institutions played at that time is so important.
Why is this now more important than ever before? To answer that question, it is important to remember how the Holocaust started. It did not start with Auschwitz. That was the end. It did not start with gas chambers or with cattle trucks; it began with the demonisation of a people purely because of their racial and religious background. Its form, I am afraid to say, is familiar in what we see today. Jewish students were banned from university campuses, and we see Jewish students being questioned and being prevented from gaining access to university campuses across much of the west at the moment.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and glad to be hearing what he is saying, both giving testimony for himself and standing up for those who might be more frightened. Does he agree that those who want to see how the Holocaust developed should go to the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, where the displays, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said, are very impressive and very moving?
Andrew Percy
They are indeed—it is a brilliant presentation. I am also very proud that every Holocaust Memorial Day in my local community, particularly in Brigg, the town council ensures that we have a display at Brigg Heritage Centre telling the story of the Holocaust and how we got there. That is really important.
However, the reason I have set out the comparison between what we had in the 1920s and 1930s and what we have today is that those parallels are genuinely frightening for Jews in this country at this moment in time. Of course, that precursor to the Holocaust involved the marching of people through streets in Europe, holding banners and signs singling out Jews for special treatment, demanding boycotts and othering the Jewish community, and that is exactly what we have seen in these past few months.
That leads me on to another argument that has been put in this debate about security. I made some reference to this when I intervened a little earlier, but the idea that we should not build this memorial and learning centre next to Parliament because of security concerns is something I have a real problem with. That is effectively saying to those people who have sought since 7 October, and in many cases well before then, to demonise, frighten and scare Jewish people, that they have won. It is saying that we are so cowed as a people, as a nation and as a democracy by people who shout loudly and aggressively on the street that they get their way and we will put it somewhere else—we will stick it over in Lambeth. I do not think that is an appropriate or credible argument against putting this facility next to Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow—[Interruption.]
Andrew Percy
East, of course—as someone from East Yorkshire, I say east is always best. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) dealt well with the security concerns. We bring young people here to learn about our democracy in the learning centre, and they have to go through a similar process, so I do not believe that should be an impediment.
We have heard about the loss of green space. I am not a resident of the area, so I have no selfish interest in whether I can walk my dog in the park. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made clear, the land take will be 7.5%. I find it a bit of a strange argument to say, “Don’t build this here because it takes some green space away. Build it over there, where it takes somebody else’s green space away.” I am not sure that I buy that argument either.
We have heard arguments about the Jewish community. Some people have prayed the Jewish community in aid as being against the proposal, but the Jewish community is not homogenous, so there will be very different views. It is worth reiterating again that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East very eloquently made clear, Jewish leadership in this country, including the Chief Rabbi and those at the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, whom we in government and Parliament rely on and trust to be representatives of their communities, have been clear that they support the memorial at that site. Again, my hon. Friend stole some of my thunder by quoting so eloquently—better than I could have done—some of the Holocaust survivors who so dearly wanted to see the memorial built. Fortunately some are still with us, and I hope they will see it built, but others have passed. It is clear that although there is not one homogenous view, Jewish leadership groups and community leaders absolutely support the memorial being built next to this place.
The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), whom I respect very much, described the proposal as a “box”, which I did not think was an appropriate way of describing it, and there have been other comments about the size of the venue. I do not believe that size should be an impediment to coming away from the memorial having had a truly moving and educational experience. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who I am mentioning often—I have to be nice to him at last, after 14 years of us being here together—Yad Vashem is an incredibly powerful place. The parts of it that I find most moving are the small memorial to the children and the room with the photographs, which are so powerful and moving. I do not believe that size should be an argument. It seems strange to argue about costs and say at the same time, “But it’s not big enough; maybe it needs to be bigger but somewhere else,” which may result in it being much more expensive.
I am conscious that the debate is time limited, but I wanted to make this contribution. I believe and hope that the memorial will be built. At the moment, we are seeing a record rise in Jew hate, in antisemitism, so it is more important than ever that the memorial and learning centre stands next to this place, which is the thin blue line—or red line, or whichever colour we want to call it—[Hon. Members: “Green line!] It is the thin green line—and red line—between mob rule and democracy. Over the past few months, that line has been tested in a way it has not been tested for quite some time. That is why it is my deepest belief that the location next to this place—which is all that stands between us and despotism—should be pursued. As we saw in Europe in the 1930s, and as we see even today in parts of the world, democratic institutions are very fragile. On that basis, I will be opposing the amendments this evening, and I look forward to the Bill passing.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members know, everything must conclude by six minutes past 7, and I want to give at least eight to 10 minutes for the Front Benchers to be able to contribute. Rather than imposing a time limit, I ask people to look at around the 10-minute mark, which will give everybody an opportunity. Of course, Sir Peter gets two minutes right at the very end.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). If that was his last speech in this place and representing his constituency, may I say that he does it proud? He does his constituency proud, and he has done his constituency proud. The House and his party are proud, and his service to this House and his eloquence are known to all. I congratulate him on that.
I will begin by addressing some of the points that have been made during the course of this debate, and perhaps putting to rest some of the suggestions that have been posited. One is that this Bill is in some way being steamrollered, which I suggest cannot be anything other than a flight of fancy. In fact, this measure has taken many years—close to a decade from its earliest formations. It has not quite reached the Dickensian Jarndyce v. Jarndyce level of bureaucracy and contemplation, but I do not think it is accurate to claim that it has in any way been steamrollered.
I also do not think it is in any way appropriate to say that security concerns—legitimate though they may be—are a good reason to countenance removing this important centre to another location. We must stand up against the thugs, the violence and the vandals. We in this House are a thin green line, and hopefully not that thin; hopefully, we represent the vast majority of people who defy those who would vandalise Holocaust memorials, and who hold in contempt those who would disgrace themselves and the freedoms, democracy and ancient history of this country by vandalising the memorial to the dead. Not only is that a wickedness and a blasphemy to those who have fallen, it is a type of fascism that is a disgrace to those who perform it, and we must stand up against it. We must say, “I’m not going to refuse to build a location of historic importance on a particular site because some criminals may choose to graffiti it. We defy you, and we stand up against you. We do not buckle to those security concerns.”
We need a prominent memorial marking the Holocaust because, sadly, recent events have shown that we could see it happening again. It is not fanciful to say that such a thing could happen again. There are voices in this House who have heckled Members, including myself when I have spoken out against antisemitism, and there are voices outside who care about every nuance of other people’s rights—about microaggressions—but do not care about Jewish women and girls being brutally raped and savagely tortured while hostages in the pogrom of 7 October.
We have seen a refusal by respected authorities around the world to accept that Hamas are a terrorist organisation and that what they did on 7 October is unparalleled since the actual Holocaust of 1939 to 1945. In defying that truth, they show the world that it is not impossible that such an atrocity, or something like it, could occur again. That is why we need a memorial.
Sir Michael Ellis
Forgive me.
The Jewish people in this country are a very small minority. There are many constituencies where there will be no Jews at all—literally none—and many others where there will perhaps be only a dozen or two. Jews represent only 0.3% of the population of this country, at around 250,000 people in a population of 70 million. In a world of 7 billion people, there are only 17 million Jews—a small but strong.
Jews love life and they seek peace. They are not an homogenous group; they do not all speak as one. One need only look at Israeli democratic politics for five minutes to see the divisions within Israeli society. They are not all going to agree about everything, just as all black people do not, or all redheaded people. They are not an homogenous group, but they love this country, they are respectful to it and grateful for it, and many seek to serve it, as I have tried to do, and I hope that long continues.
I say to those Jewish people who may be listening, “Look not to the noisy wasps to which I have alluded, but instead to a Prime Minister whose moral stance has been clear.” The Prime Minister is a great hero to the British Jewish community, and not because there are many votes in it—there are not, for the reasons I have just given—but because it is morally the right thing to do. The same is true of our royal family. For example, the Prince of Wales recently visited a synagogue and spoke with an elderly Holocaust survivor, which is testament to the support of the monarchy, and I dare say would have made the late Queen proud.
We need this memorial. Jews are not cowering with trembling knees, although maybe that happened in previous generations. They stand in the face of adversity, knowing that in this country there are many more of the Christian faith, the Hindu faith, the Sikh faith, the Buddhist faith and the Muslim faith who will stand with us and protect us, and who will stop those who seek to harm and intimidate the Jewish community. We need a memorial to remind people of that. It needs to be in this location because of its paramount and historic importance, and to remind people why, indeed, the state of Israel has to exist.
To those who have an unnatural and unforgiving animus towards the Jews and who disguise it as hatred towards Israel and in other ways, I say that they are just twigs cracking in an empty forest, or birds chirping on a desert island, because their voices will be weak and ineffectual if those of us in this House speak as one. Those tiny voices and cracking noises in the wilderness will be drowned out in a crowd of millions. This memorial is needed and must continue.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of this Bill and against the amendments, however nobly argued and well intentioned they are. I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that this has been a long time in the making and further prevarication will simply mean that the objective of establishing a memorial gets pushed out further and further, which is not a good reflection on this Government’s determination to see it come about.
I speak as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I was very pleased that we had the opportunity to have a debate in Government time during War Graves Week last week. As was made clear by Members right across the House through every contribution, the commission does a magnificent job of maintaining memorials to the fallen in many countries around the world. Many of those are very substantial structures that were built in the immediate aftermath of the first world war primarily, with some following the second world war. I think I am right in saying that the time it took to construct each of those memorials is less than the time it has taken us to get this memorial legislation through the House. That is shocking, frankly, and we need to put it right.
I have visited many of the Commonwealth war grave memorials and, like other Members, I have also visited some of the Holocaust memorials, notably in Berlin. So I am aware of the pressure of visitor numbers for people who live in major cities where the Holocaust is commemorated or where there are memorials to the fallen. Those places become significant tourist attractions for visitors who wish to pay their respects and to recognise the suffering and the sacrifices that have been made. I therefore understand the pressure that this proposal will place at the heart of our city, adjacent to Parliament. But it is right that any memorial should be in a prominent location that is easy to access and at the heart of the nation, so that it can have the kind of impact we wish to see.
If you will allow me, Mr Evans, I will stray just a little off the immediate point of the amendments to read briefly from an article that I wrote nine and a half years ago, in January 2015, in the week after the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, with cross-party support, accepted the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission to build a national memorial with a world-class learning centre and an endowment fund to secure Holocaust education forever.
What I wrote then remains valid today, and it is the reason I am taking this stance. Each year, many Members of this House across all parties sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment to mark international Holocaust Memorial Day. The book honours those who died during the Holocaust, as well as those extraordinary survivors, of whom there are very few left today, who have devoted their lives since their experiences through the Holocaust to educate younger generations about what they endured.
This year, Holocaust Memorial Day took place on the 79th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. In that article, I wrote:
“As the deadliest concentration camp under the Third Reich, the name Auschwitz is synonymous with the Holocaust. One in six Jews who died were killed at the camp, approximately one million people. But even for those who survived, the scars of their incarceration, both physical and mental, would remain for the rest of their lives. Few who did survive are still with us, but their stories are as important now as ever.
A few years ago I visited Auschwitz with students from Bridgnorth, and it is an experience that will remain with me for the rest of my life. The site is a haunting remnant of a regime’s attempt to wipe an entire people from the face of the earth. The sheer number of those who lost their lives in concentration camps across Europe is almost incomprehensible. But the large piles of personal effects, like spectacles or shoes, taken from those walking to their deaths really brought home to me just how many were killed. The collection of children’s toys was particularly heartrending.
That man is capable of such inhumanity, based on an adherence to a doctrine of hate, is a chilling thought. But to shy away from retelling one of the darkest periods of human history would be an injustice to those who lost their lives. Instead, it is essential we continue to educate the next generation so they are aware of what happened under the Nazi regime, and develop a more tolerant society free from racism, prejudice and bigotry.”
The need for such a memorial in the UK is no less now, as we see increased reports of antisemitism, for reasons that we can all understand.
Philip Dunne
I am afraid I will not give way, because I have already extended the patience of the Chairman.
I will conclude by saying that we have to stop prevaricating and get on with construction. I support the Bill and will not support the amendments to it.
Sir Edward Leigh
I know that everybody is glued to their mobile phones about the announcement of the general election, but this debate is important, because we are commemorating the greatest crime in history. I thought my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) spoke movingly about antisemitism, and I start my speech by saying that I agree with every single thing he said. He said it so well. It was a brilliant speech.
This Bill is tremendously important, but I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and her amendment 2. Time is short so I cannot expand on the crimes of the Holocaust, but I want to talk about the detail of what we are debating. Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, sums up what I have long been campaigning for. I declare an interest, as a worker here for 41 years. I live about a mile away, as we all do—we all live locally and work here, so we all take an interest.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As I said, the conclusion of the debate is at six minutes past seven. There is clearly a bit more time, so perhaps time to take interventions and so on.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the SNP. It is perhaps slightly unexpected for some that I am standing here, but anyone who is aware of the areas of interest that I pursue here will be less surprised. I will go through some of the amendments and new clauses, and share some things that I think are worth pulling out. The comments made so far have been profoundly helpful in teasing out some of the details.
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke very well about the importance of education. That is the key point of amendment 6 and something I have spoken about often in this place: the necessity of a focus on education and making sure that the testimony of survivors is captured in a way that will ensure it is available to generations who come after us. Through initiatives like Vision Schools Scotland, or working with organisations like the Anne Frank Trust or the Holocaust Educational Trust, we can see the impact of education. The necessity of marrying up education with the memorial is a profoundly helpful idea. We will not be able to take the lessons of the past, which we talk about so easily, if we do not make concrete efforts to make it a reality when we say that we never want to see it again.
Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), makes a reasonable point, which is that it would be sensible to be sure that the costs are properly accounted for and that there is an appropriate level of control. That is a key point. This is, rightly, an ambitious project, so his amendment is an interesting one. His point about potential private donations is interesting in ensuring the ability for the project to move forward in an appropriately ambitious way. I am sure the Minister will share further information on all of that.
On amendments 2, 3 and 5, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke very powerfully about her local community, as well as the Jewish community. How all those things come together is very important. She spoke very passionately and sincerely about her desire for a consultation. I understand why she is so concerned about that. My own personal concern, which weighs on me slightly, is that that would also mean more time would elapse. Her amendments made sense: she is looking to add some clarity to the specifics, such as where restrictions relating to the land might be removed—the Minister was helpful in trying to clarify that—and what the overall footprint would be. That will be allocated and it does matter, regardless of where it is going to happen.
I understand the need for clarity and reassurance for residents and other users of, for instance, Victoria Tower Gardens, and I understand why the hon. Lady wants that level of confidence to be provided for the people who live in this community. I imagine that, given the kind of memorials that are located in that particular park, people in general would want to take comfort from the fact that they could be protected in an appropriate way. Surely, though, it is possible for us to have a memorial and an education centre and to protect those existing memorials. The hon. Member for Worthing West spoke earlier about the state of repair of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. Perhaps there needs to be a bigger conversation about these issues.
As is clear from the Bill’s “Extent, commencement and short title”, it is an England and Wales Bill, which is why some people might not have expected to see me rise to speak. It concerns a planning matter that relates to a different country, from my perspective, so I will not comment on the details of, for instance, the planning and location issues raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle. What I will say is that I am here today only because I think it profoundly important for us to see concrete proposals that can be implemented as soon as possible to deliver a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We cannot lose sight of that, and it should not be lost among the—admittedly also important—details. The territorial extent provision in clause 3 speaks for itself, so I will not go there.
The hon. Member for Carlisle talked about security. None of us need to look too far to appreciate the need for us to think seriously about the security provisions that will be necessary. The world is increasingly polarised and we need to ensure that everyone is secure, and that will be particularly important in this instance. I am not sure whether new clause 1 is flexible enough to allow for the necessary measures—which will surely change as times change—to be amended without undue delay, but no doubt the hon. Member thought about that when he tabled the new clause. I am sure that other Members share my concern about the spikes in hate crime, including the frightening spike in antisemitism incidents. We know that, regrettably, these spikes have happened in the past as well, and any security arrangements will have to be able to cope with changeable times.
As for new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we have been down this road many times, and I wonder whether the measures that she has proposed will cause further delay. Some people may say that it would not be appropriate to rush in, and of course that is true, but I do not think anyone could reasonably accuse this project of having been dealt with in a rush. Let me say, as a Scottish MP who has no jurisdiction in this geographical area, that this is a really important matter, so by all means let there be further consideration, but can we just get on with it?
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Before I begin my brief remarks about the amendments, let me restate the Opposition’s support for the construction of a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Given that this simple three-clause Bill does nothing more than remove pre-existing legislative impediments to the siting of such a memorial and centre in that location and make provision for, and in connection with, expenditure related to its establishment, we have not felt the need to table any amendments to it today. We sincerely hope—not least in view of the amount of time that has now passed since the idea was first proposed in 2015—that the Bill completes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent as speedily as possible, so that the necessary planning application can be considered.
I turn now to the amendments, starting with new clause 2, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We fully appreciate that, although we are united as a House in our commitment to establish a national Holocaust memorial and a world-class learning centre, there are differing and sincerely held views about the appropriateness of Victoria Tower Gardens as the location for them. In some cases, the objection extends only to the siting of the learning centre in that location; in others, it extends to both the centre and the memorial itself.
Sir Peter Bottomley
There are two sides to this issue, one of which people will accept that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about sensibly: we do not make all details about security available to the public. The second is whether the necessary security arrangements will inhibit the use of the park by local residents, children and others. The Government continually give an assurance that that will not be interrupted, but everybody believes that it will be. That is why it is important to debate and, if necessary, vote on new clause 1. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with us that the impact on the use of the park is the thing that matters for the purpose of this Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. I certainly agree that that is one of many considerations that need to be taken into account when determining the application, but many of the contributions to this debate have raised matters that engage planning considerations, and this Bill does not engage planning considerations, even though it will affect the ability to submit a planning application in future. However, those are matters that should be rightly dealt with by the local authority, and by the Planning Inspectorate if the application were to be called in by the Secretary of State.
I turn lastly to those amendments that concern expenditure relating to the memorial and centre as authorised by clause 1 of the Bill. The Select Committee is right to highlight that the true cost of the project has not been established and to emphasise the need to consider the appropriate use of public money when progressing it. Concerns about expenditure have also been highlighted by the National Audit Office, which has made it clear that there is a risk that the contingency is not enough to cover further cost increases. Perhaps most worryingly, the Government’s own Infrastructure and Projects Authority has red-rated this project. In other words, the Government themselves are clear that—I quote here from the definition associated with a red rating—as things stand,
“successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”
and that it may, to quote further from that definition,
“need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
While the Opposition would not support the imposition of expenditure caps as proposed by amendment 1, it is clear to us that the Government need to do more to ensure that the project will deliver value for money and to provide appropriate assurances in that regard, in respect of both capital and recurrent costs. As such, I would welcome a robust assurance from the Minister when he responds that the Government have accurately estimated the cost of the project, will apply proper cost control throughout the construction period and will ensure that running costs are sustainable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
Today in this Chamber, we have been united on the welcome return of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), and the House has been united on security measures on pub licensing for the Euros—probably not the most contentious piece of legislation before the House—and now on this Holocaust Memorial Bill. For all the debate that we have had on the Bill, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who have contributed to it.
We have been discussing how, we have been discussing where and we have been discussing when, but the House has never been discussing why. For reasons more than tellingly amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others, the why is clear and demonstrable. That is a sad fact, but it is. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who speaks for the Opposition, for his support, as I am to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). I shall reserve my general thanks for the Third Reading debate.
Let me turn to the amendments. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to reject any of the amendments that might be pushed to a vote, for reasons the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich ventilated extremely well. Let me set out why I think that is the case. I might just pause here, if I may, to remark that I think—I am not necessarily an expert on these matters—that this is probably the last substantive piece of innovative business that this Parliament—this 58th Parliament of the realm—will be discussing. It is an honour for me to be taking part in it on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, because it allows me to pay fulsome and personal tribute to three right hon. and hon. Friends on my side who will not be seeking re-election to this place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who I did not know before I came here in 2015, has been a stalwart friend and colleague, and he will be hugely missed across the House, more than he will probably know because he is too modest to even consider that assessment. Likewise, I did not know my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, but his wit, his humour and his ability to cheer up any situation have warmed many a moment. Again, he will be missed.
I save for last, but by no means least, my hon. and darling Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We have known each other since we were 18 or 19, and it was the joy of my life to see her join us here at the 2019 election. She spoke today, in possibly her last contribution on the Floor of the House, in the same way that she has spoken from her maiden speech onwards, with knowledge, passion, clarity and certainty on behalf of all her constituents.
My three retiring colleagues have served their communities well. They have run the race to the finish, and I hope that they enjoy the next chapter of their lives to the full, whatever it offers them.
Education is key to this proposal, to make sure that subsequent generations do not repeat the past. As so many Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, have noted, that is why the symbolic juxtaposition of the memorial and learning centre and this place is so important. There is an emotional and romantic intertwining of Parliament, freedom and democracy, and how dimmed those lights were during the period of the Holocaust.
Many have rightly mentioned security, which is a key issue. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to say that it would not be sensible or prudent to put into the public domain either the security assessment or, indeed, the remedies for what it throws up. It is slightly analogous to having a burglar alarm installed in one’s home and posting the deactivation code on social media, so I will resist that amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and others have spoken to a key issue. The security and peace of mind of those who work in the centre, of those who visit the centre, of those who merely walk past and, crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referenced, of those who just use the park as a park is paramount.
The overriding point is that the argument that we cannot have the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens because of security fundamentally undermines a key tenet that supports the proposition. Given the issues surrounding both the Holocaust and the fairly fluid and dynamic situation in the middle east, security will always be an issue for such an institution. Security would be an issue were it to be located at the Imperial War Museum, in the middle of Hyde Park or on the third floor of Harrods. Security will always be an issue, but I entirely take the point, which I echo from the Dispatch Box.
If security concerns, a fear of the mob and a fear of those who seek to disrupt and intimidate suddenly become the trump card that is used to determine where and how we locate such a facility, the mob will have won and we might as well all pack up and go home now, raising the white flag. That is why I think all of us in this House, and particularly the two Front Benches, although we are absolutely concerned about security, are not prepared to bend the knee to bullies, thugs and anti-democratic mob rule.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I doubt the Minister intends to be the first to accuse me of waving a white flag on anything. I put it to him that the Government said that the use of the park would not be interfered with by the proposal. Were there to be just a memorial there, that might be true, but the proposals are for a memorial and a learning centre that will try to bring in half a million people a year, when we know now there are greater threats —we have had the parliamentary bookshop barricaded, and, as I say, the memorial in Hyde Park covered over. Can Government say that, with the present plans, the use of the park will not be interfered with? Where is their assessment? Who knows about it, and is it true?
Simon Hoare
Let me say to my hon. Friend that there is no reason for use of the park to be disrupted. I am afraid that he slightly undermined his argument, because he referred to the memorial at Hyde Park having to be secured. We have had in the past to secure the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, and to safeguard the security of the Cenotaph. There were no learning centres attached to them—they stand merely as memorials. My hon. Friend said that he thought the memorial would not come under attack—for want of a better phrase—or require security measures, and that the risk was only because the learning centre was attached to it. I do not agree.
I do not have a crystal ball, but the whole security strategy will be tried and tested for every single scenario, in the same way as it is in any plan for something with public use; of course it will be, and that is right. It would respond to any scenario thrown up. I would love to be able to give a guarantee that unfettered access will be given to the park 24/7, 365 days a year, but if, in the middle of some heavy protest or something, it is the advice of the police that it be closed in the same way as they might close a road, a shop or a facility, I suggest that it would be folly to ignore that advice.
Sir Edward Leigh
Where we are sitting is an armed fortress—we cannot go anywhere without seeing policemen with sub-machine guns. This park has always been completely open. There is absolutely no security. Every gate is completely open; there are no security guards and no wardens. On behalf of the local community, I ask the Government to assure the public that this park will remain completely open as it always has done, and that they will be able to wander in and out of this green space.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend raises a valid point. That is absolutely at the kernel of the plans on which this vision rests. It is, of course, a planning matter, and I am not the Minister responsible for the planning process. It is a planning matter to be looked at. I think I have said all I can say on that.
I would like to correct one or two things. There was a review of alternative sites, and the comparisons were published. The Imperial War Museum was included in that analysis process. The square footage of the development represents just 7.58% of the overall surface area of the park; the park is 18,848 square metres, while the development is 1,492 square metres, which includes the memorial. Issues relating to air quality, traffic management, changes in policy and water table, among others, are in the purview of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).
It is worthwhile quoting, if I may, an extract from the inspector’s report. As we know from cases in our own constituencies, the inspectorate is independent of Government. The inspector said that
“the development of the UKHMLC proposals since the publication of the HMC’s report”
has been
“very thorough. This has involved site selection, a public architectural competition, and after initial selection, a very detailed preparation of the proposals and their presentation,”
with formal public consideration by Westminster City Council and
“ultimately the more detailed evidence presented before the Inquiry.”
I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) that to describe the process as flimsy, or say that Government and others seek to railroad a proposal through within five or 10 minutes of the idea being in somebody’s mind, stretches the definition—
Simon Hoare
Will my hon. Friend allow to make this important point, knowing the seriousness with which he takes the Buxton memorial? I do not want to stray too far into the planning issues, but he will know that the Buxton memorial is listed. As a result of being a listed structure, it is a material planning consideration when any new proposal to set something alongside it is taken into consideration. The design and the layout are entirely set out to ensure that the memorial is subservient to the Buxton memorial, given both its heritage and listed status.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I do not dispute what the Minister has just said, but previously he quoted the planning inspector. The inspector did not see the comparison between the top three sites recommended by the consultants or the light-bulb moment when someone involved wrote to a member of the Government saying, “Have you thought about Victoria Tower Gardens for the memorial?”, not for the learning centre as well. The inspector did not see that, I have not seen it and the Minister has not seen it—it did not happen.
Simon Hoare
The planning inspector did the work that statute places upon them, to allow them to make a clear recommendation back to Government on how this application should be determined. The inspector saw all documentation that was germane to that appeal process and, of course, could have called for additional documentation if they so wished. I say gently and respectfully to my hon. Friend the Father of the House that I appreciate he does not like the outcome of the process and that he never will, but trying to cast a whole variety of assertions about how we arrived at the outcome, using questions about procedure and process, is not particularly helpful on an issue that clearly commands the support of the majority of the House. My advice to the House would be to tilt at windmills where they exist, of course, but where they do not exist, do not seek to create them.
I reiterate what I said in response to the invention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Setting aside the relevant section of the 1900 Act is necessary to bring forward, in land use and planning terms, the proposal that will eventually be before us. It does not—let me say that again, it does not—establish a precedent for any public body or Government Department, nor does it create a precedent that can be relied upon in law, at judicial review or elsewhere, for private sector developers or joint venture partners with the public sector to base their argument on the proposal. They will not be able to say, “Ah well, this portion of Victoria Tower Gardens was allowed for this purpose, therefore the Government have opened up a Pandora’s box.” To mix my analogies, this does not create a Trojan horse either. It is not a Trojan horse bearing a Pandora’s box. Any application would need to be judged on its merits. I want to make that abundantly clear, because I know that it is an important point for my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
Many questions have been raised around costs, which are not necessarily an issue for this Bill per se. I will not test the patience of the House by saying that the public sector is tried and tested and reliable, with its letters of contract and contract managers, but everything seems to overrun. I say politely to the House that, of course, costs have gone up over the past nine years, since this idea was first mooted. And, of course, costs will go up still further the longer that we delay.
May I make two philosophical points, Sir Roger? First, whoever is monitoring the delivery and the budget management on this will, with due and proper cognisance to the public finances, be as resolute as they can be to ensure that proper contractual obligations are followed and that budgets are met and not exceeded. One would expect to see a contingency on something such as this, and, indeed, those costs will ebb and flow as the cost of materials rise and fall, and the cost of labour changes and the like.
John Stevenson
Does the Minister not share my concerns about costs? It was £50 million in 2015. It is now estimated at £138 million. He has already said that the cost is likely to go up even further. Are we really writing a blank cheque for this scheme?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is right, and I will thank him properly on Third Reading, but may I just put on record at Committee stage my thanks to him for the work that he did chairing the Select Committee that looked into all of this? It did a thorough piece of work and I am hugely grateful to him and to colleagues who gave up so much of their time.
Yes, costs have gone up. I say this as somebody who has spent some considerable time looking at development costs in the private sector. Sometimes we can look at things in the public sector and say, “How on earth have they arrived at this particular figure?” But the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and others will keep a very clear view on that, and they are right to do so.
I say this to my hon. Friend: we want to commemorate and memorialise a horrible period in our world history, and ensure that education can be provided so that the mistakes of the past are hopefully not repeated in the future. I do not make this point to be flippant, but what cost can be put on that, given the scale and the seriousness of the task that we have in front of us?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend will clearly be aware that when the original proposals were put forward back in 2015-16, the design of the memorial and the education and learning centre had not been considered. Therefore the budget that was set then, before the design work was done, was clearly going to be inadequate for the type of facility that we are talking about. Given that we are in those circumstances, he is right that we will need to take a clear position on keeping to costs and keeping to the contract prices. Equally, there is the provision of private sector investment, to which my hon. Friend will no doubt refer. Does he agree with me that, in all these developments, until such time as spades go in the ground, investors are very unlikely to make contributions until they see something really happening.
Simon Hoare
In broad terms, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in the way that he sets out how these things will work. I am grateful to him for making his point in the way that he did.
Reference was made to some astronomical sum of money that has already been spent. I think I heard the figure £40 million. A total of £18 million has already been spent. I did not recognise the £40 million figure when it was uttered by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, so I checked with my officials. Nobody in the Department recognises that figure. He may want to write to me with the details, but it is not a figure that we recognise.
Nickie Aiken
The Minister makes an important point about how important it is to be able to have a moment of reflection. As I said, when I visited the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, I personally came out of the museum feeling that I needed somewhere to sit and reflect. Surely that is one reason why, as I and others have advocated, the Imperial War Museum is the right place for this memorial.
Simon Hoare
Let me say this to my hon. Friend: before coming to this place, I heard in my professional life—I have also heard this in my political life, as I am sure many of us have—“Do you know what, I think this is a fantastic idea. Gosh, I think it’s good, and I know an absolutely marvellous site, two and a half miles away from where you want to develop it. It would be so much better there. My goodness me, it would stand out absolutely beautifully, but don’t do it here. Don’t do it in my backyard.” It is my hon. Friend’s backyard, given that this is her constituency.
As I said earlier, there was a comparison of sites, and Victoria Tower Gardens was alighted upon. It is as close as one can get it to the heart of our democratic function. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said something that I thought was uncharacteristically Tory. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) had been in his place. I think he would have leapt to his feet, as much as anybody of his age can leap to their feet.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Simon Hoare
Let me finish this point, and then of course I will. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West dismissed in some Cromwellian way—I say this slightly tongue in cheek—the fact that the first bit of our parliamentary democracy that visitors would see is the House of peers, as if it were in some way a second-tier part of our bicameral system.
Simon Hoare
We will have no heckling from the SNP, thank you very much. It is where the throne sits. It is where the power of this place emanates from. Parliament and the Crown are interlinked.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Sir Roger. There are only two minutes left, and I had hoped to wind up the debate.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I just wanted to point out that I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) carefully, and thought that he made an absolutely brilliant speech.
Simon Hoare
I would have thanked my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but now I do not think that I will. My apologies—I thought that I had until six minutes past 7 to conclude, when I thought the Father of the House was due to wind up.
In that case, I draw my remarks to a close by urging right hon. and hon. colleagues to oppose the amendments, to move this important proposal through, to provide a suitable memorial and education centre, not to give way to the mob, and to stand up for the very best of what it means to be a British democrat.
Sir Peter Bottomley
If the figure spent already is £18 million and not £40 million, I accept that from the Minister, but I wonder whether it is actually higher than that. If people say that it is only 7.5% of the park gardens that will be used, it is 27% or more of the green space; those who use the 7.5% figure should revise that and ask who is giving them that advice. If people say that those who want to protect the gardens are in some way giving way to vandals, we are not. If people want to put things right, the Government should compare the present proposal with the best alternatives from the consultants and then have a proper consultation on the alternatives before the planning process starts again. I thank the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for saying that there should be a new planning application to the local authority; we will all agree with that.
Question put and negatived.
Simon Hoare
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I begin by thanking you and your fellow Deputy Speakers for chairing proceedings in Committee so expeditiously? I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, who took part in the debate, which was informed, sensible, probing and proper.
I thank the officials, who have worked diligently and with the efficiency and professionalism that anybody who has been a Minister now comes to expect, almost as a matter of course, from our wonderful civil service. I thank Paul Downie, Helen Jones, Ruby Hatton, Emma Morrison and Sally Sealey for all that they have done during the progress of the Bill. I particularly want to thank my private secretary, James Selby, for all that he has done to ensure that everything was in order.
It would be remiss of me not to thank Ed Balls and my noble Friend Lord Pickles for all that they have done to progress this idea. I also thank those hon. Members who so willingly and diligently gave of their time on the Bill Select Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who chaired it with his customary wit and professionalism, the hon. Members for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici). The House owes them all a debt of gratitude, as do the Government, and I repay that debt wholeheartedly and fully now.
I also thank those who gave of their time in preparing their case. Those opposed to the proposal, either in whole or in part, gave of their time to appear before the Committee, and in so doing they exercised the right to be heard without fear or favour and to be cross-examined fairly by elected democrats in this place. That is actually what all of this is about: the triumph of good over evil; of light over darkness.
The challenge, real as it was, that the cloud of Nazism cast over the continent of Europe, and that the horror the Nazis unleashed against people merely because of their faith and belief, came so close to extinguishing those precious lights of religious freedom and democratic institutions, as well as freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of thought.
The Holocaust memorial will stand as a testimony to that; a visible beacon to specific visitors as well as to casual passers-by. It will provide a time to pause and reflect, and to redouble our efforts and make again the solemn and precious vow: “Never again.”
Those who make a visit to the education centre—hopefully many of our young, but not exclusively our young—will come away with a renewed determination to learn from the horrors of the past, to understand in some clearer detail the depths that humankind can plummet against members of its own species, to make again that eternal vow of never again, and to learn from the mistakes of the past. The synergy of the education centre and the memorial, juxtaposed to each other and adjacent to this sovereign democratic Parliament, is so important, as is the setting in a busy part of the city of Westminster, with bustling traffic, pedestrians and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and others said in Committee, families and children enjoying the open space provided in central London that is Victoria Tower Gardens.
What could be more uplifting than the laughter of children at play? What could be a happier sight than families enjoying leisure time together? We will reflect, when we think of those scenes, of the families ripped apart by the Holocaust, of the children torn from their parents, and the husbands separated from wives, to go into a cattle truck of darkness, not knowing where one was going, why one was going or what in the name of all that is holy was happening, merely because of a sign of faith and a belief in Yahweh. I hope that all those who visit will, as they see children at play and happy families, think of how many families were destroyed.
The imperative to deliver this memorial remains ever pressing. Those who either were part of the Kindertransport —I think of Lord Dubs and others—or are of the generation who have contemporary memory, even from a very young age, are ageing and dying. It is so important, even with a small and dwindling cohort of the real-time survivors, that they can draw spiritual comfort from the fact that we do not forget, that we do remember and that we do recommit not to repeat.
I am grateful and the Government are grateful to the Opposition for their support during the Bill’s progress. The commitment was first made by the then Prime Minister, my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton way back in January 2015. The Bill has ebbed and flowed, but throughout those ebbs and flows, it has continued to enjoy cross-party support and support from the range of political parties of this place and elsewhere, different parts of civic society and a huge variety of our faith communities.
We acknowledge the concerns of those who think there is a better site and those who are concerned about the size of Victoria Tower Gardens, the impact the development may have on its character, or the precedent the Bill may create. I hope that I addressed those points as best I could in Committee, cognisant of the fact, which it is probably worthy of reminding ourselves of and which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) alluded to in his kind and supportive remarks towards the end of Committee, that while many of the concerns were totally legitimate, they were germane to the planning process, not the progress of the Bill.
I hope the House knows me well enough to take as gospel when I say that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and I have meticulously safeguarded clear lines of demarcation between progressing this Bill through the House of Commons and issues related to planning. I can say, hand on heart, that my hon. Friend and I have not exchanged a single word about the Bill, the site or the proposal. It is important to stress on Third Reading that we have clearly understood and respected throughout probity, understanding the difference in the various powers and the quasi-judicial function that sits behind the planning process.
As this is a hybrid Bill, the Select Committee heard from petitioners against the Bill and raised questions in its report about how Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen. We have discussed the cost of the project, and we take seriously the security implications. I thank the Committee for its report, and I hope that it welcomed my response, which was published recently. The security of our fellow citizens is one of our clear and primary duties. I have no doubt that there will be challenges in that arena, and dynamic solutions will be needed.
For absolute certainty, I echo the point made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy): the day must not come when the decisions of where and how we site our memorials is dictated to, the whip hand is given and the fiat is acknowledged from a group of unaccountable people who believe that those who shout loudest, waive the most banners, cause the most disruption and generate the most vandalism will prevail, because the state has neither the nerve nor the spine to stand up to them to say what we think is right, that we cherish it and that we will support it with all that we can. I make that commitment to the House and to the country today.
We will not be, nor should we be, dictated to by those who are fundamentally anti-democratic, who will not take no for an answer and will accept only victory and never defeat. We say to them, “Not here, not now, not ever.” To give ground on that would fundamentally change this place and our democratic functions. As we approach that most important of democratic functions on 4 July, it is a time for all of us who honourably wear the badge of democrats to stand up for our shared values, irrespective of political difference. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Lady for Bath wishes to intervene.
Simon Hoare
In that case, I will not let the hon. Lady intervene. [Interruption.] Who was that? My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) chunters from the Back Benches up until the end.
I think that we have lost sight of the fact that the proposals were considered at a detailed and independent planning inquiry. Set against the thorough work of the Committee and the time that has elapsed since 2015 when the proposal was first given voice, that fundamentally undermines the accusation of railroading by Government. The planning inspector considered a great deal of the evidence and looked in significant detail at matters such as the impact on Victoria Tower Gardens and, crucially, the Buxton Memorial and other existing memorials. The inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed the public benefits of the scheme. The design and the layout will take the right approach to respecting those existing monuments, particularly those which are listed. As I have said, the planning process is the correct way to consider these issues. It is not necessary—indeed, it would not be right—for debates on the Bill to become concerned with the minutia of planning matters.
Let me say again, on Third Reading, that the Bill deals with a very narrow point in the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That was the only issue that was found to be an obstacle to construction in Victoria Tower Gardens. Let me say again for the convenience of the House and for the certainty of those outside, the Bill creates no precedent in its alleviation of the clause within that Act. It sets no precedent elsewhere in Victoria Tower Gardens, or elsewhere.
We regret to recall that antisemitism is at record levels. The devastatingly clear speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), just yesterday put that into very clear view. A great grandson of the survivor Lily Ebert has said:
“When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses.”
We must do that to ensure that the pernicious weed of antisemitism can be grubbed up and that the stain that it is on some sections of society is removed.
Let me conclude as I began, by expressing my thanks to Members for their contribution on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading. I am grateful to the Clerks of the House, as always, for supporting the smooth running of the Bill, and to the Holocaust memorial team in my Department for their policy and Bill management support. I look forward to watching the Bill’s progress in the other place from this place. I commend it to the House.
Matthew Pennycook
I start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff and Library specialists for facilitating our debates on the Bill. I also put on record our thanks to all Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages. In particular, I offer our sincere thanks to those who served on the Select Committee for their work in overseeing the Bill’s petitioning period, and all those who made petitions against the Bill. Lastly, I put on record once again the thanks of Labour Members to all those who have been involved in advancing the proposed national memorial to the Holocaust, and Holocaust education more generally over recent years.
There are far too many to name individually, but I must make specific reference to the past and present members of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, including the right hon. Ed Balls and the right hon. Lord Eric Pickles, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and, of course, all the survivors of the Shoah who have not only campaigned for Holocaust education, but personally championed the project, including many who are sadly no longer with us.
Whatever differences might exist about precisely how we do so, we are united as a House in our commitment to remembering and learning from the Holocaust. It is imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were murdered and those who survived, and also as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked. A national memorial for remembrance of the Holocaust will stand as a permanent reminder of the horrors of the past, and the need for a democratic citizenry to remain ever vigilant and willing to act when the values that underpin a free and tolerant society are undermined or threatened, as well as encouraging reflection on the implications of those horrors for British government and society.
As was rightly mentioned by several hon. Members in Committee, in the nine years since the idea was first mooted, the case for such a monument and institution has become acute. Not only does anti-Jewish hatred continue to grow, but the remaining survivors of the Holocaust become ever fewer and ever frailer. We owe it to those who remain with us, and to future generations, to complete this vitally important project. With that concern at the forefront of our minds, we wholeheartedly support the passage of the Bill this evening.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I know that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) will need to get in, so I will try not to say as much as I had intended to.
I suggest that those who read this Third Reading debate, particularly those in another place who may be considering the Bill after the election, look at early-day motion 711, which spells out a number of the issues. I hope they will look with kindness on what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister, although there are other interpretations in respect of a number of issues.
Those who think there should be a memorial do not necessarily think the learning centre should be with it, while those who think there should be a learning centre do not think it should be squashed into what I described as a box under a memorial. There are many who think that the memorial could be better than the design that was not chosen in Ottawa, and I think it is a continuing embarrassment to the Government that the name of the person who was mentioned 13 times in the announcement of the winning design, Sir David Adjaye, is one that Ministers cannot say today.
I refer Members to the transcript of the Select Committee hearing on 5 February. Let me quote from paragraph 25:
“Many people will know Sir David Adjaye’s statement that ‘disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking’, but fewer people have heard the first part of that quote which is, ‘We have the opportunity to activate the entire site’”,
or what he had said previously:
“‘There has been a kind of picture painted that this is a public garden...It moves from being just a kind of public park to being much more ceremonial, much more kind of ordered’.”
I could also quote from paragraphs 26 and 27, but I will not do so. However, I will quote from paragraph 58, which states that if the learning centre is built,
“the playground is actually going to be reduced by 370 square metres. That is by 31%, not about 15% as noticed and remarked on by the inspector, or 10% in the figures given by Baroness Scott”
—the Minister in the House of Lords—
“in her 2023 parliamentary answer, or even zero reduction, as stated by David Adjaye, misleadingly”
—I would say “mistakenly”—
“to the inquiry. A 31% loss cannot possibly be said to be an enhancement or a reconfiguration of the playground. That is what Chris Pincher, then briefly Minister of State, said in support of his 2021 planning permission approval for this project.”
I refer Members to a book by Dorian Gerhold, “Victoria Tower Gardens”, which is subtitled “The prehistory, creation and planned destruction of a London park”. What we are talking about here is not particularly the memorial—having a good memorial would be better than having a bad memorial—but Victoria Tower Gardens. We have this legislation because the Government did not care about the 1900 Act.
I say to the Government that better faith would have been acknowledging that the Bill they were putting forward was hybrid, without resisting that fact to the examiners in both Houses. We now pass the Bill on the House of Lords, where I believe that people will look again, with fresh eyes and fair eyes, at how we can commemorate those who died but do the best we can to educate people so that what happened is less likely to happen again.
The idea that a particular memorial will stop it happening would be laughed at by those who are commemorating and mourning the Yazidi genocide 10 years ago, the Rwandan genocide, and one or two others I could name in other parts of the world. We have to do what is right.
Let me end by saying this. My first cousin once removed was one of the Westminster Medical School students who went into Bergen-Belsen and were able to saves the lives of about half the people who were existing there at the time. I have worked with people Holocaust survivors, and I believe that we do best by doing what is right in a good way, which is why I welcome what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said about the normal planning process. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said and as Christopher Katkowski has said, the normal planning process will happen.
Let us look forward—if the Bill is carried over—to a planning process in which an application is made to the local authority, and the local authority makes the decision. If the authority approves the application, there is no problem; if it does not, the Minister can call it in, but the Minister should not call it in before Westminster City Council has had a chance to see any revised proposals that the Government can now put forward.
Wera Hobhouse
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me enough time to say what I want to say. I hope that my colleagues will bear with me.
My mother’s family were victims of the Nazi regime’s persecution. My uncle was imprisoned in Dachau in 1936, but got out with the help of Scandinavian friends. All my mother’s half-brothers and sisters left Germany and, except for one, never returned. The persecution hung over my mother’s childhood every day and was never forgotten for the rest of her life. I was born much later, but I have always had a sense of shame and horror about the atrocities committed by the German state during the Holocaust. I owe it to the millions of Jews who perished at the hands of the country in which I was born to convert this shame into political activity. I will always stand up and make sure that such unspeakable cruelty does not happen again.
The education I received in Germany made sure that I never forgot the part that my birth country played in the suffering of millions. Although Britain has a different legacy, it remains important that future generations in this country are as just as informed and educated. One of the most significant lessons that we can learn is about ensuring that we identify the initial indicators of injustice. We must remember that the atrocities of the Holocaust began by creating communities of division and hatred. We must prevent the same prejudice from rearing its head today.
There is no place more suitable for the memorial than Victoria Tower Gardens. Having the memorial right at the heart of our democracy will serve as a constant reminder of the deadly consequences of fascism and racism. Members of Parliament and the public must be able to feel this history to ensure that the legacy of the Holocaust does not end up in the periphery of our minds. The rise in antisemitism in the UK is a reminder that we cannot be complacent when it comes to education on the world’s oldest hatred. Holocaust denial is becoming more prolific, with conspiracies spread on social media, and we must confront this.
At a time when the Holocaust moves from living memory into history, it is more important than ever that we protect the facts of the Holocaust by creating a learning centre alongside the memorial. As Holocaust survivors become ever fewer and frailer, it is vital that progress is made rapidly. Work has not started, despite the memorial being promised eight years ago. Our beloved survivors are in their 80s and 90s, and will not be with us forever. We have to preserve their testimonies and the memories of their families for future generations.
I recently met Susan Pollack MBE, a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor, to mark Yom HaShoah. Susan is an avid champion of Holocaust education, and still speaks in schools across the country to share her testimony. She is especially supportive of the campaign to build a Holocaust memorial and education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we owe it to her and survivors like her to make sure that she can see it open while she is with us. Sadly, the building of the memorial and learning centre has been beset by delays. It is important to make sure that local voices are heard, but we politicians must always consider a balance of interests. If we sincerely believe in the importance of this project, we must get on with it now and not wait any longer.
Sir Ben Helfgott MBE, who passed away last year, will never be able visit the site. He had looked forward to taking his family to the memorial and education centre. As Sir Ben said before his passing, the memorial will
“ensure that the memory of the six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators are never forgotten, and that my story, and the story of my fellow survivors can continue to be told forever.”
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I listened very carefully to the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis). I am not a Jew and I do not represent a constituency with a big Jewish community, and I note his point about the small number of Jews in our country. However, I like to know my history, and I know that my constituents across Winchester and Chandler’s Ford do too, so I have followed the progress of this Bill closely.
A couple of years ago, the then Prince of Wales came to Winchester to unveil the statue of Licoricia, a famous Jewish figure from Winchester, and her son Asher. It stands in Jewry Street in the heart of our city as a permanent reminder of what happened. To know it, and therefore to know the memorial we are discussing today, which I support, is to never forget. I was not intending to speak today, but I have been moved by some of the speeches that I have heard, including the last one, and I think that to have this memorial and this centre is to never forget. Credit to Lord Cameron for starting this. I would had never have been in this House without said Lord Cameron.
I have listened to the various other speeches—including from the Father of the House, whom I respect greatly—and I am tempted to say that this site is not perfect. But I also hear what the Minister says about the synergy of this memorial being adjacent to this amazing Palace of Westminster, and I think that that is the point. I agree with the Father of the House on the planning procedure, which obviously must be done properly, and I know that it will be. I support this Bill and I have followed it closely as it is gone through the House.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that there are some of us who feel absolutely as passionately as he and every other colleague in this House about what happened in the Holocaust but who do not believe that this is necessarily the best place to site such a memorial? Does he agree that it is now for their lordships to look really closely at whether the points made by the Father of the House and others of us who supported new clause 1 should be looked at carefully before any final decision is reached?
Steve Brine
Yes. The one thing I know from my 14 years and counting in this House is that their lordships look at everything very carefully. I hear my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that I do agree, for the reasons that I have just given. As the Minister said, the synergy of this memorial being adjacent to this Palace of Westminster is the point, so if not here, where? This is a good place for it, and that is why I support it.
There is another reason why I support it. I always think that in life you can never quote C. S. Lewis too often, and my favourite quote from C. S. Lewis is:
“You can’t go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending.”
Clearly we cannot go back and change what happened, but we can change the ending and make sure that people remember where we have come from.
As this could well be my final contribution in this place, I want to say thank you to the people of Winchester and Chandler’s Ford for giving me four in a row; thank you to my team, now and past; and of course thank you to Susie, my wife, and Emily and William, my children, for allowing me to do this. I will close by saying that I have always tried to hold in my heart in this place something that I was taught by my grandfather and then by my parents: it is nice to be important—and there are many people in this place who are far more important than me—but I think it is far more important to be nice.
Kirsten Oswald
I am glad to be able to contribute today on behalf of my party on this important Bill, albeit that the Bill seeks specifically to build in London, far from my own constituency and far from Scotland. It is also, significantly, a planning-related issue. For both those reasons, I would usually rule myself out of contributing. However, the principle of having this Holocaust memorial matters. The opportunity to visit the memorial and the importance of diverse voices in support and the broadest range of testimony being shared are relevant to us all.
It is fair to say that this place has taken its time to get where we are now. My overwhelming feeling is that as the 80th anniversary of the Holocaust is within sight, it is time to do this. It is time to get on with it. I appreciate that there are some differences on the location. I understand and sympathise with the various concerns and positions, but it seems to me that we can either keep going round in circles or agree that it is time to move forward. I favour the latter approach. We just need to do it.
I was fortunate recently to hear the Holocaust survivor Susan Pollack speak in this place at a Yom HaShoah event. She is a remarkable woman. I have also been fortunate to hear other survivors, including constituents, whose testimonies made such a marked difference to the lives of others. That privilege of hearing directly from Holocaust survivors is, of course, now becoming less and less possible, so we need to find ways to preserve their testimonies and to make sure that their stories are captured and told to those who come after us. We also know that genocides did not end with the Holocaust, which in itself should be a motivator to move forward with this Bill. That is why I believe the plan to make sure there is an education centre, as well as a memorial, is so vital.
I am in awe of the people, including survivors and their families, who work so hard to educate others. I want to mention my constituent Geraldine Shenkin, whose lovely mum, Marianne Grant, was held in no fewer than three concentration camps but none the less showed such courage. She made such striking and beautiful art, which will convey the horror of the Holocaust for generations to come. I am very fortunate to have been given a copy of the book of Marianne’s art, which is hugely evocative and an important part of the history of the Holocaust, the like of which we should see on display as widely as possible to ensure there is a clear understanding of the realities of what happened.
I am also in awe of my constituent Steven Anson, whose father Martin Anson’s story is told so powerfully through the Gathering the Voices initiative, and my late constituents Ingrid and Henry Wuga, both arrivals from the Kindertransport who made such an impact on my local community and across Scotland in their retirement as they dedicated themselves to speaking to our young people about their experiences. They changed countless lives. Their testimony, their telling the truth of the Holocaust, has impacted thousands of people. We lost Henry Wuga recently, shortly after his 100th birthday. It would be a great shame if the wisdom and dedication he demonstrated was not part of the new memorial and education centre, and I sincerely hope that his voice and the others I mentioned are among the many Scottish voices that this memorial would benefit from amplifying.
I know I am very lucky to have had these conversations, to have heard these stories and to have visited places including Yad Vashem, and I appreciate the impact it has had on me. But what about those who have not had that opportunity? What about those in future years who will need to know the reality of the Holocaust, but who will no longer have those brave survivors to hear from? Both the memorial and the education centre are vital in that regard.
We are also fortunate to have organisations and projects, including the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust led by the remarkable Olivia Marks-Woldman—my constituent Kirsty Robson does important work there, too—and the Holocaust Educational Trust, where Karen Pollock works tirelessly. There is also Gathering the Voices and Vision Schools Scotland. I could go on about the ethos that shines through all their work. The new memorial and education centre will be in a position to deliver and learn from that great work. They will be able to contribute to each other’s work, which is increasingly important in an increasingly polarised world—I spoke earlier about the shocking spike in antisemitic incidents—and the plans to move things forward are very welcome.
All of that is why this Holocaust memorial and education centre needs to be built, and it is why we need to give it the profile and broadest possible support that it merits. It is also why we just need to get on with it.
Bob Blackman
In the short time available, we should remember that the Holocaust represents the darkest hour in human history, when 6 million Jewish people were systematically murdered by the Nazis. Above all else, the thing that impresses me about the survivors is their lack of bitterness. It would be very easy for them to be very bitter and very angry about what happened, but they give their thoughts and their education freely and without bitterness. That is the key point. As the survivors pass away, we must ensure that we capture their testimony so that it is always available.
I regret that, when I was at school, we had no education on the Holocaust. Our generation was largely ignorant. The Jewish population of this country largely did not want to talk about what had happened for fear of not being believed. Education is vital. I thank the Minister and the successive Ministers who have taken this Bill through the House to enable us to have a learning centre and memorial. I also thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and all those wonderful bodies that have agitated for this to happen, and who deliver education and learning every single day. On a cross-party basis, the House can bless this Bill as we enable it to get on the statute books; I am sure the House of Lords will bless it as well. We want to ensure that it becomes a lasting memorial and an education for young people, so that we never forget what happened during the second world war.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on his tour de force in taking the Bill through today. In what has not been an easy debate, he has demonstrated his skills in handling colleagues and has done extremely well. I am also grateful for his kind remarks about me and others who are leaving this place this week.
In what will be my final contribution after 19 years on these Benches, it is fitting to be able to speak on such a significant topic, reflecting as it does what has happened over the last 79 years, since we were last at war in Europe. The horrors that would be commemorated by this memorial—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—there will be an opportunity to return to this on the carry-over motion later, if he wishes to do so. I accept the fact that his speech has been interrupted, and that will not count against him if he seeks to catch our eye again.
Business of the House
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
With permission, I will make a short business statement.
Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am sure the House will understand that discussions continue on the business ahead of the Dissolution of this Parliament. With that in mind, tomorrow’s business will include consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The House will then be asked to await any Lords messages. The House will also be asked to agree to sit on Friday 24 May. Subject to the progress of business, Parliament is expected to prorogue on Friday 24 May. I will make a further business statement to update the House tomorrow morning.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we proceed, the Leader of the House has made it plain that she will make a further business statement tomorrow morning. Of course, I will take a contribution from the Opposition spokesperson, but this is a very narrow statement indeed. I do not expect a business questions session after this.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House for that emergency business statement—I think many across the country will thank her too, although I am not sure many on the Government Benches will—that Parliament will be dissolved for a general election. The country has been crying out for change, and this election means that people can finally vote for it. It is a chance to change this chaotic, weak and incompetent Conservative Government, who have crashed our economy, hit working people with sky-high mortgages and left the NHS and public services in crisis. Labour is ready to deliver that change, and change this country for the better.
With Parliament prorogued on Friday, can the Leader of the House tell us which Bills will be brought forward for wash-up this week? There are some Bills that we support that could receive Royal Assent, should the Government choose to do so. With so little time remaining, it seems unlikely that many of their flagship Bills will now become law. What the Leader of the House and her Government seem to be saying today is that the vast majority of the King’s Speech programme will not be realised, including important issues such as the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal, committed to just this week. I want to reiterate that Labour stands ready to do whatever is necessary to pass the Victims and Prisoners Bill with these important amendments this week. I look forward to what may be our final business questions tomorrow.
Penny Mordaunt
As the shadow Leader of the House will know, discussions are ongoing through the usual channels. I thank her for her offer of help on these important Bills. Certainly, we would like our legislative programme to get through and if the Opposition were minded to assist us on those important Bills, I am sure that could be achieved.
I will be making a further business statement tomorrow morning. I reassure people who will be affected by, for example, the infected blood issue that we will make that statement, and the sentiments that were expressed at this Dispatch Box earlier this week still stand. I think that all parties want that and other important legislation to get through. The Whips are discussing these matters and I will update the House tomorrow morning. I also look forward to our exchange tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Brine has indicated that he wishes to raise a question that is probably relevant to a number of Members. I will call Mr Brine, but after that I will call these proceedings to a close on the understanding that a statement will be made tomorrow.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Other than providing time for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill—she knows that matters greatly to me and that there is widespread support for it across the House, including from both Front Benches—does the Leader of the House plan to allow time for Members who are retiring from the House to make “matters to be raised before the Dissolution” speeches?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter as it will be a concern to many Members on all sides of the House. The usual channels are aware of hon. Members’ wish to do that and I hope to be able to update the House tomorrow.
Business of the House
Business of the House (Today)
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
Business without Debate
Petitions
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I rise to present a petition about transport infrastructure in Somerset. Some 655 people have signed a similar petition to this, calling for the Department for Transport to urgently help the Langport Transport Group to move forward the project to deliver a new train station in the Somerton and Langport area. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to progress the project for a new station in Somerton/Langport.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Somerton and Frome,
Declares that the public transport infrastructure in Somerset is not up to the necessary standard; further declares that the poor infrastructure limits economic growth, education, employment and leisure opportunities for people living in Somerset; further notes that Langport Transport Group and Somerset Council have been waiting since July 2022 for a Government response to plans submitted for a new train station for Somerton/Langport; and further declares that the Department for Transport should urgently help the Group move this forward to deliver a new train station in the Somerton/Langport area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to progress the project for a new station in Somerton/Langport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002994]
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of North Devon resident Ella Wakley, in which she asks the House of Commons to urge the Government to allow blue badge holders with personal electric vehicles, such as e-scooters, to be allowed on public land for accessibility purposes. I have met Ella and her parents in North Devon and in Westminster and have raised her case with multiple Ministers in various Departments. I recognise that this is a multifaceted issue, but I hope that by raising her case directly today, we can start taking steps to adjust regulations for blue badge holders so that they can go through life with freedom and independence, which can often be even more of a challenge in rural areas.
Over 1,500 people have signed Ella’s online petition, and the petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure accessibility for blue badge holders to use personal electric vehicles”
—such as e-scooters—
“on public land.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Ella Wakley,
Declares that blue badge holders with personal electric vehicles, such as e-scooters should be allowed on public land for accessibility purposes; and further that currently disabled people risk being fined and getting penalty points, even though personal electric vehicles are their only mode of independent transport.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure accessibility for blue badge holders to use personal electric vehicles on public land.
And the petitioners remain etc
[P002995]
Funding for Local Councils
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for attending this evening and for his response. I appreciate that it has been a bit of an unusual day, so I will not be imploring him to make all sorts of commitments from the Dispatch Box, given the unusual circumstances in which we find ourselves. I would like to raise some important matters. If I am lucky or privileged enough to be returned to this place by the constituents of North Shropshire, I will continue to campaign on these issues on their behalf.
Many hon. Members across the House have raised the issue of the crisis in local government funding in recent months. I wish to highlight some of the specific challenges faced by rural councils, and in particular by my own council of Shropshire, which deals with the area of North Shropshire.
Most people’s experience of government is local, as we know. They drive on the roads every day, so they experience the potholes and the conditions of the roads. They use the waste disposal services, whether that is having their bins collected or taking them to a recycling centre. They might use a swimming pool. They might have a friend, relative or loved one in need of social care, or they might need it themselves. They might have a child in a local authority-maintained school. Therefore, local government is most people’s experience of government, and it is the backbone of our communities.
Since 2016, councils have seen a £5.25 billion real-terms cut in the funding they receive from central Government, and that is driving deep inequality in our communities and impacting on people’s perception of the value they receive from the tax they pay. Shropshire Council had to find £50 million of cuts in the financial year that just ended, and it is saying that it will need to make a further £60 million of cuts in the coming year. That is an enormous cut and it will affect everyone in North Shropshire, but it will affect vulnerable people the most, and that is my area of concern.
Now why is this? It is very tempting to stand here and say that Shropshire is Conservative-run, which is why it is in so much trouble, but although I believe that Liberal Democrats would do a better job, the reality is that the council spends around 85% of its budget on social care. That is more than the average of councils across the country, which spend about two thirds of their budget trying to meet adult and child social care costs. It means that, in Shropshire, for every pound that we give to the council for services, only 15p is spent on other things, whether statutory provisions such as libraries, or other big-ticket items, such as highways, and it really is not enough money.
The problem is that the quality of social care is being affected as well. Earlier last year, I met an elderly couple in Ellesmere, who have loved and cared for their disabled daughter all of her lives. When she became ill and went into hospital, they were unable to continue that level of care when she was discharged because of their own health problems, so they needed a more supportive arrangement. The council found a sheltered flat for their daughter. They paid for new carpets and were excited about her having that new arrangement. But just two weeks before she was due to move in, the flat was withdrawn because it was considered to be too expensive, causing a huge amount of trauma and concern about the money that they had invested in the flat. We were able to reverse that decision in that case, but they are far from the only family in that situation. In fact, half a million people in England are desperate for social care.
The reality is that Shropshire Council cannot outrun the growing demand for social care. It might make the £60 million of cuts this year and avoid a section 114 notice this time around, but will it—or indeed any other administration—be able to do that in future? Given the increasing level of demand, I think that any administration will struggle to achieve that.
Every single person in Shropshire has seen, and will see, an increase in their council tax, and what they are getting in return is reduced services. All the while, adult social care need is not being met, as the Public Accounts Committee recently confirmed. I strongly suspect that is because we are trying to fund social care through council tax, which is a regressive, broken tax that goes nowhere near matching the cost of the service that we are trying to deliver with a sensible revenue stream to fund it. I do not think that we will fix the problem unless we totally revisit how we fund social care, and indeed how we collect council tax.
It is not just people receiving social care who are feeling the brunt of the cuts; it is all the services that we expect to receive. Last month, our council announced the closure of two of the five recycling centres in Shropshire, two of which are in my constituency. If either of those close, some of my constituents will have a 45-minute drive to a recycling centre. I am sure that they will make that drive. We are all dependent on our cars—we do not have great bus services—and I am sure that law-abiding citizens will do their best to get their refuse to a tip that is further away, but North Shropshire is a beautiful rural constituency with miles and miles of remote isolated roads, and it is at high risk from fly-tippers. People are genuinely concerned that the beautiful countryside will be ruined by that criminal activity, and it will cost the council even more to clean it up. We seem to be taking with one hand and spending huge amounts of money with the other, which might not have the desired outcome.
There is a similar story on special educational needs and disability. Local authorities obviously have to pay for transport for SEND pupils, and the rationing of that transport is becoming a huge problem for some of my constituents. I was contacted by Shane and Brad, the foster parents of Toby, an 18-year-old with special educational needs. He moved from Norfolk to Shropshire five months ago on a special guardianship arrangement, with the understanding that his education, health and care plan would be transferred and the provision would continue. Not only can they not afford to transport him around to wherever specialist place might be available; but because he is over 16, they have not been able to find a specialist place, so poor old Toby has not been to school since he moved to Shropshire five months ago.
The council do not have the resources to solve this problem. There are not enough specialist teachers or educational psychologists, or enough specialist places in state schools. As a result, young people face a postcode lottery when it comes to funding to support their EHCP. In rural areas, transport for children with special needs is particularly problematic because they have to be transported over larger distances at greater cost. Again, the council is not depriving those people through malice or a lack of care; it simply does not have the funding to meet the demand.
Perhaps less seriously—although this still has a huge impact—there is a problem with leisure facilities. Whitchurch in my constituency has recently lost not only the town’s only performance space but its registry office, driving test centre and library, as well as rooms that community groups can hire out for regular use, because the civic centre has reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in its roof. We would think that the council would be able to fix the problem, and find some money to repair the roof, but that is not the case. The council cannot afford the interest payments and has said that the cost is prohibitive. It is now trying to find alternatives, which will ultimately lead to a lesser space. That is a problem for residents who enjoy the use of those facilities, but it also has a huge economic impact on the town centre, with businesses already reporting to me that they have reduced footfall. That is of great concern.
There is a real problem with libraries. A third of libraries have closed in the past 10 years, despite libraries being a statutory service. Because the comprehensive and efficient library service that is required is not defined, lots of councils are cutting libraries and their availability. Again, that is driving deep inequality. The National Literacy Trust has found that children who read at their expected age level are twice as likely to be library users as not to be. If we want to level up, it is really important that we give children from all backgrounds the opportunity to read, access a library, and make the most of their education.
I will move on to public transport, which I have talked about a lot in this place. Shropshire has a particularly poor public transport network and has lost the most miles of bus services anywhere in England since 2015, with 63% fewer miles being completed by bus than in 2015. That is a drastic decrease, especially compared with places such as Milton Keynes, where bus miles have increased. There is definitely a way of doing it if we have the funding right.
Poor public transport is a problem for the economy because we cannot transport workers around, which gives us a labour supply issue. It is a problem for young people trying to access college courses because they do not know whether their bus service will be there next year, and it is a problem for older people who may be trying to access the hospital because to get there by taxi is unaffordable.
Again, given that we are about to embark on a general election, this is possibly not the right moment to implore the Minister to allow the franchising of bus services, but I put on record that if councils could fund those services, it would have a huge economic regenerative impact. It would be great to see buses be a priority for all the parties in the general election, because they have such a good impact on increasing labour supply and on enabling people of all ages and all income levels to live, work and get about the community.
In conclusion, I want to make the point that rural areas are struggling perhaps more than urban areas, despite the fact that we sometimes assess urban deprivation as worse than rural deprivation. It is certainly more visible, but the central Government funding for local councils has lost touch with reality on the cost of delivering those services, and indeed to some extent on the level of need. When we look at the impact on people, whether it is social care or special educational needs provision, swimming pools or libraries or recycling centres, all those things are suffering and they all cost more to deliver in a rural area.
I want to state this case again to all political parties, because we do not know who will be sitting in the Minister’s seat after the general election: sorting out the fair funding formula is very important. Delivering in rural areas is essential to regenerating the economy in those areas. One fifth of the population live in rural areas. They are underperforming economically and we need to ensure that local councils have the funding they need to provide regeneration and quality of life for those well-deserving people who live in those beautiful parts of Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for instigating this debate. I am only sad not to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place—this may be the final Adjournment debate of the Session, and I feel personally hurt that he has not been here to intervene and to give Strangford’s take on Shropshire. However, I am sure he is somewhere thinking of us and kicking himself that he is not here.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire was right to say that all politics is local. She is also right to echo something that I have said on many occasions: most people’s exposure in our communities is to the facilities and services provided by local councils for their communities. We agree absolutely on that. I want to place on the record my thanks to all the councillors and officers of Shropshire Council, and indeed to local government across the country, for all that they do and strive to do. They get out of bed in the morning to achieve for their communities, to deliver change, to make place and to improve opportunities and living.
The hon. Lady referred specifically to libraries. Libraries is a topic very close to my heart, both as a keen reader and, as a child, an avid attender of our local library. Dorset Council has done the most phenomenal work with its libraries in similarly challenging circumstances, being a rural council and the like. I am pretty certain that should her officers in Shropshire reach out to those in Dorset, they would be happy to provide some advice or guidance—call it what you will—on safeguarding the future delivery of those important services.
The hon. Lady is right that I have acknowledged—the Government have acknowledged—the challenging financial circumstances of local government, brought about in whole, or certainly in very great part, by pressures on adult social care, special educational needs and disabilities, and home-to-school transport. Around about 80% of an upper-tier council’s budget is spent on 10% to 15% of its population. We just have to watch that balance to ensure that council tax payers feel that they are getting something for their money. As she will know, I have not committed on behalf of the Government to a root-and-branch review of the local government funding formula, because my assessment is that it is all but broken—an analogue proposal for a digital age that needs reworking from the bottom up. I have always asked for certainty and clarity from the local government sector, and as a Government, we have always been keen to deliver them. In the next Parliament, they could best be delivered by having, in the short term, a multi-year settlement to give that security, and then by Parliament using that time—and I cannot overstate the value that I see in this—to provide a cross-party sustainable solution for delivering on these issues.
I do not say this flippantly, because I have thought about it, but the hon. Lady has spoken in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall about local government finance and local government issues more generally, and I have answered on many occasions her questions and those of Labour Members, and it suddenly struck me early this morning—I do not know why it struck me then—that although they may identify a problem, I have yet to hear their solution. I have yet to hear the genesis of an idea from the Opposition parties. The Labour party has had 14 years to think about it, and the hon. Lady’s party has had the past nine years, but there is absolutely no idea. She told us—I jotted down her words contemporaneously —that we need to give consideration to
“how we fund social care, and indeed how we collect council tax.”
I agree with her, but she gave no suggested solution to those pressing problems. I find that very strange given that Opposition parties really have nothing else to do than beaver away on policy to put before the electorate in just a few weeks’ time.
Although the hon. Lady was right to point out that she has no idea, and no more do I, of what the result of the election will be, it is very much my hope that I may be standing at the Government Dispatch Box setting out the plans to which we have committed on the fundamental review and rewriting of local government finance. I shall leave that to the electorate of North Dorset to decide, and I hope that they put their faith and trust in me, as they have done on the past several occasions.
Let me turn briefly to some of the figures. I have said them so many times now that I get slightly bored of them, but I think it worthwhile to read them into the record. The local government finance settlement for 2024-25 makes available up to £64.7 billion—an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion, or 7.5% in cash terms, compared with 2023-24. We listened to the views of local government, and many colleagues from across the House, including the hon. Lady, who knows how grateful I was that she took part in the parliamentary level of the consultation that I undertook, which was the highest level of take-up that a Minister has delivered. As a result of listening to what we heard, the Government announced additional measures for local authorities in England worth a further £600 million, including £500 million of new funding for councils with responsibility for adult and children’s social care.
What does that represent as far as the hon. Lady’s council is concerned? The settlement represents an increase in core spending power of up to £25.1 million, or 8%, making available a whopping total of £340.2 million in 2024-25. That is not small beer for Shropshire Council. I also recognise, as the hon. Lady does, the additional cost pressures and challenges of delivering quality services in a rural environment with a sparse population and longer travel times, which is why we have set such enormous store by the rural services delivery grant. As she knows, because Shropshire ranks within the top 25 sparsely populated areas in England, her council received an additional £9 million through the RSDG for 2024-25 on top of the other moneys I have spoken of, in order to assist with the importance and the difficulties of serving dispersed populations.
Is it enough—is it ever enough? Who knows? We always need more. It is important that every year, councils take the opportunity to learn from others, peer review, and engage the Local Government Association to help them modernise and seek savings through shared services and other initiatives. I know that many councils do that, but not all do. As we know, Shropshire went unitary and gleaned a huge amount of financial benefit from so doing, as did my council area of Dorset. There are things that local authorities can be doing to reduce expenditure and to use the money from the savings they make to continue to deliver those services that, increasingly, people look to their local council to deliver.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for raising this issue. She and I share many things, including a concern for making sure that our rural areas are well represented in this place. I will continue to do that on behalf of my constituents; I hope the hon. Lady will not take it ill if I say that I hope my party will represent North Shropshire after the general election, but it has been a personal pleasure to work alongside her over these past several months since I have been dealing with local government. She has brought a lot of engagement to the process. I am just sorry that her party has not brought forward any ideas, but let us share those ideas cross-party in the next Parliament to ensure we have a robust settlement rubric that will meet demands: one that will be cost-effective and affordable, but will continue to deliver the quality of public services that so many in our communities rely upon and rightly deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
UNRWA funding
Prison Media Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Prison Media Bill 2023-24 View all Prison Media Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on all clauses and amendments.
Clause 1
Unauthorised photograph or sound-recording of the inside of a prison
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out from “(1),” to end of line 7 and insert “for the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
“(aa) takes a photograph of the inside of a prison from outside the prison, or””.
This amendment modifies the amendments to section 40D of the Prison Act 1952 made by clause 1 so they no longer make it an offence to make a sound-recording of the inside of a prison from the outside of a prison (but they still make it an offence to take a photograph of the inside of a prison from the outside of a prison).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendments 3 to 10.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendments 11 to 19.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Unauthorised photographs, films and sound recordings of prisons and prison workers: Scotland.
New clause 2—Unauthorised photograph or sound-recording of the inside of a prison: Northern Ireland.
New clause 3—Unauthorised photographs and sound-recordings of prisons and prison workers: Northern Ireland.
Katherine Fletcher
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, for the very first time and to propose legislation to the House. Let’s get to it.
The Prison Media Bill tackles the serious, real-world harm caused by photos, videos and other media created of the inside of prisons and of prison staff and uploaded to social media and websites. We have seen that content used to intimidate and harass victims of crime, prison workers and their families, causing significant distress, and to facilitate continued criminality in both prisons and the community, including drug supply, violence and gang feuds. Given the severe consequences for the safety and wellbeing of victims of crime and prison staff, it is unacceptable that such prison content should be allowed to remain online.
This important Bill will strengthen section 40D of the Prison Act 1952 to ensure the removal of such photos and videos from online platforms and to reduce their harms. It will also discourage individuals from making and uploading the content in the first place, updating legislation passed in the 1950s—very much in the absence of modern social media. The Bill will achieve that by closing existing loopholes, making the uploading of unauthorised prison content illegal regardless of whether it has been uploaded from the prison or the community. It will also make it clear beyond doubt that it is illegal to film the inside of a prison from the outside, for example by drone. Importantly, it will also make it illegal to film staff on prison land.
I am grateful for the service of the prison officers who work in the two prisons in the South Ribble constituency, HMP Garth and HMP Wymott. They do a caring and brave job, day after day. The important measures in the Bill will protect their right not to be intimidated or harassed while going to work and will stop that activity, especially where it facilitates continued criminality. Together, those changes will provide social media companies with the clarity they need that such content has been unlawfully uploaded and must therefore be removed.
With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses in the Bill, as well as the amendments and new clause 1.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend goes into the detail, she mentioned section 40D of the Prison Act 1952, which already contains provisions to prohibit mobile phones from being allowed inside prisons. Perhaps we should make it clear that it is already illegal to have a mobile phone there. Am I right in understanding that the Bill will mean that anybody who is on prison grounds or grounds surrounding a prison who films is also committing a criminal act and can be sentenced in a magistrates court or Crown court?
Katherine Fletcher
As usual, and as his service as a magistrate shows, my hon. Friend is quite right. It is illegal to have a mobile phone in a prison estate at the moment, and it is potentially punishable with an additional two years of sentence. The Bill strikes the right balance between preventing criminality, in terms of filming prison officers and providing protections, which I will turn to, for people who happen to live close to a prison, such as those in Ulnes Walton.
We are aware that, while it is illegal to have a phone in prison—from legislation from the 1950s, prior to the social media age—it does happen occasionally, and there is a worrying increase in media being uploaded outside of the prison estate by members of the community for various nefarious means, which I have set out. The figures in the briefing pack show that there have been about 2,000 such incidents in the last three years, so it is important that we have the legislative powers to prevent it.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
In terms of the people affected, my hon. Friend has mentioned the prison officers and people living near the prisons, but there are also people such as the family of my constituent Christie Harnett, who was the victim of knife crime and sadly murdered by a gang. The protagonists are now locked away, but they recently put something out on social media. The distress that that causes to the family is just off the scale. My understanding is that this Bill should help to prevent those sorts of things, which cause distress to families who have already suffered unimaginably.
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend—very good friend —is absolutely correct. I thank him for the work he does on behalf of his constituents day in, day out. Sedgefield, I dare say, has never had a better Member of Parliament, or certainly not a more community-engaged one.
My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is exactly why we are bringing forward these measures: to make sure that the victims of crime and their families do not see content made with nefarious intentions coming out of prisons and—I will come to this—to make it absolutely clear to social media companies that this stuff is illegal and that, as part of their terms of service, their teams can get it taken down.
May I also pass my regards to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s family? It does sound like a difficult time, and I hope that they can see that we are taking action to prevent such distress in future.
Let me turn to clause 1—unauthorised photograph or sound-recording of the inside of a prison—and amendments 1 and 2. The clause makes minor modifications to the wording of section 40D of the Prison Act 1952 to put beyond doubt the illegality of creating unauthorised media of the inside of a prison from the outside, including via drones. As drafted, the Prison Act 1952 could be interpreted as not applying to media created by drones from above prisons. Such videos quite clearly present a security risk, showing both the lay-out of the prison buildings in detail and staff and prisoner movements, and could facilitate criminals in smuggling in drugs or weapons, or even in planning or facilitating an escape.
To ensure consistency between fines for offences under the existing and new wording, clause 1 also removes the statutory minimum limit for fines on summary conviction—fines are an important point that we will return to later. That change ensures that these offences, as previously, can be punished by a fine of any amount, as well as a prison sentence of up to two years, to reflect the seriousness of recording this content and the harm that it poses.
Ahead of today’s sitting, I tabled two amendments to clause 1 to avoid criminalising behaviour that it is not necessary or appropriate to criminalise, and to ensure consistency within the existing offences. Amendment 1 will exclude sound recordings from the offence in section 40D(1) of the 1952 Act of creating and uploading content of the inside of a prison from the outside. This change is important to avoid criminalising people who live close to a prison capturing sounds from the prison that can be overheard from their properties.
For example, my community of Ulnes Walton is adjacent to HMP Garth and HMP Wymott. We cannot criminalise people videoing a fun family event—perhaps a barbecue in the garden—who happen to record sounds from the prison. This is an important protection, as it would not be appropriate to include that type of situation in the offence. Such sound recordings do not present the same security risks as videos and photographs taken of the inside of a prison from the outside.
Amendment 2 specifies that a sound recording made of sounds transmitted from inside the prison, or a photograph taken of images transmitted from inside the prison, will be treated as one made or taken inside the prison. This will ensure that the recording of a prison audio or video call made by individuals receiving them on the outside will still be an offence under section 40D(1)(a) of the 1952 Act. These recordings can cause harm by being used to threaten or harass victims or people in the community.
Amendment 2 will also provide a defence for someone to show that they did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that a photograph or video taken from outside a prison was of the inside of a prison. The purpose of amendment 2 is to avoid criminalising people who unintentionally create or upload photographs or videos of the inside of a prison taken from the outside. Real-world examples could be dashcam footage from a car driving past the Ulnes Walton road that inadvertently captures the inside of an open prison or a person taking a photo from a plane and inadvertently capturing the inside of a prison from above. We do not want to criminalise non-problematic behaviour. Like amendment 1, amendment 2 will make the scope of the new offences narrower and ensure that legitimate behaviour outside the policy intention of the offences is not unintentionally criminalised.
I turn now to clause 2 and amendments 3 to 10, which relate to unauthorised photographs and sound recordings of prisons and prison workers. Clause 2 will introduce a new offence of creating unauthorised media of prison workers on prison land. This is intended to crack down on so-called audit videos and the threats they pose to prison staff and security. The threat of targeting and harassment is present for everyone working in prisons, so clause 2 will apply to recordings of prison officers, custody officers in private prisons, legal visitors, inspectors, delivery drivers, building contractors, providers of healthcare and education and, importantly, volunteers, who do fantastic work in our communities and who I want to personally thank on the record.
Clause 2 defines prison land as any area connected with the provision, running or management of a prison. That includes land immediately surrounding the prison walls and land used for car parking, storage or accommodating staff. The clause also specifies that the new offence of creating unauthorised media of prison workers on prison land must be intentional. This would exclude instances of filming from a property near to a prison or filming the exterior of a prison and unintentionally capturing media of prison workers.
Clause 2 will make the unauthorised uploading of photos or videos from inside of a prison, or of prison workers on prison land, an offence, regardless of whether the media was uploaded from—this is the crucial bit—within the prison or within the community. This will close the loophole whereby it is not currently an offence for someone outside a prison to upload media they have been sent by someone in prison that was created unlawfully. This measure is designed to provide social media companies with helpful clarity about this content being illegally uploaded, and they will be required to remove it under their terms of service.
Paul Howell
Just before I get to the point of my intervention, I have made an awful error and would like to correct the record. I came into this Bill Committee thinking about Christie Harnett, a girl who died from suicide because of the Tees Valley mental health trust problems. I inadvertently used her name, when the constituent I actually wanted to refer to earlier was Jack Woodley and his mother Zoey McGill.
To the point of my intervention, will these measures clarify for people—such as those at the Northern Echo, who are running a great campaign against knife crime, which is the cause of this issue—what they can and cannot put into the media, while still enabling them to get at those committing knife crime?
Katherine Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that his needing to correct the record due to his campaigning for multiple constituents shows the type of MP he is, and I am sure Hansard will be able to make that correction.
To my hon. Friend’s point, yes, if any media outlet is inadvertently amplifying videos that have been created illegally within the prison estate, the Bill will make it very clear to them that that is not legal, and His Majesty’s Prison Service will have the opportunity to intervene—although I hope that they will hear about the Bill being passed and self-police in that area. All major social media companies state in their terms of service that their platforms cannot be used for illegal or unlawful purposes.
Clause 2 also includes a defence for someone uploading content that they did not know, or had no reasonable cause to believe, was filmed or created illegally. This could include reasonably believing content to be a fictitious depiction of prisons or prison workers on a film set or from a historic, decommissioned prison. Both those new offences will be punishable solely by a fine for individuals creating and uploading media. In line with existing fines, that fine would be unlimited. That reflects the difference in severity between the offence of creating or uploading content from outside a prison and the offence of doing so from inside a prison, where possessing a mobile phone without authorisation is illegal and could be punished by a prison sentence of up to two years.
Clause 2 also provides, for both offences, a defence of reasonable belief that media was created with authorisation. That would include, for example, an honest and reasonable mistake as to whether a prison governor had permitted a news outlet to record interviews with its workers outside the prison.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble for introducing this hugely important Bill. She has handled today’s proceedings and presented her case with aplomb, elegance and eloquence, as though she had done this 100 times already, so I pay tribute to her for that. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this Bill. It is a testament to her determination to get things done that she has brought it this far. Her South Ribble constituents are very lucky to have her.
As the Minister for prisons, parole and probation, it is central to my role to help to protect the public from serious offenders and improve the safety and security of our prisons. The Prison Media Bill will help us to achieve those core priorities by demonstrating a zero-tolerance approach to social media misuse from within custody. Like my hon. Friend, I put on record my gratitude to all those who work in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service for the work they do day in, day out to keep people safe.
I also put on record my gratitude for the contributions today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South. In this place—this is not always the case with all colleagues—on matters of justice, he knows of what he speaks, with his strong track record as a magistrate and in this House, so it is always interesting and instructive to listen to his contributions.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, who rightly highlighted a very distressing case, which he and I have discussed. He has been diligent and dogged in his pursuit of his constituent’s interests in this matter. As with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, his constituents are equally very lucky to have him.
The Bill strengthens existing legislation, specifically the Prison Act 1952, on the unauthorised creation and uploading of digital media, including photographs and videos created inside prisons, or of the inside of prisons from outside—for example, by drone. Deterring individuals from uploading videos and photographs and removing from social media those that are uploaded is crucial. The content can cause very serious harm. It can be used to harass and cause distress to victims of crime and their families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield highlighted, thereby re-traumatising them. It can facilitate continued criminality, which extends beyond prison walls into the community, including drug supply, violence and gang feuds. Videos taken from above prisons by drone can also cause serious security risks.
As well as videos and photos created inside prison, the Bill tackles, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble said, so-called audit style videos, where members of the public film prison staff from outside a prison, threatening the safety of hard-working prison workers. We are not talking about a couple of cases: last year, HMPPS reported 890 pieces of harmful prison content found online, and between 2020 and 2023, it reported nearly 2,000 uploads. The reality is that that probably under-represents the true scale of the problem as those figures are just for reported incidents. That is why, in clause 1, it is hugely important that the statutory maximum limit for fines on summary conviction is effectively removed, aiming to ensure that the offences can be punished by a fine of any amount, reflecting their seriousness.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble for working so closely with my officials to amend the Bill to extend it to Scotland and Northern Ireland through new clauses 1 to 3 and amendments 11 to 17 and 19. As initially drafted, the measures would apply only in England and Wales. However, as she highlighted, harmful digital content is not constrained by the borders within our United Kingdom, so extending the Bill’s coverage will better protect victims from distressing content created by their perpetrators inside prison, as well as bolstering prison security and the safety of prison officers across all nations in the UK.
My officials, like my hon. Friend, have worked closely with officials in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the provisions that fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are consistent and compatible with existing devolved offences, and that the Bill’s provisions will function effectively within those jurisdictions. I, too, put on record my gratitude for the co-operation of Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, particularly for the speed with which they have looked at the matter and given their support in principle to extending the Bill in respect of those devolved offences. Again, I suspect an element of that is testament to the persuasiveness of my hon. Friend.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling amendments 1 to 10, intended, first, to avoid criminalising behaviour that is not necessary or appropriate to criminalise; and secondly, to ensure internal consistency between measures in the Bill and external consistency with existing offences. The changes are designed to ensure that the Bill functions effectively and that provisions do not capture legitimate content, as she said, such as recording by neighbouring residents of a prison or someone’s dashcam capturing the inside of an open prison from a car driving past.
Andy Carter
The Minister mentioned the 2,000 or so cases, over a couple of years, where material has been posted online. What action has been taken to remove that material? Are social media companies working with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to ensure that it is taken down in a timely manner, that prison officers are protected, and in particular that their identities are not disclosed in a way that could cause them danger?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because he gave me the opportunity to have a glass of water. He is right to raise that point. The figures reflect reported incidents, so the number may well be higher. I met social media companies relatively recently to discuss this matter. They are improving in both speed and in taking things down, but one challenge is often that each social media company has its own rules, guidelines and approach to tackling harmful content, so there is not always a consistent policy approach by each one. Some—I will not name them—have engaged constructively, while others are more challenging to work with. However, across all of them, there is a recognition of this, and the Bill will further reinforce the sense of obligation upon them.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble for bringing forward this hugely important piece of legislation and confirm the Government’s continuing support for it as amended, subject to the Committee’s decisions. The Bill will enable us to tackle the issue of harmful prison media being uploaded online. It will allow us to disrupt the continued criminality that that fuels. It will reduce distress caused to members of the public, bolster prison security and ensure that prison staff can go to work without fear of online targeting and harassment. I am pleased to support my hon. Friend in that endeavour.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)—
(a) a photograph taken outside a prison of an image which is being transmitted from inside the prison by electronic communications for simultaneous reception outside the prison is to be treated as a photograph taken inside the prison, and
(b) a sound-recording made outside a prison of sounds which are being transmitted by electronic communications from inside the prison for simultaneous reception outside the prison is to be treated as a sound-recording made inside the prison.’
(2B) Omit subsection (2).
(2C) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1)(aa) it is a defence for the accused to show that they did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that the photograph was of the inside of a prison.’”—(Katherine Fletcher.)
This amendment clarifies that taking a photograph or making a sound-recording of material transmitted from inside a prison is covered by the existing offence in section 40D(1)(a) of the Prison Act 1952. It also provides a defence in relation to the offence in section 40(D(1)(aa) of that Act.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Unauthorised photographs and sound-recordings of prisons and prison workers
Katherine Fletcher
I thank the members of the Committee for their valuable time today. I particularly want to thank the officials of the Ministry of Justice, the House of Commons Committee Clerks, the Hansard team and the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly officials. Mostly, I want to thank the people who work in HMP Garth and HMP Wymott, and prison officers across the country, for doing what can at times be a difficult job. I hope they will welcome these provisions, which will ensure their further protection at work, tackle harmful prison media, reduce distress for victims, and prevent crime in prisons and the community. I urge colleagues from across the House and in the other place to support the Bill.
Edward Argar
I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend for her Bill; to right hon. and hon. Members on this Committee; to you, Sir Robert; to the Clerk, who has helped steer the Bill smoothly through its passage thus far; to those who work in our Prison and Probation Service; and to the officials in my Department, who worked closely with my hon. Friend on this Bill and have all done a fantastic job. Although it is slightly invidious to do this, I want to put on the record my gratitude, as part of that team, to Iona, my former Private Secretary, who is now helping to deal with this legislation. It is rare that one gets the opportunity to thank one’s private office.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill 2023-24 View all Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a preliminary reminder for Members. Please make sure that your phones are switched off or silenced. Thank you. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. One amendment has been tabled. We will have a single debate on the amendment and both clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Approval of certain remuneration of local government employees
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(8) In Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information for the purposes of access to meetings and documents under Part 5A of that Act), in Part 2—
(a) after paragraph 9 insert—
‘9A Information is not exempt information if it relates to a resolution of the authority to approve a salary for the purposes of section 39A(1) or (2) of the Localism Act 2011.’
(b) in paragraph 10(b), for ‘or 9’ substitute ‘, 9 or 9A’.”
This amendment will prevent a relevant authority from excluding the public from a meeting whilst it considers a resolution for the purposes of section 39A(1) or (2) of the Localism Act 2011 (see clause 1(2)) and will prevent information relating to the resolution from being excluded from documents which can be accessed in connection with the meeting.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Paul Bristow
The Bill seeks to increase the transparency and democratic oversight of senior pay and reward across relevant authorities in local government. Local authorities are independent employers; however, the Government consider that the highest salaries in local Government should be subject to greater democratic scrutiny. The Bill requires relevant authorities to gain approval by resolution before advertising a role, or appointing a person to a role, with an annual salary that exceeds £100,000. This will apply only to new appointments.
Hon. Members will be aware that in places such as Peterborough and, I am sure, Ipswich, Bassetlaw, Leigh, Rother Valley, Milton Keynes and north Wales—[Interruption.] Oh, and Dorset! In such places, someone who earns more than £100,000 is probably one of the highest-paid people living in that area. There is already statutory guidance that states that local authorities should be doing what the Bill requires, but the Bill seeks to make what is currently only guidance into a legal requirement.
Before I come to the clauses, which are of course what we are here to discuss, I want to thank everyone who has helped to bring the Bill forward so far. I thank all the relevant people, offices and officials at the Department for the work they have done, and I thank everyone who is here today to support and scrutinise the Bill. I also thank my researcher, Rhys Evans, who probably knows far more about the Bill than I do and has been instrumental in helping me to bring it forward. That comes from the very bottom of my heart: thank you all very much indeed for all your support.
Clause 1 updates the legislation relating to local government pay policy statements, by inserting a new clause into the Localism Act 2011 to create a new requirement in the process for the approval of certain remuneration paid to local government employees. It outlines how relevant authorities will be required to gain approval by resolution before advertising employment or appointing a person to a role with an annual salary of £100,000 or more, for new appointments only. The Bill will be relevant to places like Bradford; I note the attendance of the hon. Member for Bradford West.
The Bill will also apply to individuals employed by the relevant authorities on a part-time or temporary basis if the pro rata salary would meet the £100,000 full-time threshold. Clause 1 further sets out the conditions under which the Bill’s provision will take effect.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about his important Bill. May I seek some clarity? Is the Bill just about job adverts, or will there be an annual update of how many new people are employed on more than £100,000 and who they are? True transparency is not just about gaining employment; it should be about the continuation, so that everyone knows where they stand. That will also help with diversity and inclusion and other such aspects, by raising people’s salaries.
Paul Bristow
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As I said, the Bill requires the relevant authorities to gain approval by resolution before not just advertising but appointing a person for a role with an annual salary that exceeds £100,000. It will apply to those who are appointed, rather than just to the advertisement element. The Bill will create greater transparency so that people are able to see much more clearly the gap between those in a local authority who are paid the most and those who are paid the least. I think that will help all decision making when it comes to pay and guidance. It will also help trade unions with some of the things they need to do to ensure that their members get a fair deal when it comes to remuneration.
Clause 2 confirms the Bill’s territorial extent as England and Wales, with application in England only, and contains measures in respect of the Bill’s commencement and on transitional and savings provisions. The clause will come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, and it sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill.
The amendment I have tabled will provide that resolutions held for the purposes of the Bill will not qualify as information exempt from public discourse. It will ensure that the Bill’s key objective, which is to increase transparency on senior pay in local government, is met. It will ensure that any votes on salaries are held in view of the public; that transparency is incredibly important. It will prevent relevant authorities from utilising the existing exemption rules to circumnavigate the transparency requirements for salary offers. Transparency is the principle of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve, because with greater transparency and greater accountability comes better decision making.
Ultimately, the Bill seeks to ensure that proper scrutiny and accountability is in place for salary offers for senior officials that are above £100,000 for relevant authorities, in respect of new appointments only, and that openness and transparency are adhered to across the board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I am sure the Committee will be familiar with the dictum of Cecil Rhodes. He is often misquoted, but the direct quotation is:
“Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”
As a Welshman, Mrs Harris, may I say that to serve under your chairmanship is to have won first prize in the lottery of life? If that does not get me some brownie points, I do not know what will. It is a pleasure to serve under my friend and colleague, Mrs Harris.
I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for his leadership on this issue and for the work that he and his parliamentary staff have put in to furthering this important Bill. I am delighted to say that the Government support the Bill, as they support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, so I hope we can avoid a Division on that matter.
Alexander Stafford
I am glad that the Government support the Bill, but I am disappointed that they have not tabled an amendment in respect of fire authorities, to increase transparency. I am disappointed that fire authorities are exempted. Will the Minister touch on why they have been exempted and are not treated as the rest of local government is? We are all one, all local servants, and should be treated the same.
Simon Hoare
I think the Bill was narrow in scope for a reason—possibly for the reasons that I will touch on in a moment. My hon. Friend makes a strong point, in principle. One could argue for it under the dictum that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Of course, it is open to my hon. Friend and others to consider authoring amendments as the Bill progresses through this place and the other place. I will leave that to him.
Let me turn to what the Bill is about—actually, let me touch for a moment on what the Bill is not about, because I think that is almost as important to stress. This is not a Bill that says, as a matter of guiding-star principle, that in the local government sector being paid more than £100,000 is a bad thing. Anybody who works closely with their local councils—irrespective of tier, but particularly although not exclusively with the unitary and/or upper-tier authorities—will know that in many respects senior officers, who in the main are the people who would command that level of remuneration, are in effect running large divisions of a multi-facing business. If we are to expect high-quality public services delivered efficiently and robustly, local government of course needs to be able to attract the brightest and the best.
One could argue, from the point of view a public service ethos, that working for the public good is of itself remuneration enough. But that will not convince the gas board, the water company or the mortgage company: “I can’t pay you this month or this year, but I am working in local government, so there’s a lovely warm and fuzzy feeling around me. Please take that as payment in lieu.” The bills need to be paid.
This is not about castigation. It is not about asserting, as is sometimes erroneously trumpeted, “Oh, everybody is paid far too much in local government.” Far from it. All of us who work closely with local government—I have the privilege to do so as both a Member of Parliament and a Minister, and colleagues on the Committee will do so with their local officers—usually come away entirely impressed by the devotion to duty, the wisdom and the commitment to public service that officers bring.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Peterborough for bringing this Bill to the House. I am not sure whether this has been touched on. As somebody from a black and minority ethnic background, I welcome increased transparency, because often people in the top tiers of Government, local authorities and organisations do not reflect the local communities they serve. The reason why I support the Bill is that I hope it will add that tier of transparency and accountability for appointments, so that they can be for the best and the brightest. Often, we get accused of nepotism or are told that it is about who knows who. The Bill puts in another tier, so I welcome it and I thank the hon. Member for it.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s observation. She makes the key point that local authorities always do well to take into consideration whether the elected members as well as the officers reflect the broad demographics and composition of their communities. I know the hon. Lady was not suggesting it—I interpret her remarks as saying what I believe to be true, which is that all appointments should be made on merit—but we are not talking here about quotas or positive discrimination. I think—I am sure the Committee would agree—that positive discrimination is actually as bad as negative discrimination. We need the best people doing the best job that they can. I take the point entirely that looking like, sounding like, and resembling the communities that are being served is an important consideration, but it should not be the be-all and end-all of things.
Paul Bristow
I rise again to thank everybody who has contributed to get us to where we are today. I thank the officials in the Department and Committee members from across the House for what they have done. I once again thank my researcher, Rhys Evans, for all his work and, of course, I thank you, Ms Harris, for chairing this debate so skilfully.
Alexander Stafford
As we are giving thanks, I also thank my hon. Friend for leading this Bill. He is an assiduous Member of Parliament for Peterborough; in fact, he is the Member of Parliament for my mother and father-in-law. He is a great MP and the people of Peterborough are lucky to have him.
Paul Bristow
I am not sure I could be thanked any more, but there is always an opportunity for one more round of thanks if anyone wishes to do that.
Paul Bristow
I was just coming to that. I thank the Minister for his remarks, his advice and the skilful way he has managed this debate and responded to my speech.
I want to thank some of the senior officers at Peterborough City Council. The Minister was quite right when he said that there was not, in any way, a suggestion that senior officers in local government are not worth salaries of more than £100,000. Anyone who interprets the Bill in that way is being unhelpful. The officers at Peterborough City Council do an excellent job in the main. I particularly mention the chief executive Matthew Gladstone, and Adrian Chapman, another senior officer I deal with, along with Rob Hill and James Collingridge. They do fantastic work, and the excellent relationship I have with them as Peterborough’s Member of Parliament is testament to their professionalism. It has been six months since we had a Conservative majority in Peterborough—the council was previously run by the independents, and as of Monday is run by the Labour party—yet the openness and responsibility that I experience as the Conservative Member of Parliament show that it is not party political. The professionalism of those officials is to be admired and I thank them for everything they do.
I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West when she said that transparency allows for a diverse mix. It is absolutely right that we should seek to ensure that a council and its employees are representative of the community they represent. In diverse cities such as Peterborough and Bradford, that is particularly important. Allowing accountability and transparency—opening the windows and allowing air to come in—leads to better decision making and better spending of taxpayers’ money. That is something we should all seek to emulate in local and central Government. Transparency and accountability are key, and lead to better decision making when it comes to public service or the private sector. We have seen that in the House in recent scandals. When we have transparency and accountability of decision making, it leads to better government. I will now sit down, thanking everyone again for everything they have done. Let us hope that the Bill progresses further through the House.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Crash-for-cash Insurance Fraud
(5 months, 1 week 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling crash for cash insurance fraud.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. So-called crash-for-cash insurance fraud is an issue that many of my constituents have brought to my attention in recent weeks and months. “Crash for cash” refers to incidents in which individuals deliberately stage or cause road traffic collisions for financial gain. The scams often involve making fraudulent insurance claims for injuries or damages that did not actually occur. Often perpetrators exaggerate injuries or falsely claim that additional passengers were involved in a collision, to increase their payouts.
There are three principal types of crash-for-cash scams that I want to talk about: induced accidents, which involve fraudsters targeting an innocent motorist as the driver “at fault”, often by suddenly braking in front of their car to cause a crash; staged accidents, which involve fraudsters crashing their own vehicle or mimicking the damage of a crash by using tools such as sledgehammers; and fabricated accidents, which involve fraudsters submitting false claims for accidents that never occurred. The scams are constantly evolving, presenting numerous variations beyond the principal types.
Crash-for-cash fraudsters often target vulnerable drivers who are in a hurry or are unwilling to cause trouble. I have heard about women in my constituency being particularly targeted for such frauds. The scams harm all law-abiding motorists, increasing unnecessary work for the emergency services and the NHS, and causing innocent victims to lose their no-claims bonus and face rising premiums. The proceeds from the scams may go on to fund other serious organised crime. Not only are such actions deceitful, but they are already illegal, falling under offences in the Fraud Act 2006 and the Road Traffic Act 1988.
To fully explain the scams, I will share a few examples. Katrina is a brave woman who experienced crash-for-cash fraud at first hand in an incident near the Wallington high street last month when she was on her way to pick up her daughter from school. As she waited to turn right, a biker on her right stopped to give way. As the traffic halted, she cautiously pulled out halfway, stopping to ensure that the left side was clear. However, when she turned her head to check, another biker had collided with the front of her car. To her dismay, she noticed that the first biker was laughing, and the biker who had hit her immediately began filming the scene. Shaken and confused, she pulled around the corner to exchange details, but encountered a language barrier and evasive behaviour from the biker.
Despite the minimal damage to her car, something felt off. Trusting her instincts, Katrina reported the incident to her insurance company and the police. Following police advice, she contacted the Insurance Fraud Bureau. Later the same evening, she witnessed a similar incident in Sutton, although at the time she did not connect the two. A couple of days later, she discovered through a Wallington Facebook group that others had experienced identical incidents in the same week within the small area of Carshalton and Wallington. That confirmed her suspicion that it was not an accident, but part of a deliberate scam. Recently, she has received a letter from a law firm requesting a settlement. She intends to fight the claim, as it is appalling that people can exploit such fraudulent schemes, potentially affecting insurance premiums and causing undue stress and injury. I am sure that we wish her all the best.
Katrina’s story underscores the importance of vigilance and the need to report suspicious incidents. Not only are so-called crash-for-cash scams deceitful, but they have real consequences for innocent victims. This bold woman’s decision to share her experience highlights the importance of raising awareness of the issue and the need to do something about it.
Another victim in Wallington was targeted by a moped scammer who intentionally crashed their vehicle and refused to give details. The police did not attend; the victim was left to gather evidence alone. Another incident on London Road in Wallington involved a moped scraping a car and fleeing when a police car approached. The victim’s dashcam only captured the front, making it difficult to prove a scam.
A parent in Sutton faced a similar scam during the school run, causing immense stress, especially with young children in the car. There appears to be a trend of parents, particularly mothers, being targeted during the school run, when roads are busier and people are in much more of a rush. For that couple, it all began when a motorbike deliberately collided with the husband’s car, resulting in minor damage. Although the biker admitted fault at the scene, they then filed a fraudulent insurance claim for a substantial amount of money, causing my constituent significant frustration. It took persistent effort, including escalation to the chairman of Admiral, for the case to garner the attention it deserved.
The same couple were then involved in another incident in Wallington, also involving a moped. Despite the moped driver refusing to provide details, the police initially failed to respond. It was not until the couple posted on the social media site Nextdoor and filed a report that the police began to take action. Thankfully, CCTV was available for the incident, which shed light on the situation. However, even the supposed witnesses turned out to be a part of the scam, leading to a barrage of fraudulent insurance calls. It has been a frustrating ordeal, but the couple have diligently reported all incidents to the authorities and their insurance company and are hoping for a resolution.
The Insurance Fraud Bureau, a not-for-profit organisation established in 2006, focuses on preventing and detecting such organised fraud. It supports the insurance industry and law enforcement by providing intelligence and assisting in investigations. It also attempts to raise public awareness about insurance fraud scams and educate consumers on how to identify and avoid them. In 2023, the IFB managed more than 150 live operations, valued at about £90 million, and referred 52 cases to the police. It received more than 5,000 reports through its CheatLine, with 68% resulting in actionable intelligence. Currently, it has about 6,000 active crash-for-cash investigations, worth more than £70 million. That represents about 30% of all its live operations.
The Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department, which does great work to detect organised fraud, puts research into action. It is a specialised police force established in 2012, funded by the Association of British Insurers and dedicated to tackling insurance fraud. Hosted by the City of London police, the UK’s lead force for economic crime, the IFED operates independently while collaborating closely with insurance companies. Since its inception, it has investigated fraud valued at £360 million, made more than 3,230 arrests and secured more than 2,200 convictions, resulting in nearly 320 years of prison time.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Before this morning, I would not have imagined that the figures were so tremendously high. Does he agree that the millions of motorists who insure their cars year on year will suffer as a result of crash-for-cash fraud, not just this year and next year but in ongoing years? We need firm and decisive action to ensure that it does not occur to the level that he is very clearly elucidating.
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point shortly. This is not a victimless crime; it is not that the fraudster gets some money but no one is worse off. Real people’s insurance premiums are going up, often by an amount that they cannot afford, and we absolutely must do something about it.
The IFED has investigated so-called crash-for-cash fraudsters. In September 2021, it secured convictions against three individuals who deliberately caused collisions that resulted in substantial damage and injuries. The fraudsters filed multiple personal injury claims totalling nearly £50,000, but thanks to CCTV footage and inconsistencies in their accounts, the insurer referred the case to the IFED, leading to custodial sentences ranging from nine to 20 months. In February 2022, similar convictions were secured against another three individuals who also staged a collision, with claims amounting to £48,000.
The insurance industry runs several public awareness campaigns on crash-for-cash scams and tries to provide drivers with the knowledge and tools they need to protect themselves. Recent campaigns have focused on crash-for-cash moped scams, which are particularly prevalent in London at the moment, although I am sure the same applies in other cities and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is vital to raise awareness of the issue so that motorists have the knowledge to protect themselves, so I will repeat some of that advice now.
Motorists should be cautious of cars travelling unusually slowly or erratically and of drivers paying excessive attention to the vehicle behind them; should maintain a safe distance so that they can brake in time; should follow the highway code and look ahead for potential hazards, including unusual driving behaviour; and should notice if the other driver is too calm and has pre-written their insurance details or if injuries seem exaggerated. Those who are involved in a suspected crash-for-cash incident should gather as much information as possible, including written details, photos, dashcam footage and any nearby CCTV; should report the incident to their insurer, the local police and the IFB CheatLine; and should stay vigilant and informed to protect themselves and others to help combat the scams.
An investigation led by the IFB, the City of London police, the IFED and several insurers has found that 2,250 people in London alone have been the victim of such a scam in the past two years, and many of the suspected fraudsters are believed to be couriers delivering items such as takeaways. As I said, the IFB is currently investigating more than 6,000 suspected claims, estimated to be worth £70 million.
I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to tackle insurance fraud, such as the insurance fraud taskforce, which was set up in 2015 and comprises members from the insurance industry, the Financial Ombudsman Service, citizens advice, the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice. The taskforce has conducted a review and made several recommendations; I note that its 2017 report highlighted so-called crash-for-cash scams. I welcome the significant steps that have been taken more recently to enhance fraud enforcement as part of the Government’s 2023 fraud strategy, including appointing 400 specialist investigators as part of a national fraud squad and creating the new voluntary post of anti-fraud champion, which is currently held by my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell).
Despite those efforts, obtaining detailed statistics on crash-for-cash offences remains challenging. Official crime statistics do not separately identify such offences; instead, they are grouped under insurance-related fraud. In 2023, approximately 13,700 offences were recorded in that category in England and Wales, and the IFB estimates that 69,500 personal injury claims are linked to crash-for-cash scams annually, costing the insurance industry nearly £400 billion.
What is the Minister’s strategy to tackle this growing issue and what work are Ministers doing in conjunction with the industry and police to work on establishing joint strategies for prevention? The fight against crash-for-cash scams needs a collective effort from law enforcement, Government agencies and the insurance industry. I hope that my constituents’ cases that I have highlighted today will encourage us all to work together to protect innocent motorists and ensure that those who perpetrate such fraudulent schemes are brought to justice.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this debate about crash-for-cash scams. South-west London has been a target for organised crime gangs seeking to scam constituents in both of our patches, so this is a much-needed debate. The more attention we give the issue, the less likely our constituents are to be the victims of an insurance fraud.
I will start by declaring an interest: in retrospect, I understand that I have been the victim of a crash-for-cash incident. About eight months ago, I was driving through Tooting on a residential road when a moped came out of nowhere, overtook me and stopped right in front of me. I was not travelling very fast—it was a residential road—so I did an emergency stop and managed to avoid hitting the moped.
Immediately, the driver dropped the moped and began to shout and point at me. I pulled over to see that he was okay, but I was absolutely confused because I knew I had done no damage to his moped and that he too was not hurt in any way. I just did not understand what was going on. He dragged me over, took my details and took photographs of me, of my car, which showed no signs of damage, and of his moped. I gathered myself to take pictures of his moped and watched him drive off on it, and I thought no more of the incident. Then, some time later, I received a letter from a solicitor demanding large amounts of money because of the need for the driver to use a replacement vehicle.
Not until a constituent came to my advice surgery and went on to describe exactly the same sort of case did I really understand what had happened, and I feel pretty stupid now. My constituent, Ms T, told me that she had spotted a stationary moped on a residential road. Then, when she turned to exit a junction, the moped sped up and lightly tapped her car. The driver then threw his bike to the floor and started shouting at her. He immediately took photographs of Ms T’s car, but he fled the scene before she could take down any of his details. Lo and behold, she was then contacted by her insurers, who let her know that the driver had made a claim. Only then did I realise that both my constituent and I were among the 170,000 people targeted every year by organised crime gangs as part of crash-for-cash scams.
Since then, I have met representatives of Allianz and LV= insurers—not my own, I hasten to add—and learned that crash for cash is a slick operation that targets women: specifically women on the school run, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, because the gangs feel that they are less likely to put up a fight. That was the experience of Ms T, who was driving near a school at 10 am when the incident happened, and it is the experience of four in 10 people who fall victim to this. There also seem to be hotspots, with criminals targeting the outskirts of major cities and, specifically in south-west London, Thornton Heath, which, although it is part of Croydon, abuts my own constituency.
The scam is valued at about £392 million a year. It is big business that is only getting bigger—Allianz has reported that the crime has increased by 25%. What can we do about it? The first thing is the Government’s fraud strategy. The crash-for-cash scam is not even mentioned in that document, but if we are serious about our plan to stop fraud at source and pursue those responsible, that would be a sensible first step.
The next step is the job of the insurance industry: we need insurers to do a thorough job of investigating opportunistic insurance fraud and to let constituents know that they may have been a victim. In my own case, when I gathered myself and realised what had happened, I sent my insurers photographs and the short video. I said that I thought that I had been the victim of a scam. They wrote back to say that I would need to go to court and there was only a 50:50 chance of my being successful.
Finally, we need much more public awareness so that potential victims know how to look out for the scammers. If drivers know the signs of an unfazed driver with pre-written insurance information, they can let the police know and stop this at source. It might seem like a trivial issue, but it is a business worth £392 million a year and all our constituents will be better off if we can stamp it out. It is not a victimless crime. All of us trying to reinsure our cars know how much car insurance premiums are increasing. We must ensure that the law-abiding drivers of this country are not victims of higher premiums because of opportunistic organised crime.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is lovely to see you in the chair, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber.
In preparing for the debate, I found out that Glasgow is sixth in the league table of places for crash-for-cash claims—although it is not something that my constituents have raised with me yet—so it is certainly an issue that I will be taking up as well. Allianz has mentioned that there was a sixtyfold increase, in 2023 alone, of motorbike crash-for-cash claims, so we should not be treating this lightly or ignoring it; it is increasing and we should do more to deal with it. Aviva has put a figure of £59 million on motor fraud as a result of some of these activities. Again, that has an impact on all our insurance premiums, which have already gone up considerably. A lot more can be done to highlight the issue so that nobody ends up a victim of this crime.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) about the frightening impact on victims. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden clearly went through a difficult and confusing experience. The victim does not know what is going on when someone comes at them and behaves in that way, which is very frightening. The seeming targeting of mums on the school run is again frightening, particularly if children are in the car when something happens—that can be distressing and something they will not easily forget. There is something nasty about this type of crime.
As has been said, car insurance industry research shows that scammers use three different types of tactics for their staged accidents. Incidents where fraudsters crash into each other and claim on their separate insurance policies perhaps have less impact on the rest of us, although it has a worrying impact in terms of fraud. There are contrived accidents, where scammers make insurance claims; made-up accidents that have never taken place; and induced accidents, crash for cash, where a person deliberately drives dangerously or badly to force a collision with an innocent motorist—slamming on the brakes without warning, swerving into them or pulling out at a junction or roundabout, giving an incoming car no chance to avoid them.
This activity has a serious and frightening impact on people, and is a growing problem. The Insurance Fraud Bureau says that crash-for-cash scams happen every four minutes on UK roads; during this debate there will have been multiple scams. The bureau estimates that 30,000 incidents take place every year, costing insurers about £350 million in losses. The impact on insurance premiums is a rise of about £44 per person. The increase in such fraud is worrying, because when driving we expect to proceed in a normal way. We do not expect people to come at us in the way that these motorbikes or cars may do. That scenario can cause serious injury, particularly if it happens on a faster road. There is a real risk of injury and serious harm from the impact on the car and person. The scammers are posing a serious risk to themselves and other people.
I would be grateful if the Minister gave more details about the involvement of organised crime gangs, and how they are organising themselves to carry this out. There has been talk about other kinds of fraud being facilitated over social media. Is there such evidence for this type of crime as well? Social media has been an organising and facilitating method for many other types of fraud, both in recruiting people to be part of the scams, and for sharing information. It would be useful to know whether that is happening.
I encourage people to listen carefully to the advice given by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about what we can do as motorists and car passengers in these instances. We should be vigilant, look around and pay attention, as we always should when driving. Should something like this happen, we should look for damage, take photographs and be aware of what is going on. We should not feel forced into taking someone’s details. Sometimes scammers try to force people to part with cash there and then, on the scene, to try to avoid insurance claims. Do not go ahead and do that, because that is part of the scam. Take as many details as possible of the person involved.
It was quite chilling to hear that some of the bystanders—the people watching—could also be part of this scam. Victims should try to find somebody to help and support them, collect as much evidence as possible, and contact their own insurer and the police, because with evidence we can tackle these crimes, crack down on the perpetrators and get to the root of the organised crime gangs running these operations. All evidence is very useful. Taxi drivers can particularly fall victim to this kind of scam, which can take their business off the road. They are now obliged to have dashcams, both front and rear, in their vehicles. It would be useful to hear how many people have had dashcams installed to deal with this kind of scenario.
What is happening with public awareness of this issue, Minister? What are the Government doing to let people know that it is happening? This cannot be left just to insurers or to police; we need a co-ordinated effort to ensure that people are aware and that we do not provide an open door to crime gangs to perpetrate these awful incidents. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said so powerfully, they can be frightening and long-lasting. I ask the Minister for more details of what will be done.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I frequently get the opportunity to take part in debates that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) leads in this place, because of his very important work on the Petitions Committee. Today, his leadership of this debate in the interests of his constituents was characteristically thoughtful, particularly when he talked about the advice he would give in these cases. That was a public service contribution that we cannot repeat enough. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a constantly evolving crime type, and we must evolve our efforts to match it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his contribution.
Colleagues have set out how important this issue is, and the impact of these scams on victims and the insurance industry. It also impacts on wider local services, including the NHS and the police, which are already stretched at the moment. This is a serious problem. The financial impact of this kind of fraud is significant, with fraudulent claims pushing premiums up for ordinary motorists, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned.
It always enriches debates when colleagues bring their own personal experiences into the room. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) talked about how she felt, I double-underlined one word she used: “stupid”. There is nothing stupid about it at all. That is how life feels when we engage in good faith with someone who is actually quite a polished and artful scammer, about something that did not happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the particular vulnerability of mums on the school run, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. When they are busy protecting loved ones and performing an important function in their life, and then stop to engage with someone who has set out that day to defraud, of course they would end up feeling daft. How do we compete with that level of polish and organisation? It is happening up and down the country every day. I will return later to the points that my hon. Friend made about hotspots, because that is a particularly important part of what we can do to look at solutions in the future.
Insurance fraud is a blight on our society. “Crash for cash” is a catch-all term used, for instance, where people deliberately stage or cause a road traffic collision for the purpose of financial gain. The police describe three different types of crash-for-cash fraud. First, there are staged accidents, when someone makes a claim for an incident that they have deliberately staged with another individual. Secondly, there are ghost accidents, when someone makes a claim for an incident that never occurred. That will not directly impact on our constituents in the same way, because they are not enforced parties to it, but it does impact us through our insurance premiums. We know that this is a regular, routine happening.
Finally, as we have spoken about quite a bit today, there are induced incidents, when someone makes a claim after intentionally causing a collision with an innocent motorist. Hon. Members have mentioned their experiences and those of their constituents, but we have also seen videos of this online. The footage is staggering: people driving their scooter or running in front of a car, creating a collision and throwing themselves to the floor, and then getting up and creating a drama and a scene that they know the innocent party will not want to be part of—certainly not if they have young children in the car. There is a sadness here, because although those filming the incidents are best protected through whatever capabilities they have in the car, I do not really want to live in a society where I must go on the road filming and surveilling what is happening to be protected from people trying to scam me. That is not a world we want to live in, or ought to have to live in.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned taxi drivers. Being off the road or having issues relating to insurance or their licence is significant for them—this is their livelihood—so I can understand why they take the decision to record to protect their businesses. Those who seek to scam are pushing well-meaning, law-abiding citizens into that type of behaviour every day.
We have heard a little from colleagues about how this issue makes people feel, but we cannot stress it enough. It makes them feel that they are no longer safe on the roads or in their communities; every time they are driving, they dread that it may well happen again. Again, that is not how we want people to feel when they are driving their cars.
Driving is important and, by its nature, risky. We do not want people to flinch every time someone moves in front of them or goes around them, thinking they are seeking to create a collision, but that is how people across the country who have fallen victim to these crimes feel. That is notwithstanding the fact that for someone to seek to induce a collision, whether or not they were successful in clipping or skimming, is exceptionally dangerous, as is doing something that makes someone act reflexively, which puts others at risk too. This is a safety issue, as well as being an issue of insurance premiums and cost.
I hope the Minister might be able to tell us something about scale, but I am not sure that the crime statistics on which we would usually rely give us enough detail to identify the number of crash-for-cash offences in insurance-related fraud or to identify the trends. However, the number of crash-for-cash cases investigated by the insurance fraud enforcement department is up 15% since 2021, so there is clearly a behaviour change. The industry itself has made its own estimates.
The IFB estimates that around 170,000 car insurance claims between October 2019 and the end of 2020 were linked to crash-for-cash fraud schemes. That is significant —multiple thousands of incidents every single day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, Allianz reports that the number of accidents has increased by a quarter in 2023. We know that this is happening and that organised fraudsters see it as an attractive type of crime. It is an important issue.
At a time when people are struggling—people up and down the country are still feeling financial challenges—the impact on premiums is significant. Inflation is in the news today, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that conversation, insurance prices in the first quarter of this year are up a third on the first quarter of last year. We always encourage our constituents to shop around, but we know that that is a bill that people are feeling. By its nature, it is a big bill—three and sometimes four-figure sums of money that come in one go—and people are feeling the pressure. It makes a significant contribution. No one should think that this is a victimless crime, because it very much is not; we will all suffer from it. What conversations has the Minister had with the industry about what it can do to combat fraud and to ensure that those costs are not piling up on ordinary motorists?
I have a few points to make to the Minister about what we could be doing on the issue. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the Government’s fraud strategy does not include it. Fraud by its nature is a shape-shifting, ever-changing endeavour by people who seek to profit by doing the wrong thing, so that document by definition has to be a living and breathing one. What can the Minister do to include it? If it is not to be included in the strategy, can he provide an assurance that it is seen as a priority?
The IFB has highlighted the 30 most-challenged postal districts in this regard. If this issue is affecting certain communities, that is a good hotspot policing- type approach that we could take. The issue links back, as so often in these debates, to the fact that there are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police. We have made our own commitments in that space and will continue to argue for them. This is the type of behaviour that individuals undertake if they think there will never be any accountability, just like retail crime—for example, if someone feels that they can walk in and nick stuff from the meat counter because there is no uniformed presence. Insurance fraud is similar. We need a uniformed presence on streets in areas where we know those crimes are taking place, so that there is that deterrent and sense that the streets are contested and that those who do the right thing are being backed up by the agencies we rely on to support them.
Finally, I know that there is a limit to the things the Minister can say in this space, but the reality—again, this is the same for retail crime—is that organised gangs that operate with sophistication in stealing at a staggering scale in the retail space do not just do retail crime; they do trafficking for sexual exploitation, forced labour, drug dealing and all sorts of organised crime. Breaking one element can help us break all those elements. I wonder whether the Minister might talk a little about the model used by the fraudsters who operate in this space—whether they are stand-alone fraudsters or part of the greater industrial-scale fraud that we see across a variety of different topics. As I say, if we can crack them on this, we can crack them on all sorts of things. It has been a good debate, and I hope the Minister will address some of those points.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I am delighted to speak in a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). He demonstrates again not only his commitment to his constituents, but the way to use the House quite correctly to bring out a particular example that affects both his constituents and people across the whole United Kingdom. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) highlighted many of these issues in Scotland. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) touched on many of those issues and, sadly, her personal experience. That certainly was a telling lesson for all of us.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) touched on many of the questions that we are all looking at, because insurance fraud is not a victimless crime, as Members have highlighted. A few weeks ago I renewed my insurance premium, and I felt it; I know we all do. The reality is we are covering not just our own errors and foibles behind the wheel but those made by others and, in this case, by criminals. That is why I take the matter incredibly seriously, because fraud is not a victimless crime. It is not simply a crime against the insurance business or insurance companies, which in itself is not victimless—after all, insurance companies are owned by shareholders, families and individuals across the United Kingdom. Rather, it is a crime that has a direct implication for the pay packets and household economy of families across the United Kingdom. That is why fraud is taken so seriously and is part of the brief of the Security Minister.
Members may think it unusual that fraud, or even crash fraud like this, is part of my brief—I usually spend my time wondering what different foreign agents may be trying to do in the United Kingdom or, indeed, what hostile states may be trying to steal off us—and they may question the connection. But as hon. Members have correctly said, the connections are clear: criminals use fraud to raise cash to exchange with agents of hostile states. Effectively, the connection between hostile states, serious and organised crime, and people trafficking and fraud is all too clear. I should be clear that that does not mean that every group is connected in all parts. Sadly, or rather happily, many groups are not connected and are simply small ventures by individuals who are trying to exploit something that they may have been told about by somebody else. Therefore, they are simply copycat cases. We should not exaggerate too much, but keep that in perspective. The truth is that there are serious challenges. The serious point here is that hundreds of thousands of such cases have come to light: I think we are now up to 130,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. The Insurance Fraud Bureau, which does so much to lead on this issue, has around 6,000 active suspected crash-for-cash claim investigations that have been notified to it by its members, with an estimated worth of over £70 million, and crash-for-cash cases make up about 30% of its live investigations.
We also recognise that moped-enabled crash-for-cash fraud is on the rise, which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden highlighted quite correctly. It is pernicious and can be extremely dangerous, because not only is the rider putting themselves at risk, but they may force the driver of the car into a dangerous manoeuvre that could put other road users at risk. It is perhaps not the case here, but a solicitor or another person can also be complicit in the scam, which needs to be called out. That is why we are working not just with the insurance sector, or even just with policing. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham North recognised that we have hired thousands of new police officers over England and Wales over the last year, many of whom are on the streets. Only London under a Labour government has failed to meet its target, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his constituents sadly know all too well.
The reality is that it is not just about policing, but about the way we work with solicitors, regulatory authorities and the various other organisations with oversight of the area. Unlike traditional scams, the moped scam involves hiding down a side road, nipping out and effectively trying to provoke an accident, which is extremely dangerous. The Insurance Fraud Bureau ran a targeted awareness campaign on the scam in June last year, which we supported because it highlighted what road users should look out for and what they should do if they think they have been a victim of such a scam. The campaign received widespread national coverage, and I am grateful to Sky, the BBC and TalkTV for picking it up.
There is still an awful lot that we must do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for setting out many of those areas, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting how fraud can happen to anyone in the United Kingdom. The impact of fraud goes beyond financial losses, and improving support for victims is an important part of our fraud strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington is right. Not only have we introduced 400 new officers for the national fraud squad, but thanks to its efforts and the City of London police, we have managed to bring down fraud as a crime target. It is now down 16% year on year, building on 13% last year, which demonstrates that we are travelling in the right direction.
Sadly, fraud is playing a more important part in many people’s lives. So much of our lives is now online and has therefore been opened up to a different area of exploitation. That is why the work we are doing across the 43 police forces of England and Wales to support more victims through Action Fraud as part of the fraud strategy is so important.
We are also supporting National Trading Standards in its roll-out of a multi-agency approach to fraud, bringing together local services and improving support to vulnerable victims. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which I know the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has beside his bed at night, we legislated to require the payment systems regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement for authorised push payment scams. Those provisions will come into force in October and will ensure that more people get their money back.
This is a matter of huge importance to the Government and something that we take seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), our fraud champion, has been working on it closely. He has been an important asset to the Home Office in making sure that work comes together. I am very grateful for the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about our fraud champion. I agree: he is excellent.
Elliot Colburn
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. This has been a fantastic debate. I particularly thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), for sharing her story. It was very powerful.
This is a nasty scam, particularly in the way it targets women on the school run. It is also linked to organised crime, just as we saw with the spate of catalytic converter thefts in London a few years ago. The statistics do not show the whole picture. I reiterate the advice to our constituents: always be aware, get a dashcam, collect evidence such as photos, videos and statements—and report it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling crash for cash insurance fraud.
Crisis Houses
(5 months, 1 week 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
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I will call Bambos Charalambous to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered crisis houses.
Until October 2021, I had never heard of a crisis house and did not know what one was, but that all changed when one of my constituents got in touch to tell me about the tragic circumstances of her daughter’s death in a crisis house, following a referral there from the local clinical commissioning group.
What is a crisis house? Crisis houses are broadly defined as community-based residential settings that give clinical and social support to people during a crisis. The emphasis is on providing a safe alternative to hospital admission when an individual is undergoing a mental health crisis. Some crisis houses are staffed by volunteers, while others are staffed by medical professionals. The level of support can vary greatly, from accommodation and emotional support to acute mental health support. Despite the varying degrees of support that they provide, crisis houses are not regulated. I will explain why that is a problem by speaking about the tragic case of my constituent’s daughter, Jess. The details of Jess’s case, which I will draw on in my speech, were reported at her inquest and are publicly available online.
In 2020, 27-year-old Jess Durdy entered Link House, a crisis house in Bristol. Link House is run by a charity and was commissioned by the local care commissioning group to provide mental health support. It was not registered with the NHS or the Care Quality Commission. Jess was moved from regulated NHS care to a service that was unregulated, where her care co-ordinator was not a registered practitioner. Five days later, she took her own life.
Jess’s death was almost certainly preventable. She died because staff at Link House were entirely lacking in the training necessary to deal with patients suffering from severe mental ill health. They failed to take seriously or act on Jess’s repeated warnings that she was having intrusive suicidal thoughts; they used unsafe door locks that prevented them or paramedics from reaching her quickly; and they were unable to provide emergency services with the information necessary to arrive on time to save Jess’s life. For Jess’s family, there were and there remain many questions. Could Jess’s death have been prevented? Was the crisis house that Jess entered a safe alternative to hospital care? How could they raise their concerns about the care provided to their daughter?
Despite growing numbers of crisis houses dealing with some of the most vulnerable in society, the regulatory oversight of these organisations is a complex patchwork of different regulators and regimes, including the CQC, the Charity Commission, local authorities and so on. The CQC can only regulate providers of certain regulated activities, including in such areas as accommodation for nursing or personal care and family planning. In Jess’s case, the CQC had no oversight of the care and treatment provided by Link House. It could only examine the procedures of the commissioning Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust in ensuring patient safety. Without proper regulation and oversight, there is always the risk that other vulnerable people will take their lives. For that reason, the Government must introduce regulation for the sector to ensure basic standards of care before another tragedy occurs.
I pay tribute to Jess and her family. Jess’s mother Moira Durdy is my constituent, and I have been supporting her attempts to get justice for Jess to ensure that no other family has to experience the terrible loss of a loved one in similar circumstances. Jess was originally from north London. Her family describe her as a dearly loved, bright and caring child. They are hugely proud of the kind, loving, generous and loyal person she was and of her intelligent and inquiring mind. After spending time in Bangladesh working for Engineers Without Borders, Jess returned to her university town of Bristol to live and work in 2016. Jess had struggled with mental health since her teens, and had been diagnosed with anxiety, depressive disorder and bulimia. Despite this, her family say that she always had a smile and often hid her struggles.
Jess approached her GP for additional support in June 2020 and was under the care of Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. She struggled with the medication provided, and by October 2020 her health had further declined. She was referred by the trust to Link House, which is run by the housing association Missing Link. Places at Link House were commissioned by the local clinical commissioning group. It provides care to patients with mental ill health who need more support than can be given in their homes. Despite this, its staff are support workers and not qualified medical professionals.
In the three days before she died, Jess disclosed to Link House staff that she felt suicidal and wanted to end her life. However, staff lacked the training necessary to understand how seriously to take Jess’s reports. They simply made phone calls to the recovery team and failed to follow up on those calls when there was no response. They did not make calls to the crisis team because, as Jess had not been admitted under the crisis team, they mistakenly assumed that it would not respond to calls. They failed to remove the ligature from Jess’s room that she ultimately used to take her life. There was a lack of clarity in the pathway for the escalation of risk and an assumption that the welfare checks that they were doing were sufficient.
On the morning of Jess’s death, when staff found that she was not responding to the morning check-up, they were unable to enter her room, because the doors at Link House were locked from the inside. The door closure inside the room was a readily available ligature point, and an inward opening door is contrary to the usual standard in mental health facilities. Staff did not know how to communicate the seriousness of the issue to paramedics, such that the emergency call was made a category 3 welfare check call. The result was that Link House staff stood helpless outside Jess’s door for 30 minutes before paramedics arrived. The paramedics were eventually able to break down the door, by which time Jess could not be saved. Had the call been made to the fire brigade, which has specialist equipment for breaking down doors, the outcome might well have been different.
The lack of clinical oversight and regulation at Link House meant that it was not a safe place for Jess to be housed. Jess was continually and graphically describing how she would ligature, and it is clear that the welfare checks and her environment were not suitable for her. Patients like Jess are extremely vulnerable and require specialised care and support, which was lacking in this case.
This is a tragedy that unfolded at one crisis house, but this is not just about one crisis house. In response to my written parliamentary question in June 2023, the Minister informed me that there were “around 70 crisis houses” around the country, with the number continuing to rise. However, I was concerned that figures for the number of crisis houses that were NHS-commissioned but not managed by NHS staff were not available. In September 2023, the Minister confirmed to me that the Government are committed to expanding mental health crisis services as alternatives to emergency hospital admission, and that they are investing over £140 million to expand the provision of emergency care options such as crisis houses.
The existing regulation in this space is complex. If providers offer regulated activities, they must register with the CQC as a provider of health or care services. That requires certain basic standards of training and care, but in many cases what crisis houses offer is outside the scope of those regulated activities, so there is no requirement to meet those standards despite crisis houses dealing with a patient population with complex needs. In the case of Link House, for example, the housing association Missing Link is regulated only by the Charity Commission, which is not an appropriate oversight body for ensuring proper standards of healthcare.
With all NHS services struggling after more than a decade of under-investment, crisis houses may be commissioned as a low-cost option and staffed by support workers without sufficient training for the task that they are asked to undertake, creating a potentially dangerous environment for patients. Consistent and appropriate standards are needed as a matter of urgency to ensure that as more vulnerable patients enter crisis houses, they get the care that they need to be safe and to recover.
I ask the Minister again: when will the Government bring forward legislation to harmonise regulation across the sector, bringing all crisis houses under the same regulatory oversight? If the aim is to use an increasing number of crisis houses to provide a safe alternative to hospital in which to recover from mental health crises, where is the oversight to ensure that those environments are safe? Regulation is essential to ensure both appropriate and consistent standards of care and training for staff at all crisis houses and to create an effective and transparent mechanism for residents or their families to raise concerns, and complaints where standards of care fall short.
There is a long list of regulated activities, including treatment of those being treated for substance misuse or detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, that, if provided, require organisations to register with the CQC. It is regrettable that the Government are declining to expand the list, which would require crisis houses supporting those going through a mental health crisis also to register with the CQC, rather than relying on local integrated care boards and local authorities to provide oversight.
The Minister wrote to me that there were no plans to change the national definition of a crisis house, but added:
“We do however expect crisis house services to be designed in a way that aligns with national requirements, guidance and local structures, to ensure that appropriate safeguarding processes are in place, including enabling the escalation of risks.”
But where is the mechanism to ensure that crisis houses meet those expectations? Where does a bereaved family turn when standards fall tragically short? I hope that, following today’s debate, the Minister will consider all the points that I have raised and will give a commitment to regulating crisis houses to help to prevent any future tragedies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for bringing forward the issue. I offer my deepest condolences to his constituents on the loss of their daughter Jess.
Improving mental health crisis services has been a key priority for the Government for the past few years. We very much recognise that we need to support people better in their communities, rather than wait for someone to go into crisis when the only option is admission into a mental health in-patient unit. If we can get to people earlier, the outcomes are better, particularly for certain groups, depending on age, gender and ethnicity. We know that recovery is possible if the right treatment and early intervention can be given. That is why we have invested heavily in crisis services over the past few years. We see the difference that that can make, with people not ending up in detention in police cells, A&E or other inappropriate settings.
Before I touch on crisis houses specifically, I want to mention the range of crisis support available. We have provided more than £150 million of capital investment in urgent and emergency care infrastructure, £7 million of which has gone into new specialist mental health ambulances, which have mental health teams on board, rather than a traditional ambulance crew. Also, £143 million has gone into a range of alternatives—crisis houses are one of them, but we also have crisis cafés, step-down services and other crisis centres—which provide healthcare for people at a difficult time. More than 160 projects have been allocated funding and 137 of them are completed. We now have our crisis 24/7 helplines, so that around the country, in every area, a call will go through to the local crisis team. They are now linked through the NHS 111 service to provide a consistent route, so if a person is not aware of their crisis helpline number, dialling 111 will get them to that crisis line and their local mental health crisis team.
Crisis houses are a key part of that provision, and the early evidence shows that even crisis cafés can be associated with an 8% lower admission rate to hospital. Telephone services are associated with about a 12% lower admission rate. Overall, there is a 15% lower rate for detention under the Mental Health Act, which is all to the benefit of patients going into crisis. Crisis houses specifically are part of that crisis support team, and they provide accommodation for those who need such help and support, perhaps as a step towards more intensive crisis support, although sometimes that is just enough that someone is able to return home.
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a mix in the provision of crisis houses. Some provide specialist care and regulated activity, including for those going through drug and alcohol addiction, some of whom might need their medication assessed and changed. Those crisis houses that do not provide such activities are not regulated by the CQC—he is absolutely right about that—and, to date, there have been no plans to expand the list of CQC-regulated activities to capture crisis centres that do not provide the more intense support. I hear his concerns, however, and as part of our work on the suicide prevention strategy, through which we are trying to reduce the number of suicides in England, we know that those suffering with pre-existing mental health illnesses are a high-risk group. I hear his concerns about Jess and the fact that she was in a place of safety that did not safeguard her needs, in particular as a vulnerable woman needing that help.
Crisis houses play an important role. They help mental health support teams, allowing them to deal with the most serious cases. They can also become a familiar setting for those patients who may use them regularly if they are going into crisis; they will know that that is a place where they can get help and support. Through our work on the suicide prevention strategy, in all the accommodation that people come into—crisis houses, police cells, prison cells, A&E or mental health in-patient settings—a key piece of work is on trying to eradicate ligature points, so that if someone is thinking of such a method of suicide, we have made it as difficult as possible for them to do that.
I am also concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s point about staff training. These staff members are looking after very vulnerable patients and they need training to know to whom they can signpost more quickly, whether that is the crisis team or other support avenues. Crisis houses are about more than just accommodation. Although they are not a regulated activity, they are more than just a roof over someone’s head. They are about assessing someone and getting them more intensive support if needed or getting them back home if possible.
Although I cannot commit today to including crisis houses as a regulated activity, I want them to meet the same standards as other places in which people going into crisis are often accommodated. Our motto for the suicide prevention strategy is “Suicide is everyone’s business”, so if crisis houses are not going to be a regulated activity and therefore not the business of the CQC, there must be more safeguards in place to ensure that they are as safe as possible, particularly for those at risk of suicide and for the staff, who have a difficult enough job at the best of times without having to deal with the fallout of a young person taking their own life under their care.
What I can commit to today is discussing the issue of crisis houses with Professor Louis Appleby, the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention, with whom I am working on the suicide prevention strategy and the suicide prevention oversight group. I am not sure whether regulation falling under the CQC is the answer, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are clearly some gaps in training and development for staff. They must be able to better assess risk. There is also the issue of ligature points in crisis houses and gaps in their assessment as a place of safety for those staying in them.
I commit to following up on Jess’s case. We are going to get those suicide rates down. It is no one’s fault, but if there is extra work we can do to make crisis houses not just places of crisis, but places of safety, we should leave no stone unturned in doing that. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his constituent’s case as an example of what can happen. Crisis houses are not a regulated activity at the moment, but I am sure that there is more we can do to improve the safeguards that are in place. Following the debate I will speak to Professor Louis Appleby to see what more we can do for crisis houses to ensure that when a person going into crisis reaches out to get the help they need, they are as safe as they can be.
Question put and agreed to.
Healthy Start
(5 months, 1 week 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
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Healthy Start scheme.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. What is not a pleasure is that I am here yet again, still trying to get the Government to do something very simple and impactful to help those who need it the most. Auto-enrolment with an opt-out, as opposed to the current opt-in system, would ensure that the Healthy Start scheme operates as it should, so that every single child gets the best start in life.
The last Labour Government introduced the Healthy Start scheme, which provides financial assistance in the form of a prepaid card to all under-18s who are pregnant, families with young children or pregnant women claiming certain benefits. This is to help with the ever-increasing costs of fruit and vegetables, milk, formula milk and vitamins. The scheme is available in pregnancy and until the child’s fourth birthday, yet the scheme is beset with problems—problems that were caused by this Government and can be easily fixed by this Government.
The child of the north all-party parliamentary group has heard evidence that children in the north are more likely to die before reaching their first birthday than those elsewhere in the country. We have heard about desperate mothers who are seeking an abortion because they simply do not know how they will feed their baby. When I raised that with the Prime Minister only two weeks ago, his response was to advise me that he was
“proud that…the Government have overseen a significant fall in poverty, particularly child poverty.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 570.]
Child poverty has not significantly fallen: it stands at more than 4 million. When expectant mothers have had to make these heartbreaking decisions, bragging about the support put in is crass, to say the least. It was followed up with an equally tone-deaf letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
It has been widely reported that some parents, in desperation, have resorted to theft of baby milk and formula or are having to water it down, which is not surprising considering that prices of baby formula are at historically high levels and the current Healthy Start payments do not even cover the cost of formula for one week. Despite this, Healthy Start take-up is dropping. The Government’s 75% target—given to the NHS Business Services Authority, which runs the scheme—was missed last year, and take-up continues to decrease: it stands at just 62.5% across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The comparable scheme in Scotland, however, has reached 92% take-up. Some local councils and organisations have made a dedicated investment to promote the scheme; not only does this create a postcode lottery, but they were left feeling utterly demoralised after the Government provided false, inflated take-up figures and were then unable to provide accurate uptake data.
An opt-out system would ensure proper data and free up organisations to support families instead of having to try to locate them—a point that is supported by research published earlier this month and funded by the Minister’s own Department. In some areas, the take-up is as low as 44%. About 220,000 babies, young children and pregnant women are missing out on the scheme, and Sustain estimates that that leaves £58 million unclaimed.
Despite the Chancellor’s crowing on this morning’s news, low inflation still means rising prices on top of previous high rises. In short, this is just stemming the pain for families. Only last year, UNICEF found that the UK had the worst rise in child poverty, leaving us bottom among 39 of the world’s richest countries. That is why admissions for malnutrition have increased in children and there has been a resurgence of Victorian diseases such as rickets and scurvy. It is no wonder that the Government blocked the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food from visiting the UK and investigating poverty. When the previous UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty visited the UK, he was very clear that the rise in poverty was the direct result of Government policies.
Food banks, baby banks, faith groups and charities have now become embedded parts of our welfare state. The Key to Life food bank in my constituency reported a 300% increase in demand last year, coupled with a decrease in donations. It is therefore highly unlikely that the £58 million that is going unclaimed is unclaimed because people do not need it. There is a very clear need for the scheme but, as I have been told time and again, awareness is low among the public and professionals. That is why in 2021 the national food strategy recommended that the Government implement a communications plan related to Healthy Start, but they did not.
In 2021, I and others raised concerns about plans to fully digitalise the scheme by 2022, meaning that paper applications and vouchers would no longer be accepted. The result was that, as of October 2023, more than 20,500 households that were previously in receipt of the vouchers were no longer receiving them, 19 months after digitisation. The NHS Business Services Authority then admitted that technical issues meant that applications were being declined, resulting in parents and pregnant women struggling to get through to the helpline and having their payment cards rejected.
As it stands, the application routes are overly complex and varied. When an application is made online, an automated message claims that a response will be given in two days. This very rarely happens. Some mothers report that they have never heard back and that, after multiple attempts, they have given up.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of my hon. Friend’s speech. She is making an excellent speech outlining why the scheme is so needed. She mentions that take-up of the Healthy Start scheme is too low, so proper information about the scheme is needed, along with auto-enrolment. That would cut through the red tape and the hurdles that many families experience. Does she agree that the Government must therefore do more to promote the Healthy Start scheme to families so that people are aware of it, as recommended in the excellent national food strategy?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for all the work that she does in this space. She has tirelessly championed children for as long as I have known her and for as long as she has been in this place. Charities, organisations and local authorities are using what little money they have to promote a Government scheme, and then when they go to the Government for data about how it is working, they get either false figures or no figures at all, so I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
The Healthy Start phone number is not freephone, and it is fully automated. There is no option at all for callers to speak to anyone unless they need an interpreter or have inquiries relating to their card. The absurdity of an automated system asking whether callers have problems with cards that they do not yet have is not lost on any of us, I am sure. Worse still, if the application is refused, the parent is not told why and is directed to the phone line: again, they cannot speak to anyone. Research by Manchester Central food bank highlights the fact that those on legacy benefits or with no recourse to public funds have to apply via paper or telephone, but that is completely at odds with the Healthy Start phone line and website, which state very clearly that applications must always be made online. The confusion is completely unnecessary.
Repeated questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about funding for the scheme and future take-up have been equally frustrating. The Government refuse to say how much money they allocate to the scheme each year. They claim it is allocated on a forecast for take-up, but will not say what that forecast is. A cynic would conclude that if the Government forecast low uptake, it is against their interest to do anything to boost it, as they will not have budgeted for that, or that if they forecast higher uptake but do not reach it, millions of pounds that could have been spent on feeding children will be spent elsewhere. Either way, hungry babies and children are once again the ones losing out.
Back in May 2023, a similar debate was held in which the Government were made fully aware of the problems with Healthy Start. The following month, I introduced my Bill on auto-enrolment, the Healthy Start Scheme (Take-Up) (No. 2) Bill. Over the past two years, I have sent the Health Secretary two cross-party letters, signed by MPs and a multitude of outside organisations. This was followed by more questions and speeches in the Chamber and a full report to the Chancellor in advance of the previous Budget. Forty-eight written questions and two well-supported early-day motions later, here we are again.
I am sure that in her response the Minister will reiterate the excuses her colleagues have given for refusing auto-enrolment: that it is not possible because the prepaid card is a financial product that is therefore subject to financial regulations. However, Mastercard has written to me explaining that it is possible, if only the Minister’s Department and the Department for Work and Pensions will work with it. I have been here long enough to know that the Minister will not be able to commit to auto-enrolment today, but at the very least can she give a commitment to working with her colleagues and other organisations to look at piloting auto-enrolment?
Can the Minister assure us that her Department’s uptake data is now accurate and advise us on the progress of her Department’s promise to me to write to all eligible households that are missing out on the scheme? As we debate this today, there will be mothers and fathers who, instead of excitedly preparing for their newborn or enjoying those early years with their little ones, are worried and distressed about how on earth they are going to provide for them.
I know that auto-enrolment is not a panacea. I know that life will continue to be a hard struggle for so many people. But as I did when I presented my Bill, I want to thank all the parents who have shared with me their stories and their pain. They should always be at the forefront of our mind, because nobody should feel such desperation and hopelessness that they can see no other way than stealing to feed their baby or seeking to terminate their pregnancy. I sincerely hope that the Minister agrees with me about that.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this important debate. She has done a considerable amount of work—some with me and some in her own right—over the past few years and has followed in the footsteps of my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston in campaigning on auto-enrolment.
This is a hugely important issue. We know that those families who are eligible to receive the Healthy Start allowance are some of the poorest in our country. We know, too, just what an important component of the benefits system it is. It ensures that youngsters at risk of malnutrition because of a lack of finance and of available cash in the family home are able to access things like healthy foods, fruits and vegetables, as well as milk formula and other important things to help with babies’ early development.
There are a number of aspects to this. My hon. Friend has focused largely on her important campaign to secure auto-enrolment, but I want to take a moment to broaden the debate with some comments about the uplifting of the allowance, given the significant increases in inflation in recent years.
Mrs Hodgson
I can see that my hon. Friend is going to make an excellent speech; he has made some important points already. Hon. Members may be aware that an event was held yesterday by Diabetes UK that discussed the shocking rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in young people. They mentioned early years nutrition and the important part that that period plays in establishing the lifelong health of an individual. Does my hon. Friend agree that that very early food system and what food children consume in those very early years is so important, and that schemes such as the Healthy Start scheme should be thought to be central to a good public health mission?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is correct to make that point and to link diabetes and other negative health experiences that can happen as a result of poor nutrition in early years. She has spent many years campaigning for children and their health in this place, not least during her time as the shadow Minister, and I know that many families up and down the country will be grateful to her for that.
I turn back to the issue of inflationary pressures and the lack of uplift in the Healthy Start allowance since 2021, when it was uplifted for the first and only time since the Government came to power in 2010. We all know the inflationary pressures that we have seen since then; food, in particular, has outstripped other parts of our economy, with an average 30% increase in food prices. That pressure has been especially acute in the price of milk formula.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned our last Westminster Hall debate. I called that debate a year ago yesterday, and things have worsened since then. As my hon. Friend said, uptake has decreased, as prices—although they are not growing as quickly—have continued to rise. Twelve months ago, we were at the point at which there was not a single milk formula product on the market that could be afforded under the Healthy Start allowance. That is a terrible situation to be in, not least because of the other pressures we have seen on family finances in recent years.
I turn to auto-enrolment. Uptake is problematic: it has decreased over the past two months. As I said, these are the poorest families and those in the most need. Families are not deciding that they do not require that money. Families are looking, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields so ably outlined, at an opaque and challenging system to navigate. That, as well as a lack of knowledge that this allowance even exists for families, is one of the primary causes, if not the only cause, of this damagingly low uptake.
I am interested to hear the Government’s thoughts on the thorny issue of auto-enrolment, although I am not sure why it is so thorny. I also wish to broaden out my hon. Friend’s comments about the interim proposal that she and I put forward to Government of writing to those families who are eligible for the Healthy Start allowance but who are not taking it up. We have had a number of excuses from the Government over the past 12 months, similar to those that my hon. Friend outlined on data sharing and a financial agreement through a card system, which have since been quashed by Mastercard.
I have submitted a number of written questions about where we are with the data, given previous undertakings from Ministers that they would draw the data together to write to those families. In September 2023 I was told that that data was being brought forward. In November I asked again, in pursuance of the previous question, and we were told that the data would be available in early 2024. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I seem to dovetail on this issue a lot: she then submitted a question in March this year. There was still no sign, despite previous suggestions that the data would be available in early 2024 for that work to happen.
There is a lack of transparency and accessibility in the application process. The Government are not helping to disavail people of that view when they refuse to let even those who are eligible for the scheme know that that is the case. The impact on our communities is significant. In my constituency of Stretford and Urmston, one child in five lives in poverty. My local food bank in Stretford told me recently that 40% of the people it serves are first-time users, such is the enormous increase in demand that it has seen of late. Most damningly of all, in my community they also tell me that there has been an 80% increase over the past 12 months in the number of families with children that they are supporting.
We are in crisis. Families are struggling. The allowance is targeted at those in the greatest need, yet just this weekend, in Old Trafford in my constituency, residents were having a real-time WhatsApp conversation about the fact that milk formula and milk itself are security-tagged in some—not all—supermarkets up and down this country. There was a debate going on: if they were a retail worker, would they stop somebody who was clearly in need from taking milk or baby formula?
I said 12 months ago that people were watering down formula, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned it today. Worse still, as Sky News covered at the time, in some cases there were suggestions that mothers were adding flour and other such substances into milk formula to pad it out further. The impact that that can have on a baby’s digestion is significant and risks long-term health problems. This is the scale of the challenge that we face.
I would be incredibly grateful for an update on the Government’s thinking about whether they should be uprating the Healthy Start allowance in line with inflation, given the significant pressures on the price of food and especially on milk formula since the allowance was last uprated in 2021. Are the Government serious about the issue of auto-enrolment? If not, why on earth is more not being done to bring together the data that is required? That would at least let families know whether they can embark on this admittedly opaque process to try to bolster their family budgets and try to ensure that their babies, their children under the age of four or they themselves, if they are more than 10 weeks pregnant, can access healthy things such as fruit, vegetables or milk for their baby.
This is a crisis. The need is there. We all see it in our communities. The time to act is now, and I beg the Minister to do it urgently.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for securing this important debate. By the time children start school, one in five is living with obesity. Recent research has shown that children who are severely obese by the age of four have their life expectancy cut by nearly half if they do not lose weight. Type 2 diabetes is being diagnosed in children, while a national NHS survey found that nearly 30% of children under the age of five are experiencing enamel and dental decay.
All the while, one in four UK households with children under four experiences food insecurity. That is defined as when households reduce the quality, variety and desirability in their diets. It is concerning that demand for emergency food parcels distributed by the Trussell Trust food bank network has nearly doubled over the past 12 months, and 65% of that support went to families with children. In Somerset, 18,000 food parcels have been distributed in the past year. When the household support fund closes in September, we could see pressures increase even further. In addition, Food Foundation polling from January 2024 found that food-insecure households were more likely to cut back on purchasing healthy foods such as fruit, veg, fish, dairy and eggs by up to 60%.
The Healthy Start scheme provides pregnant women or pre-school-age children from low-income households with a weekly payment to be spent on healthy food. That is welcome, but the Government have failed to roll out the scheme effectively or give it the attention that it deserves. The Government set an uptake target of 75% by March 2023, yet the latest figures for April 2024 show that only 62% have taken it up and we do not know the uptake data between July 2023 and February 2024, due to a major data error. That just amplifies how neglected the scheme is.
The scheme needs to move faster to reach more people and must not be left to stagnate against the backdrop of considerable food price rises. The scheme does not give people enough money to afford healthy foods in the light of inflation and the increased cost of food. The poorest 10% of UK households would need to spend between 34% and 52% of one person’s weekly food budget to afford one week’s worth of a five-a-day diet.
If the scheme is to be used as a tool to fight food insecurity, it must not be used in isolation. However, I do not believe that the Government are willing to take the necessary measures to change our food system for the better. They should accept the national food strategy’s recommendations by extending the scheme’s eligibility criteria and committing to a properly funded promotional campaign. The Government must also focus on the lack of access to healthy, nutritious food by incorporating household food security, including people’s ability to access healthy food, into a yearly assessment of UK food security.
At last week’s Farm to Fork summit, the Prime Minister had the chance to focus on primary food producers being squeezed by tight retailer-supplier contracts, but he did not, leaving potentially more farmers on the brink of closing their farm gates for the final time because of the associated financial pressures and anxiety. The Government have failed to grasp that we have a broken food system, which leaves farmers on a cliff edge and families reliant on unhealthy, ultra-processed foods and unable to afford the food necessary for their children’s healthy development. It should be a national embarrassment that so many children under five are beginning their lives with serious health issues because of poor nutrition, but the neglect that the Healthy Start scheme has experienced from this Government is symptomatic of the neglect that they have paid to our food system.
I do not believe it is too late. The Government should urgently revisit the national food strategy recommendations set out by Henry Dimbleby and act on them. The Liberal Democrats would fight to ensure that our children’s health is treated as a priority by guaranteeing free school meals for all primary-aged children and all those whose families are in receipt of universal credit. We would also boost the farming budget by £1 billion to help our farmers thrive, and to help them produce more home-grown, healthy food to improve the health of the nation’s children.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for securing this debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of the 200,000 eligible pregnant women, babies and young children missing out on support via the scheme.
I will start by praising the Healthy Start scheme, which was set up by the last Labour Government in 2006. It provides support to expectant mothers who are more than 10 weeks pregnant, and to parents and caregivers who are responsible for at least one child under the age of four. Healthy Start vouchers have a value of up to £4.25 a week or £8.50 for those with a child under one. The vouchers entitle parents in receipt of certain social security benefits to fruit, vegetables, cow’s milk, infant formula and pulses. They also enable mothers to access vitamins from pregnancy until their child reaches the age of one.
Adequate nutrition in the first months and years of a child’s life is critical to supporting their healthy development. In recent years, the health of children under five has stalled or declined across various measures, including infant mortality, childhood obesity, tooth decay and mental health. Declining health outcomes are linked to a rise in poverty, with children from disadvantaged areas significantly more likely to face a range of poor health outcomes compared with those in more affluent areas.
Healthy Start has an important role to play in helping to take pressure off family finances and ensure that mothers and young children get a nutritious diet. It is effective. Research has found that participating families increase their spend on fruit and vegetables, and the Minister will understand how crucial a healthy diet is for pregnant women, new mothers, babies and young children. The British Medical Association has highlighted the effects of poor nutrition during pregnancy: adverse health and social outcomes, premature birth, low birth weight, shorter life expectancy and a higher risk of death in the first year of a child’s life.
As hon. Members have mentioned, child food poverty continues to stunt children’s development as they grow up, and overstretched family budgets mean that mothers go without in order to feed their children. I and other hon. Members present have raised concerns about Healthy Start for a number of years; I remember writing to the then Minister about it in 2021. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, three years later, after the cost of food essentials has rocketed, the value of the vouchers is the same as it was then and uptake has not significantly improved.
Since 2021, infant formula prices have risen by about 25%. Almost one in four households with at least one child under four reported being food insecure this year. Some 17% of single-adult households with children reported not eating for a whole day because they could not afford or get access to food. Food insecure households were more likely to cut back on purchasing healthy foods such as fruit, vegetables, fish, dairy and eggs. Those statistics are shocking. As we have heard, there has to be a call to action. The importance of good nutrition during pregnancy, breastfeeding and early life is indisputable. As the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on maternal and child nutrition states, it forms the foundation for the long and short-term health of both mother and baby.
The incidence of severe malnutrition in the United Kingdom has doubled in the past 10 years, with over 10,000 people hospitalised in 2022, among them 312 children. Can the Minister please tell us—[Interruption.]
Preet Kaur Gill
The incidence of severe malnutrition in the United Kingdom has doubled in the past 10 years, with over 10,000 people hospitalised in 2022, among them 312 children. Can the Minister please tell us what the Government are doing to urgently get a grip on the issue?
An issue that Members have raised is the poor uptake of the Healthy Start scheme. For years now, the Government’s target has been an uptake rate of 75%, yet the latest data, for April 2024, shows that not a single local authority anywhere in the country is hitting that target. However, when Ministers have been asked about take-up, they have routinely given boilerplate responses highlighting that the NHS Business Services Authority operates the scheme on the Government’s behalf, with no meaningful engagement on how the Government intend to improve that.
I also ask the Minister what assessments she has made of the merits of launching a national take-up campaign. Has she encouraged take-up by signposting through family hubs or early years provision? Likewise, has she made an assessment of the merits of including a tick box as part of the universal credit application process or as part of applications for council tax support?
There is also the very real concern that Members raised about the value of the food vouchers, particularly in the context of the rising cost of living. The few policies that the Government have introduced on healthy food in recent years have done little about affordability. I was momentarily excited last week when the Government launched their new food security index—it sounded promising. However, I looked into it and it appears that the index is comprised of metrics entirely of the Government’s own making, rather than internationally accepted definitions and indices of food security.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have eschewed internationally agreed definitions of food security in terms of availability and access—basically, that the food is there and people can afford it—in favour of their own definitions that do not cover those important points? In other words, why does the Government’s index give zero consideration to the impact on UK food consumers apart from a measure on confidence that their food is safe?
I note that the Government have previously commented that they keep the value of Healthy Start under continuous review. Can the Minister update us on whether there have been any recent discussions regarding the value of the scheme and whether it is still her Department’s position that no increase in value is forthcoming? If that is the case, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of inflationary price rises on low-income households, and what reassurances can she provide to Members that she is taking action to stop families from being priced out of essential goods on the Government’s watch?
One of the most egregious issues facing families with young babies is that they are being priced out of infant formula to feed their children. While breastfeeding will always be the gold-standard healthiest option, and we must do more to promote it, the Minister will know that it is not suitable for everyone, and some women simply cannot. All families should be able to feed their babies, and it is already hard for so many to afford to do so in this cost of living crisis. Does the Minister share my concern that regulations that prevent families from using food bank vouchers to buy infant formula are no longer fit for purpose? Labour will make it so that retailers will be able to accept loyalty cards and vouchers as payments for infant formula to help families feed their children. Labour will urgently review existing legislation on infant formula, ensuring that regulation is protecting families and their babies, not making life more difficult for them.
Healthy Start was a valuable scheme to improve nutrition among mothers and very young children at a critical stage in their development, but the impact of the scheme is being progressively eroded by Government inaction, poor take-up and the rocketing cost of living crisis. Labour has committed to a child health action plan to ensure that every child gets a healthy start in life. That includes our commitment to establish fully funded healthy breakfast clubs across England. We will also reform universal credit and set up Great British Energy to boost Britain’s energy security and cut bills.
Over the last 14 years, the UK’s progress on infant and child health has stalled. I urge the Minister to engage with campaigners on the issue and work proactively with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the Healthy Start scheme is fit for purpose.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to respond to the debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Start for Life and Primary Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for raising this important debate about the Healthy Start scheme, and to other hon. Members who have contributed.
The Government are committed to supporting the next generation of children, who are, of course, our future, and their own will obviously depend on this as well. A child’s early life is critical to their health later in life. We want every family to receive the right support to care for their children. Growing up with a healthy diet and weight is strongly protective against ill health in childhood and adulthood. Eating a healthier diet, as set out in “The Eatwell Guide”, could increase population life expectancy by up to eight years.
We know that fruit and vegetable consumption is lower among more deprived children, and that those children may be at risk of not getting enough micronutrients. More than one in five children start primary school overweight or obese, and the numbers are higher in more deprived areas. That is a major risk factor for long-term diseases including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and many types of cancer.
Against that backdrop, the support for children to eat healthily through the Healthy Start scheme and our provision of free school meals is crucial. The Healthy Start scheme benefits hundreds of thousands of families across the country. The statutory scheme encourages a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies and young children under four from low-income households. Eligibility criteria for the scheme ensure that we target nutritional support on families who need it most.
In April 2021, we increased the value of Healthy Start by 37%, from £3.10 to £4.25 a week, therefore helping families with the increased cost of living. I welcome the support demonstrated by colleagues today for this important scheme and the emphasis placed on its uptake. I fully agree that we need to ensure that eligible families are aware of and able to access Healthy Start. I now turn to how we are doing that.
Healthy Start is delivered by the NHS Business Services Authority, on behalf of the Department. Following user research and testing by both the Department and the NHSBSA, the scheme switched from being paper based to a digitised service in 2021. An online application and prepaid card replaced the previous paper form and vouchers. The number of families being supported by Healthy Start has grown following the introduction of the prepaid card. Since September 2021, of the more than 600,000 successful applications, 45% have come from new families and the scheme now supports more than 360,000 beneficiaries on lower incomes. The uptake is 62% of people who are eligible, which is higher than in the previous paper scheme and shows the benefits of the transition to a digital scheme.
Hon. Members have raised the question of auto-enrolling eligible families on Healthy Start. Moving to auto-enrolment would require a substantial redesign of the scheme. In contrast to what I heard the hon. Member for South Shields say, such a move, unfortunately, is not a simple thing to do. I am told that the prepaid card would need to be removed because it is a financial product that, under financial services legislation, requires applicants to accept the terms and conditions on an opt-in basis, so we cannot have it as an opt-out. Creating a new delivery method and process is therefore far from straightforward and would come at an additional cost to Government, with disruption for the beneficiaries.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
As the Minister heard in my opening comments, Mastercard completely refutes that argument. It and Allpay, which administers the scheme, have been clear that it is entirely possible to do auto-enrolment; they just need the Department for Health and the DWP to talk to them about it. It is not a difficult thing to do. They have outlined it to me in a letter, and I am happy to share that with her Department, yet again.
Helen Whately
I hear the hon. Member’s point, but as I set out clearly, I understand that this is not a simple thing to do, and not straightforward. As she has offered, however, I suggest that she writes to the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Start for Life and Primary Care with that suggestion and the proposal from Mastercard. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will look into it and respond to the hon. Member.
I have been saying that it is complicated to shift to an auto-enrolment scheme under existing legislation. By contrast, the current scheme has seen increased take-up, with the switch to the prepayment card. We would not want to jeopardise that progress of increasing numbers of families enrolling on what is an important scheme. That is why the Government’s focus is on increasing the uptake and effectiveness of the existing scheme, so that more children can benefit from Healthy Start. I also assure the hon. Member for South Shields that the substantial level of investment in the scheme is in the order of £78 million per annum.
I was sorry to hear about the problems in getting access and responses to phone calls for people calling up for help with access to the scheme. It is clearly important for people to be able to get help, if needed, to access Healthy Start. I understand that the average speed of answer for calls between 1 April and 10 May was 19 seconds, but I have asked officials to look further into the problems raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) regarding accessing the phoneline and accessing help.
Multiple channels of communication are used to raise awareness and encourage take-up of Healthy Start. NHSBSA actively promotes Healthy Start through its digital channels and has created free toolkits for use by healthcare professionals, local authorities and public health teams. NHSBSA uses a range of communications to raise awareness among parents and pregnant women. For example, it has attended maternity and midwifery forum events and placed advertisements in You and Your Pregnancy magazine, which is given to pregnant women in the first trimester, and the Bounty and Badger Notes apps. As officials confirmed to the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee on 7 May, we also have plans to write to everyone eligible for Healthy Start to ensure they are aware of the scheme and to encourage them to apply.
As I said before, the Government are committed to promoting a healthy diet for our children. Healthy Start is an important part of the support provided by Government but it is only one aspect of how we are doing that. For our youngest children, the Government are investing £50 million in infant feeding support as part of the family hubs and the Start for Life programme. We support childcare providers with the cost of milk through the nursery milk scheme. We are also working with industry to improve the healthiness, marketing and labelling of commercially available baby food and drink aimed at those aged up to 36 months. Children of all ages also benefit from restrictions on the placement of less healthy products in key selling locations, calorie labelling on menus and upcoming landmark restrictions on multi-buy offers and the advertising of less healthy products on TV and online.
For school-aged children, we have the school fruit and vegetable scheme and free school meals. The Government have expanded free school meals to more groups of children than any Government over the past 50 years. We have introduced universal infant free school meals for all children in reception, year 1 and year 2. Under the benefits-based criteria, more than 2 million of the most disadvantaged pupils are provided with free school meals; in fact, the greatest ever proportion of children are receiving free school meals, with more than a third receiving free lunches compared with one in six in 2010. Furthermore, a crucial backdrop to this debate is the latest fall in inflation—because we know that the best way to help people with the cost of living is to bring inflation down.
Infancy and early childhood is a crucial time for establishing food preferences and dietary patterns. Giving children a healthy start in life is critical to health outcomes throughout childhood and adulthood. The Healthy Start scheme is one of the essential ways in which the Government support our most vulnerable families to give their children the best start for a healthy life. I welcome colleagues’ interest in the Healthy Start scheme and assure them that although our approach may be different from the one that the hon. Member for South Shields argues for, we are committed to making sure that the children who most need help get it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who has long championed a reduction in the price of baby formula. He rightly pointed out that auto-enrolment is not the only issue with Healthy Start; there is also the value of payments and the eligibility criteria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her kind words and support.
I also thank the Minister for her comments. However, it will come as no surprise that I completely disagree with her analysis of the entire situation. The one thing I will take from her speech is that at least she has reiterated the promise to once again write to all eligible households missing out on the scheme. We have been promised that for some time now and it has not yet been delivered.
If the rumours about an imminent general election are true, I must tell the Minister to please get a move on, because we do not have long left. In the interim, before we have a new Government, I will, as I have always done, use my time in this place to try anything at all that the Government might accept. I will keep pushing for them to at least explore trying a pilot for auto-enrolment for Healthy Start.
People should not have to put up with the daily grind and struggle. Eradicating child poverty was a central plank of the last Labour Government, and I know for a fact that it will be a key plank of the next one. I just cannot wait until we get there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Healthy Start Scheme.
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrew Selous to move the motion, I will give a little clarity. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up, but we have a spare 10 minutes and the previous debate finished a bit early, so there will be a little more flexibility—but do not abuse that. A couple of Members want to intervene or speak, so there is some flexibility, at the discretion of the Member in charge and the Minister, to bear that in mind.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Major Conditions Strategy and people with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am extremely grateful to colleagues across the House who have turned up to attend this important debate. We understand that anywhere between 135,000 and up to 300,000 people in the United Kingdom have Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Those are only the diagnosed ones, and we think that that is the tip of the iceberg. If we take that higher number, in rough terms, that is about 460 per constituency for all of us—that is only those with a known diagnosis.
I am grateful to Dr Emma Reinhold, who is herself a GP no longer able to work because she has EDS. She sent me this quote by Professor Rodney Grahame, who is well respected in the field:
“No other condition in the history of modern medicine has been neglected in such a way as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a group of 13 genetic disorders in which connective tissue is abnormal. That results in fragile and hyperextensible tissues throughout the body, which can lead to a range of very debilitating symptoms. The effect on the body is widespread and not limited to one body system, as connective tissue is everywhere in our bodies. It is a complicated condition and can come with many comorbidities, which can include pain, gut issues, nutrition, cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction, postural tachycardia syndrome, low blood pressure, mast cell issues, musculoskeletal issues, and head and neck issues. Special considerations for children and women’s health, and anaesthetic and surgical considerations are issues as well. EDS can lead to physical disability and reduced quality of life. Some rarer types can be life-limiting. Hypermobility spectrum disorders have similar symptoms to the most common type of EDS, and are treated in the same way.
I am very grateful to Ehlers-Danlos Support UK; I publicly acknowledge the support it has given me for this debate. It supports people across the United Kingdom who live with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. It is a wonderful charity and has been a big driver behind the debate. It wants us to come here and make a difference, and that is my plea to the Minister.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
This is an important debate and many people, as my hon. Friend has said, do not know about Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or its diagnosis. Another complication, which he did not mention, is aortic dissection. People with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome can suffer from that and it can be deadly. One of my constituents has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, but it took 30 years to diagnose. At one point, she was under 11 different consultant teams. Both her sons have the same symptoms, yet they cannot access diagnosis or service. Over those 30 years, there has been no improvement in our care. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give some hope to the people who suffer from this syndrome.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because it is these individual stories that really make the case. My hon. Friend’s constituents had to wait 30 years: that is a very long time indeed.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
A constituent of mine suffers from EDS. They make frequent trips to hospital, but every time they go they see a different consultant, who quite often treats the immediate medical emergency rather than taking a holistic approach and view of their condition. Does the hon. Member agree that people with EDS should be given a single point of contact—somebody who can review their condition as a whole, rather than just treating the individual symptom when it occurs?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. The four requests that Ehlers-Danlos Support UK wants me to put to the Minister are as follows. The first is a pathway for NHS diagnosis and care for hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders in England. Secondly, it wants National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. Thirdly, it wants a properly co-ordinated, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and care for people with these conditions and their associated comorbidities. Fourthly, it wants support and training for healthcare professionals to deliver this. Those are all reasonable and sensible demands.
To give more background about the condition and the work being done to bring about change, I will say a bit more about the symptoms, as many people are not aware of EDS. Whatever knowledge people have, it is undeniable that there is a widespread lack of awareness, and that is part of the challenge that people living with EDS face in accessing care and in dealing with their condition. Twelve types of EDS are rare and can be genetically tested, but—this is a really important point—there is no test for the most common type of EDS. That has led to multiple reports of people being disbelieved by healthcare professionals and by assessors for personal independence payments. In fact, recent research suggests that those with the condition can wait for up to 20 years for a diagnosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) has just told us of her constituent who waited 30 years.
I am grateful to Danielle Humphreys, who researches in this area. She told me that quite a common response from doctors can be “Let me just check Google about this, as I’m not aware of the illness you are talking to me about,” or “Can you spell that?” I have some sympathy for doctors. Two of my children are junior doctors. They have a lot to learn in five or six years in medical school. They cannot know everything, but this is just not good enough. For each of us, the condition affects 500 or more of our constituents, so things need to change. I am pleased to put that on the record.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Constituents have been in touch with me about this. A member of my staff has been in touch with me as well. They tell me just how difficult life is with EDS. As one person put it,
“these are horrendous afflictions to live with, and some people can work and live with it, but some can’t. Any Personal Independence Payments that are received are spent on transport to and from appointments, medications and private treatments just to make life bearable.”
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must do everything we can not only to improve standards of healthcare, but to make sure that the welfare system can continue to support them?
Andrew Selous
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I have experience of assisting constituents through the PIP process, which is tortuous for those with EDS so I am very grateful to her for putting that important point on the record.
The 13th type of EDS is not rare and cannot be tested for, which is really significant. Recent studies have shown that the diagnosed prevalence of the most common type can be as high as one in 227 people, although most are not diagnosed. Those with the most common type are twice as likely to use hospital services, and there is evidence that the cost of secondary care for them is an additional 29%. This places a significant burden on the NHS, so if we understood and could diagnose it earlier, we could take some of the strain off hospitals. That is another important reason why we must make progress.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving voice in Parliament to those suffering from this disease. We have heard from a number of fellow MPs about their constituents. A constituent has contacted me to say that she, her mother and her children all suffer from this condition. She is so grateful that Parliament is finally taking some notice of it, and a daughter of a very close friend of mine is also affected.
The fact that this condition is not diagnosed early leaves parents scared—petrified about what is happening to their loved one and not knowing what the answer is. Does my hon. Friend agree, and perhaps the Minister will also talk about this, that progress in analysing health service data about certain conditions—so-called big data and AI—could play a role in assisting doctors? As my hon. Friend has said, doctors cannot learn everything during their training, so maybe technology can provide them with some assistance.
Andrew Selous
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend and county neighbour makes such an astute point. He is absolutely right about the power of technology to help the NHS get this right, and I am grateful to him for putting that on the record.
Ehlers-Danlos Support UK, a wonderful charity that we are so lucky to have, called on the Government last year to provide urgently needed NHS services for those with the most common type of EDS and HSD. Its petition secured 28,700 signatures in England, although I have to say that it was disappointed by the response from the Government:
“There are no plans for a national service for diagnosis or treatment of hEDS and HSD. Our plans for musculoskeletal conditions will be outlined in the major conditions strategy.”
The draft strategy stated that people will be supported in primary care and that
“GPs and expert physiotherapists…are being empowered to identify and diagnose hEDS and HSD through the use of validated approved clinical guidelines and toolkits.”
When the Minister responds, perhaps he will tell us a bit more about what “empowered” means in this context. The only toolkit for diagnosing and managing hypermobile EDS is the one created by Ehlers-Danlos Support UK. There are no validated and approved clinical guidelines or genetic tests to use to diagnose, and in the past EDS UK has always been told that physiotherapists cannot diagnose EDS or HSD.
We need to do better. We need a proper multidisciplinary approach to diagnosing and managing hEDS and HSD, for two reasons. First, hEDS is a common type of EDS —it is the most prevalent—and is therefore not covered by the rare diseases action plan. Secondly, it does not fit solely into the category of musculoskeletal conditions and accordingly will not be covered by the major conditions strategy.
Like virtually all hon. Members in the Chamber, I am grateful to my constituents, one of whom, Alex Akitici, is here with us this afternoon. She has been to see me a number of times, and when she came to my constituency advice surgery in January, I could tell that something was not right. The colour of her face was giving me cause for concern, and when she got up at the end of the meeting, she collapsed flat on the floor and fainted in front of me. That was just a small example of what this group of people, whom we are all here this afternoon trying to help, have to deal with.
This is not just a musculoskeletal condition, because musculoskeletal conditions do not necessarily cause people to faint, but that is what happened to my constituent Alex. She has had to pay privately for a diagnosis—not everyone can afford to do that—and for her treatment and care. She and her husband have had to spend money adapting their home to make it safe as her collapses are frequent and unanticipated, as I witnessed. She lives in constant pain and has had an issue with personal independence payments, which were raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
My constituent’s experience is common. Many people with EDS are also fighting to stay in work, but due to delays in diagnosis and a lack of appropriate care, they end up in a position where they can no longer stay in work.
I want to mention some people with EDS who are constituents of MPs who cannot be here today. As Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is not allowed to speak in this debate, but he contacted me ahead of it to tell me about his constituent Fran Heley, who has a connective tissue disorder. She has had to spend thousands of pounds on private healthcare, and she walked from Leeds to Parliament to draw attention to the condition. She has also undertaken a coast-to-coast walk across the north to raise awareness of the condition. What a brave campaigning lady! I thank her.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) asked me to give a shout-out to his constituent Karen Huntley from Healthwatch Calderdale and Huddersfield, who works tirelessly to highlight the need for a Government strategy. I thank Karen Huntley for what she does.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) contacted me before the debate with details of her constituent who has just had a battle royal to deal with her condition and get appropriate care and recognition for it. And one of my constituents contacted me earlier this week and said:
“Both my daughters and grandson have the condition”,
but they did not realise until the older daughter was “quite old”. Other hon. Members have made exactly that point. So we can see that the condition is widespread across the UK and that the same issues come up time and again.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what is happening across the United Kingdom. In Wales, Members of the Senedd have resolved as follows:
“The National Clinical Lead for Musculoskeletal Conditions is working with EDS UK and Community Health Pathways to develop a nationally agreed pathway for hypermobility in children and adults. This will support healthcare professionals to have informed conversations with patients and to provide access to the right specialist teams.”
That is a major step forward. If it is good enough for the Welsh, it is good enough for the English.
I am told that in the Scottish Parliament there will be a roundtable debate at the end of this month, which, by the way, is Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes Awareness Month. In Scotland, they want to try to understand how they can improve diagnosis and care there. A recent study launched in Holyrood included a recommendation to develop a pathway and NICE guidelines—a request I made to the Minister earlier—with lived experience as evidence of the need.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he and his officials are looking around the world at best practice, the best research and the best care. I stumbled across the Ehlers-Danlos Society of the United States of America today. Lots of clinicians involved in that do a lot on research. I hope that we are up on what is happening globally, so that we do not miss out here. Departments needs to look internationally to get best practice in the United Kingdom.
On Ehlers-Danlos support, I mentioned the four points: the pathway for diagnosis; NICE guidelines; a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach; and support and training for healthcare professionals. I ask the Minister to really push for that in the Department. I know that he is a good man and that he has to get that through NHS England, but, frankly, the time really has come to make progress. I would like a meeting, if possible, with him and Ehlers-Danlos Support UK, which does so much in this space, so that we can take the matter forward.
I am grateful to colleagues who have attended the debate. With your permission, Mr Dowd, I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) to speak briefly.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Thank you for your guidance on timing, Mr Dowd; I will be as brief as I can. I deeply thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for holding this debate, but I do so with some embarrassment because I feel like I should have done it a long time ago. I will explain why.
I very rarely talk about my personal life in great detail, especially not about my loved ones, but my wife has hypermobility Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Many of the comments made today, especially in my hon. Friend’s speech, echo very deeply what I have seen from my wife. She has struggled since her mid-teens with gastric issues. As briefly as I can, I will share some of the experiences that she has shared with me, because when she heard about this debate, she urged me to speak.
My wife has had mobility issues for over 15 years now, probably longer. Her experience with the NHS, as wonderful as it can be and as much as I praise it, has not been the greatest. When she has seen GPs, they have questioned what she actually has. A long time ago, they questioned whether it exists. Even when she sees the musculoskeletal unit, she says it has no idea how to deal with her condition. The answer is often physio, but she needs manipulative physio and she does not get that on the NHS. Painkillers will often be thrown in her direction, many of which she has taken, but over time they do not give the same relief. The only thing that has ever worked for her is proper reformer Pilates, but that is not available on the NHS, and water therapy is very difficult for a person with a full-time job who is guided by when it is available.
Many of my points have been made, but the key point I want to get across is that this condition is like an invisible disease. It is almost like a vile torment for those who have it. I have seen my wife in absolute agony from doing the simplest of tasks. There are many times that I have had to apologise when I have gone to events as an MP and people have said, “Is your wife not coming with you?” I try to explain that she cannot come, but the truth is that if she does, she will be in agony for the rest of that evening and the rest of the next day. It is very hard to explain to people what she has. I explain and they say, “Oh, I have never heard of that.”
The condition is like a disability that is not classed as a disability. It affects every part of the body, yet the person is not seen as a whole. Every single aspect of it that I have seen through my wife over the 20-odd years that we have been together is torment for her. From a personal perspective, I love her deeply and I see how strong she is as a woman, yet I see the pain that it causes her. I have deep concern that this issue is just not being looked at. There are lots of holistic therapies and things that can be done, but when only the body parts of a person are being treated—that includes not treating their mental health as well as their physical health—it has a detrimental effect on every part of their life.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I echo the points that have been made. The NHS needs to ensure that the condition is identifiable, and that the training, the guidance and the signposting are there. We need to ensure that holistic therapies such as Pilates, which do work for some, are not just seen as a thing that sounds nice, but are actually used as a pathway for care. This needs to be looked at as a lifelong condition, because we need to make sure that people are looked after as time goes by and they get older, with other conditions coming into play. The key aspect is understanding.
I am really proud of my hon. Friend for hosting this debate—as I say, I am embarrassed that I did not do it myself. If it helps just one or two extra people realise that this is what they need to see their GP about and be forceful, it will make a difference. Thank you for the time, Mr Dowd.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate on such an important issue, underlined by the sheer number of MPs who have attended this 30-minute debate today. He is a tireless campaigner for people living with Ehlers-Danlos. He was right to bring some of them to the House back in November, and he was right to bring campaigners again today to sit in the Gallery to ensure that their voices are heard. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who spoke from the heart about his wife’s personal experience.
May is awareness month for EDS, and I thank the outstanding charities that do so much to support people living with the condition all year round, especially Ehlers-Danlos Support UK. My hon. Friend said that many people may not have heard of the condition. As Minister for Health and during my constituency work, I come across many people living with debilitating diseases, but it was difficult for me to read some of the stories collected by Ehlers-Danlos Support UK that are collated on its website. Multiple stories show what can be achieved when the correct support is provided, such as the story of Ellie Ovens, who began using a wheelchair in 2018 but returned to France two years later to ski again. That underlines what the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said about how the conditions affect different people in very different ways.
As has been said, although there is no cure for EDS or HSD, treatment can help an individual to manage their symptoms and prevent the condition from worsening. Early diagnosis is key to ensuring that patients are offered the most appropriate treatments and are supported to make lifestyle changes to improve their outcomes. NHS England commissions a national diagnostic service for certain rare types of EDS that can be diagnosed using a genetic test. We do not yet have a genetic test for every type of EDS or HSD, but as the Minister for life sciences I am hopeful about what the future may bring—a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; I know that he has limited time. May I add to the four requests that were made by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)? With other conditions for which the Government have appointed an individual MP as the champion, we have seen some remarkable results because of that focus. Will the Government look at appointing a particular champion? I think we have seen the person who is in line today.
Andrew Stephenson
That is certainly the kind of thing we would want to consider, among a whole range of things.
In the limited time available, I will try to respond to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. At the moment, diagnosis for these conditions is based on signs and symptoms, usually by a GP. As my hon. Friend knows, NHS England recommends care for patients with non-inflammatory but painful conditions, and that should be provided in primary and community care settings. That brings care closer to home for those patients, in line with our ambition to get every patient the right care in the right place.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
It is not only about being able to diagnose the condition. Constituents have got in touch with me who have been undiagnosed for more than 40 years. They say that the big issue is not necessarily the inability to get a diagnosis, but the complete lack of awareness among medical professionals, so it is not even considered as an option. Will the Minister commit to increasing awareness of this serious condition across medical services so that this can at least be considered?
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point.
When I was preparing for this debate, I looked at the last time that the issue was debated in Parliament. It was a very long time ago. I strongly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire for leading this debate. There have been others: the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is now in his place, raised this with me at health orals a few months back. There are parliamentarians who are pushing on this, but this is the first specific debate we have had in a while, so we all have a role to play in raising awareness. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire for securing today’s debate.
My hon. Friend made a strong case for a nationally commissioned diagnosis and treatment service. In preparation for the debate, I raised the matter with NHS England, which tells me that it does not yet feel that it has good evidence that secondary care services are more appropriate for patients with hypermobility and pain, and that if patients were placed on secondary care waiting lists, it would not necessarily be in their best interests. If clear evidence is brought together that a nationally commissioned service would benefit patients, I will be happy to forward those examples to NHS England and ensure that it looks carefully at them.
My hon. Friend also asked for a meeting between himself, campaigners and me. I am happy to commit to that. Perhaps we can talk through the evidence after that to see what the best way forward is. For now, NHS England takes the view that the majority of patients with EDS and HSD can be managed within the community.
As we know, in many cases diagnosis is challenging. In recent years, we have taken great strides in making diagnosis more effective, giving GPs and physiotherapists comprehensive toolkits developed by healthcare professionals for healthcare professionals. I thank the Royal College of General Practitioners for working hand in hand with Ehlers-Danlos Support UK to get that done.
EDS and HSD are complex, chronic conditions that are frequently associated with other comorbidities. Sufferers may require access to a range of specialists, depending on the person. Integrated care boards are responsible for many of the treatment services for patients with EDS and HSD. They have a statutory responsibility to commission services that meet the needs of people in their area and that are in line with national guidance, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire will accept, NICE is an independent body and it would be wrong for me or any other Minister to interfere in its decision making, but I know that it follows these proceedings carefully and will have heard what my hon. Friend said in the case he has made for EDS and HSD to be included in its guidelines.
My hon. Friend rightly says that people suffering with the condition should have a co-ordinated, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and care. That is why we are rolling out new primary care networks across the NHS in England, which are delivering more proactive, personalised and integrated care through access to multidisciplinary teams of GPs, physiotherapists, nurses, pharmacists, podiatrists, physician associates and psychiatrists. NHS England commissions some specialist services for patients with rarer forms of EDS, and a service for patients who have complex EDS is delivered by centres in Sheffield and London. The “Getting it right first time” national specialty report on rheumatology, published in September 2021, has made important recommendations for rheumatology units to work more closely with primary care and achieve the properly joined-up care that I think we all want to see.
As my hon. Friend notes, patients with the condition frequently have other comorbidities, and the Government are committed to giving every patient proper joined-up care centred around them. That is why we announced last year that we will publish a major conditions strategy. The strategy will outline our approach to tackling six groups of major health conditions that contribute to 60% of morbidity in the UK by creating a health and care system focused on prevention, and proactive and person-centred management of health conditions.
The strategy will focus on the challenges, and on the changes that are needed to make the most significant difference across the six groups of major conditions. However, many of the solutions identified will be applicable beyond just those six major conditions to diseases like EDS. Aligning work across several groups of conditions for the strategy will allow us to focus on where there are similarities in approach and ensure care is better centred around the patient.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I also thank him and other hon. Members for their insightful contributions today. My door will always be open to him to hear how we can improve the lives of people living with EDS across the country. As I committed to earlier in the debate, I am happy to meet him and other campaigners to see how we can deliver an NHS that is faster, simpler and fairer for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Major Conditions Strategy and people with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders.
E-scooters: Deaths and Serious Injuries
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-scooter deaths and serious injuries.
What a pleasure it is to make possibly my last speech in Parliament under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This may well be quite a historic occasion for me if the rumours flying around about the statement at 5 o’clock today come true.
This is a very important issue that is close to my heart. Before I was an MP, I was involved in a horrible collision in a car. When coming back from my daughter’s christening to my job, teaching at Swansea University, someone drove into us head on, on the wrong side of the road. My family and I only survived because of the seatbelts. When I got into the House, that gave me the passion to take an interest in transport and road safety, which I have continued to this very day. I am president and have been chair of PACTS—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which I helped to launch—and I still chair the Independent Council for Road Safety International. I have kept that theme throughout my entire political career; it is an interest that I have never given up on.
You will not remember, Mr Dowd, because you are too young, but we managed to get the law on seatbelts through the House on the night before the royal wedding of Charles and Diana. We managed to keep our troops here, but a lot of people went home for a long weekend. That was the 14th attempt—quite a victory. That has saved a lot of lives over the years.
I have continued to have my interest. The reason I tabled today’s debate is that certain things happen in the transport world that suddenly transform what we have been used to—that absolutely revolutionise any concept we had beforehand—and e-scooters are that change. I have never seen anything that has so radically changed the whole landscape of safety on our roads. It is certainly true that many people find e-scooters a convenient, sustainable, attractive and low-cost form of travel.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
While I was lead member for environment and climate change at South Somerset District Council, we introduced one of the e-scooter trials, which provided rural communities with a rare opportunity to engage in them, given that most were delivered in more urban settings. The trials were a huge success, with only eight recorded accidents. Does the hon. Member agree that legal e-scooter usage can play a key role in allowing rural communities to reduce their car usage for short, about-town journeys?
Mr Sheerman
I totally agree. It can be a vital means of transport for business or leisure, and where properly regulated, it is to be welcomed, but when it is totally unregulated, it breaks all the conventions. I think that in total there have been 22 rental scooter schemes like the one the hon. Lady mentioned, which have been relatively well-ordered and welcome. On the other hand, we know that rental schemes account for only about 20,000 scooters in the UK, when it is estimated that there are now between 750,000 and 1 million e-scooters being ridden on the roads illegally. Not only that, but people are being killed and seriously injured on them: there have been 37 deaths since 2019, and I know from talking to regional elected Mayors that there are signs that that figure is a great underestimate.
My staff and I were checking how to buy an e-scooter only today. They are freely available for any age; they are available to buy for children. They can be bought at Toys “R” Us in pink. They usually travel up to 15 mph, although some are advertised as up to 25 mph. There are no regulations about what sort of protective clothing or crash helmets a rider should wear. There is no regulation on insurance, so if someone is involved in an accident with an e-scooter and the rider is uninsured, there are real repercussions not only for safety but for any possibility of compensation for an accident that is no fault of their own.
One lovely advert from Toys “R” Us tells us that we can buy an e-scooter for as little as £109 with next-day delivery, but there is no indication that when we buy them, there are a set of rules or that we should get training or anything like that. We can just buy them and then, presumably, just get on the road and drive them. That is against the law. They are freely available to people of any age, there are no regulations provided and, as I said, there is a very big difference in the insurance situation between private and rental.
The speed limits are quite astonishing. The established limit is regarded in many areas as 15.5 mph, but they are available to buy going up to 25 mph. Police have found cases of people fiddling around with the mechanism so they can go even faster, which apparently is quite easy to do. We all know that at that speed, people could be killed, including children. Helmets are not mandatory, so serious head injuries are prevalent. I said to a friend one day, “What does it mean to have a ‘serious’ accident?” He said to me, “‘Serious’ means you never walk again without pain.” That is a serious disability for the rest of your life. Head injuries have very worrying and serious effects on the individual and their family.
Naively, being something of an expert in this area, I assumed that laws for other vehicles would cover passengers for e-bikes. They do not. There is no consequence for carrying a passenger. I find it quite frightening when I see people go past me on the road at high speed with a small child standing on the running board. It is usually the father, but sometimes it is the mother or another relative. Imagine the horror of an accident in which you crushed your child to death on an e-scooter.
This is so serious because it is only just beginning. It has only just become a fashion, and it is going right across countries and continents. Some countries have been more adept at meeting the safety, security and welfare challenges. E-scooters are particularly dangerous to children—as I say, it is mainly children who are killed and seriously injured—but there are very serious issues for people who are partially sighted and people with buggies, and let us not underestimate the impact on the NHS. There is more evidence of accidents being reported that, when looked at even superficially, are obviously caused by an e-scooter collision. That has a huge impact on waiting lists, emergency care and all the rest of it.
What are we going to do? We must increase awareness of the current regulations. We need an appropriate framework in legislation. We have to ensure that the police have the capacity to act when they see these illegal riders. I know they are under great pressure and lack resources, but it is absolutely vital that they do that. I have said to so many people in my constituency, “Do you realise they’re illegal? You can’t be riding them on the road unless you are on a leasing agreement.” They look bewildered and say, “Well, we’ve just bought it.” A grandmother said to me, “Oh, I bought one for the kid’s birthday”—a little child, straight on to a highly powered vehicle on the road.
I am worried about the broader context, too, because across the piece, in our country and most of western Europe, Australia and the United States, casualty rates have come down substantially over many years. Seatbelt regulations and other regulations have led to such an improvement that fewer people have been killed and seriously injured on the roads. This is a big change, but that happy time seems to be going.
It is not just e-scooters. A report this week said that a growing number of young people do not bother to get insured because it is expensive. The insurance situation, which could work when only a few people did not have insurance, is no longer fit for purpose. Everywhere we look, we see more careless motorists—people who might be 55 or 65 but drive like they are boy racers—and bad behaviour on the roads. I have been a campaigner on this issue for a long time, but standards and conduct on the road are deteriorating. Added to that is the revolutionary change of so many people riding e-scooters. The figure that everyone gives me, which seems pretty accurate, is 1 million, and it will be 2 million next year. If that is the case, we are facing an epidemic of accidents and injuries that will have an impact on the NHS. We obviously need speed limits, and e-scooters must be regulated, with people given the appropriate punishment.
Even the knowledge is a problem. I have a constituent who came down to London for a week and brought an e-scooter all the way from Yorkshire. He got to Waterloo station, came out and got on his e-scooter. Halfway across Waterloo bridge, there was a check by the police. He was astonished. They said, “Is this yours?” and he said yes. They confiscated it, and it cost him £200 a night while it was in storage. He also got six points on his licence. They said, “Are you insured, sir?” He said no. He lost all his car insurance by driving uninsured. Not many people know about that, and we have to ensure that people know what the law is, that the law is enforced and that we stop this scourge before it becomes a national pandemic.
We know, as public representatives, that it is our responsibility to be far-sighted. This is one of the greatest threats to children, young people and older people. I see there was a 73-year-old killed last year on an e-scooter. PACTS and all of us in the campaigning area—wonderful hard-working people—are basing all our recommendations to Government on good evidence and what works in other countries. I say to the Minister and all my colleagues: wake up, because the evidence is there. This will kill many people and many children, and we must act quickly.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing today’s important debate, and I commend his lifelong campaigning in this place on road safety. If this is his last speech, it is a worthwhile one, and I place on the record my thanks to him for all his work.
Since being elected as an MP, I have been dedicated to making our roads safer in Bradford South and across the UK. That has led me to lead and support a number of campaigns that tackle dangerous driving and the use of illegal vehicles on our roads. I gave my name to the Road Safety (Cycle Helmets) Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and put forward my Bill to regulate the use of off-road vehicles and quad bikes on public highways. My Quad Bikes Bill called for the registration of off-road vehicles, empowering police to remove nuisance off-road quads from our streets permanently.
I also supported amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill just last week that made important changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988. In particular, the amendments will create a specific offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careful or inconsiderate cycling. The Act defines a cycle as including the pedal cycle, an electrically assisted pedal cycle and, importantly, an electric scooter. The amendments will be an important step forward in protecting people from e-scooter misuse and delivering justice, to a degree, for victims.
I would like to highlight your excellent work, Mr Dowd. You have worked tirelessly to make our roads safer and deliver justice for victims. The recent amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill in your name, to which I have given my wholehearted support, would ensure that perpetrators can be held properly accountable under the law following a road collision. Mr Dowd, your dedication and commitment to this issue is something that I and all Members across the House look upon with great support, respect and admiration.
E-scooters remain dangerously unregulated. As things stand, those available for public hire are available under the Electric Scooter Trials and Traffic Signs (Coronavirus) Regulations and General Directions 2020, which established e-scooter trials in major cities in 2020. We were told by the Transport Secretary in 2022 that the Government planned to introduce legislation to allow the regulation of e-scooters in the last parliamentary Session. That clearly has not happened. The Department for Transport—surprise, surprise—has now announced that it will extend city centre trials of e-scooters until May 2026. That dither and delay is simply not acceptable. The Government cannot stand by while our streets become more and more dangerous. In 2022, there were nearly 1,500 casualties in collisions involving e-scooters, including, tragically, 12 deaths. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, I am sure that those deaths and casualties are under-reported.
Some private e-scooters are known to reach speeds of up to 48 mph, although I have just googled and found one available to buy on the internet that can reach a speed of, shockingly, 80 mph. That poses a great danger to other road users and to pedestrians. More than half of all casualties are outside the legal trial areas, so the legislation is clearly inadequate. Use of private e-scooters is illegal on public highways, but an estimated 750,000 privately owned e-scooters are in use in the UK and are often used on public highways and our paths. Private e-scooters are unregulated, so they do not pass tests, standards setting or type approval. The law must therefore urgently be updated to reflect the reality of our society. We need enforceable e-scooter regulations and not an indefinite trial period.
Previously, I have raised in this place the case of one of my constituents who was taken to the accident and emergency hospital in Bradford with a fractured knee after being mowed down at high speed on a path by a reckless e-scooter driver. That is but one example of a much wider problem. The Government must get to grips with the reality of the situation and act.
In 2022, a Transport Minister said:
“Safety is…at the heart of our plans to create a regulatory framework for…e-scooters.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. 30.]
Having all but abandoned those plans for a new regulatory framework, the Government are failing in their duty to protect all road users and pedestrians who remain at risk. Those vehicles are not harmless toys; they are capable of reaching high speeds and can be dangerous when not properly driven and not properly regulated. Now is the time for new measures to be introduced to protect road users from dangerous and antisocial use of e-scooters on our streets and paths.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—I am not sure whether it is hon. or right hon., but after 45 years it probably should be right hon. I think in the next few minutes we will all know what will happen to that 45 years, although perhaps I will create some headlines rather than the Prime Minister. If that is to be the case, however, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his 45 years of service in the House and to the people of Huddersfield. This is an apt issue for him to go out on, given his work on similar issues for decades, as he outlined in his speech. He mentioned the serious car accident that he and his family were in, which led to his work. I thank him for his work on those issues.
The main point, and certainly the first point, that the hon. Gentleman made was that the sector is totally unregulated. That is the main point in the contributions made thus far. There are various numbers about, but I think we can probably come to a consensus on 750,000 to 1 million—perhaps just over 1 million—e-scooters in use in the UK. I thought he used a good device when he brought up the Toys “R” Us advert—obviously other retailers are available, and we can get these things from any number of them—to show how freely available e-scooters are, usually without any real warning about their potential illegality, any mention of training, and so on.
This is a real issue, and the Government have to take the blame, because ultimately they promised regulation. In fact, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) quoted a Transport Minister when she said that safety was “at the heart of” their plans to regulate e-scooters. Since then, clearly nothing has happened. Another good point—I do not know how widespread this is, but I have certainly heard about it—was about those who tamper with their e-scooters to go faster. Some of them can already go pretty fast—too fast, one could say.
The hon. Member for Bradford South rightly referred to the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure that the perpetrators of dangerous riding resulting in deaths and so on would be punished fully. She also read through some of the stats used by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, but said that it is possible that those stats under-report casualties and deaths. That is something we have to bear in mind as we look at the issue.
At the end of the day, the Government have failed to regulate e-scooters for a couple of years now. I am the SNP transport spokesperson and sit on the Transport Committee, and we have looked at the issue. We have been promised regulation, and it has never happened. It looks like it will certainly not happen this side of an election—certainly if an election is being called as I speak. In the Queen’s Speech in 2022, the Government said that they would create a new category of low-speed, zero emission vehicle in the transport Bill. The trouble is that we never got a transport Bill, which would have allowed for the regulation of e-scooters.
In July of the following year, the Government said that they intended to introduce legislation on micromobility vehicles, which would encompass e-scooters, when parliamentary time allowed. Those of us who have been around Parliament in the last few months—not even just the last few weeks—have seen that it has been rather a zombie Parliament, with a huge amount of time available for the Government to bring forward legislation. With the time available to us, we might even have been able to bring forward rail reform, but nothing was brought forward.
Clearly the Government have now left it too late. We do not know whether e-scooter regulation will be an immediate priority for an incoming Government of whatever hue—however likely the polls seem to be one way—but it has to come as quickly as possible. The point remains: there are just over 1 million e-scooters in use, so we need that regulation and we need it now.
This is not just about reflecting the reality of the numbers; it is about trying to ensure that the use of e-scooters is safe for riders, pedestrians and other road users. DFT numbers show that more than half of e-scooter collision casualties involve illegally ridden e-scooters—those outwith the pilot areas. A French study found that the fatality rate in collisions involving e-scooters was 9.2%, compared with 10% for bicycles, which is quite high—an amendment was tabled on that as well. The rate for motorcycles was 5.2%. The fact that e-scooters have a fatality rate nearly double that of motorcycles is telling.
A study by Queen Margaret University found that e-scooter riders were 13% more likely than cyclists to require admission to a critical care unit following an accident, which would stand to reason given the previous statistic, and that almost twice the number of e-scooter riders admitted had severe head injuries—probably because the vast majority do not wear helmets. Almost all deaths involving an e-scooter are those of the riders. Of the 12 killed in collisions involving e-scooters in 2022, 11 were the riders. Of the seven killed last year, all seven were the riders. According to UK Government figures, in the year ending June last year, there were 1,269 collisions, compared with 1,462 the year prior.
In terms of the Scottish situation, legalising e-scooters is clearly not a priority at this point. We need regulation before we can legalise—that seems obvious—but legislation is not an immediate priority. When the initial trial scheme was announced, Transport Scotland said that it had been given no prior notice, and Scottish legislation enabling such a trial in Scotland had not been factored in, so there are currently no trials in Scotland and all e-scooter use in public space in Scotland is illegal. There were no recorded e-scooter deaths in Scotland in the three years to May 2023, and there were nine serious casualties. E-scooters on trains have also been banned by ScotRail and other train operators, following several battery fires in London.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, who gave evidence on rail to the Transport Committee this morning, has said that “there’s an inevitability” that electric scooters will be legalised in Scotland, but that public opinion is “quite polarised” and that there are “genuine safety issues”, as I think everyone who has spoken today well knows. She continued:
“Electric scooters are a challenge for everybody. I’ve seen the statistics on injuries for electric scooter users and that's problematic…When you’re looking at a shared space”—
as we are in Scotland, with the massively increased spending on active travel areas north of the border compared with down here—
“we want to encourage people to do more walking and cycling, and where that’s compromised by an electric scooter—that’s a danger. It’s not a current priority for us; and anything we did would be in consideration to the timing of what we do with more bus lanes and active travel lanes. They would all have to be managed at the same time to have sensible use of electric scooters.”
That was the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Scotland.
The bottom line, and consensus in this room today, is that the Government—whether this one or the incoming one, following the election being called as we speak—have to get on with this and make it a priority. Clearly, it has been nowhere near high enough on the Government’s priority list up to this point, given that they missed two deadlines that they set themselves. We need that regulation, and we need it now.
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, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for securing this afternoon’s important debate. He is a dedicated advocate for road and pedestrian safety. On behalf of the Front-Bench team, I would like to thank him for his tireless work and leadership as president of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety. If this was indeed his last speech in this place—his swansong after 45 years—let me say that I am proud to have served with him and to have been here for his final contribution.
I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), whose concern about the use of quad bikes is one that I share. I echo the praise for your work to improve road safety and get justice for victims, Mr Dowd. I also share the concerns raised about the potential under-reporting of accidents involving e-scooters. To respond to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), we have all been waiting for this long-awaited comprehensive transport Bill that has never materialised.
As Labour’s shadow Minister for local transport, I have met dozens of stakeholders to discuss the issue of e-scooter safety and micromobility more widely. Virtually all those stakeholders, who have all raised different challenges in the micromobility sector, tell me of the desperate need for clarity, certainty and a clear indication of the way forward from the Government. Ambiguity and confusion over the current and future legal status of e-scooters, both rental and privately owned, are an enormous source of frustration. From disability campaigners, local councils, digital mobility platforms, and scooter rental firms themselves, I hear the same thing time and again. We desperately need the Government to end this damaging uncertainty.
Labour supports the principle of greater mobility choice and the importance of embracing new technologies as they emerge. The ability to hire a small, lightweight, easy-to-use and zero emissions scooter on the street to complete a journey would have felt far-fetched in the UK even 10 years ago, but they have now become a regular feature of many towns and cities. The rental e-scooter sector would certainly not have emerged were it not for the advent of the modern smartphone, which has enabled new modes of sustainable transport that take cars off the road and encourage the use of active travel infrastructure.
The advent of all these is welcome, but it is plain as day that the sector desperately needs the Government to show some leadership, to stop those positives being outnumbered and outbalanced. Since e-scooters first hit Britain’s streets, and with the infamous introduction of the first e-scooter trial zones in 2020, what has emerged is a confused patchwork of inconsistent standards and contradictory positions from the Government.
The Government’s first set of trial zones were due to expire at the end of November 2021. The Government assured us that the trial would last 12 months and would be closely monitored, so that the Government could assess the benefits and impacts. The trial period was extended to March 2022, because they needed more time to gather evidence. That was then extended once again to November 2022 because the Government failed to properly issue safety guidance the first time. The trials were extended a third time to the end of May 2024 because the Government said they needed “more time to reflect”.
Most recently, the Government extended for a fourth time to May 2026. Across the sector and for the multitude of organisations campaigning on the issue, patience has not just run thin; it has completely run out. What was clearly intended to be a temporary study period has been extended and extended so many times that it has become an utter farce. After four years of constant extensions—six, if the trials run their course—we still have no clarity on what the Government intend to do next, despite repeated promises that e-scooter regulation would be included in a transport Bill that never materialised. The Government must not underestimate the impact of such indecision.
Even rental e-scooter operators tell me that the lack of certainty from the Government is undermining their ability to invest in the UK for the long term. The Government are therefore holding back potentially tens of millions of pounds of investment into our economy and the micromobility trade because they cannot make up their mind. The Government have provided guidance on e-scooter trial safety, but that is a far cry from the strong action that the sector and campaigners desperately need. While the Government dither, the reality on the ground is stark.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield was completely right to draw attention to the deeply worrying levels of serious injuries and fatalities that have been reported since e-scooters first emerged. He was also right that the Government’s refusal to take the steps that they promised to regulate on safety has led to the chaos, and he was right to highlight the potential under-reporting of casualties, as shown in the research by PACTS.
I am extremely keen to hear the Minister’s response to PACTS’ recommendation that the DFT must urgently improve data collection to address the issue. Without firm data collection on the impact of safety, how can the Government honestly believe that they will be able to enact regulations—if they ever do—that put pedestrian and rider safety first?
Many colleagues will be aware of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I had the privilege of visiting its offices and meeting its dogs earlier this week. They truly do incredible work, but what was clear from watching them in action was the scale of the impact that unregulated e-scooters are having on people with sight loss. According to research by Guide Dogs, 12% of people with sight loss reported that their guide dog had been disturbed and another 12% said that their mobility aid or cane had been hit by an e-scooter. In fact, half of people with sight loss who encountered an e-scooter reported changing their behaviour as a result. Some even said that they have had to avoid parts of towns and cities altogether.
Another huge impact on people with sight loss is the blight of e-scooters carelessly discarded on the pavement, which causes havoc for people with sight loss. It confuses their guide dogs or makes navigating with a cane incredibly challenging and stressful. As far as I can tell, e-scooters strewn across the pavement absolutely constitutes an obstruction—a criminal offence. Under a properly regulated system, with more stringent and enforced requirements on returning e-scooters to docks, those obstructions might be less of an issue. This is an immensely important problem, so I urge the Minister to assure those with sight loss that he is actually listening. Will he clarify in his response whether he intends to take action?
Mr Sheerman
I mentioned PACTS. We have always believed in evidence-based policy and what works in other countries. Is it not time that the Government and all of us woke up to what is good practice across Scandinavia and other leading nations that have tackled the issue before us?
Simon Lightwood
I think it is really important that we always consider evidence from all over the place to make sure that we have the legislation and guidance that befits our situation.
Before I finish, I want to touch on privately owned e-scooters, as the majority of e-scooters that we see used day to day are not part of the rental schemes, but are among the estimated 1 million privately owned e-scooters used in the UK, as my hon. Friend said. Indeed, over half of e-scooter casualties are outside trial areas. There are 1 million privately owned e-scooters, despite their being completely illegal to operate on public highways and despite the Government promising to crack down on them in 2022. Their widespread use is entirely because of the confusion the Government have caused about their legal status.
A huge issue that I have heard about from stakeholders, particularly the fantastic team at Electrical Safety First, is the deadly risk of chemical fires when people put their private e-scooters on charge at home. In 2023, there was an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every two days in London, a trend that is reflected across the UK. Often, those are caused by inexpensive e-scooters bought online, often imported from abroad, which completely fail to meet UK plug safety standards. These are not just regular fires; they involve what is known as thermal runaway, which causes 600-degree fires and releases toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride, which strips the lining from the lungs. With proper regulation from the Government, those incidents would be completely preventable, so I urge the Minister to clarify what he is doing to tackle that. Does he intend to protect UK consumers from products that do not meet our safety standards?
Labour knows that there are enormous social, economic and environmental benefits from a thriving e-scooter industry but, from consumer safety in the home to insufficiently regulated rental schemes, it is clear that the Government’s current wild west approach to e-scooters is immensely dangerous. With the right policies, e-scooters can play an integral role as a last-mile solution in a joined-up urban transport system, and I encourage people to take more sustainable journeys. However, the Government’s current approach is letting down pedestrians, whether they are disabled or non-disabled. It is putting homeowners at risk from faulty products and is frustrating the efforts of e-scooter hire companies that want to play their part as responsible transport services. I implore the Government to regulate these vehicles urgently.
We have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, seven Transport Secretaries and 11 failed plans for growth. People across the country have had enough of Conservative chaos and decline. The nation is desperate to turn the page and move on. People have had enough of 14 years of decline that has cost them, their families and their communities. In transport, the Tories have failed to deliver a comprehensive transport Bill, they have failed to act on e-scooters, they have failed to act on taxi safety standards, they have presided over a shocking decline in our bus services, and our railways are broken. Only Labour can bring the country together and deliver, from infrastructure to our public services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I do not think it will be my last debate, because I have a speech to make tomorrow, but we are all awaiting an announcement. I am glad that it is delayed, because I know we have the nation’s undivided attention here.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on bringing this important debate to Parliament, on his incredibly impassioned speech— whether or not it was his last—and on his campaigning on road safety over many years. I know that as president of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety he has done a lot of work advocating for reform. I have met representatives of the council and gone through their proposals.
I want to say from the outset that e-scooters are revolutionary—there is no doubt about it. Many people like them, as we heard from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), and I myself have ridden them. On the one hand, it is important to get the regulation right, and safety must be at the heart of that; there is absolutely no doubt about that, and I think there is full agreement here. On the other hand, we do not want to legislate in a way that means we get it completely wrong and end up making things worse.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) that these are not harmless toys. They are serious pieces of equipment and it is important we have the right standards around them.
I have a prepared speech, but let me go through the various points raised and the comments on them. First, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned the statistics on deaths. In 2022, there were 12 deaths from e-scooters; 11 were the riders themselves, and two of those were within the trial. So far, four people in total have been killed on the trial scooters. Clearly, with the non-trial scooters there is a far higher incidence of deaths.
The latest figures that I have seen on accidents are from 2022. There were a total of 1,492 accidents, of which 12 resulted in death and 440 were serious accidents. Each of those deaths is absolutely tragic, and serious accidents can be life-changing, so it is important to make sure we get the legislation right. Pretty much every speaker has said that we need to legislate, and I agree. Unfortunately we do not have parliamentary time, particularly if the speculation is right, but the Government have said that we need to legislate. We have been trying to make sure we have the right legislation, because it really is not clear exactly what the right legislation is.
One Member said that we should learn lessons from other countries. We have been looking at what other countries have done. Many have legislated, but they have all done very different things with different rules. Do they require helmets or not? Do they require insurance or not? Should an ID licence plate be required or not? Should people require a licence to be able to ride e-scooters? Should they be allowed on pavements? I think the answer to that one is an absolutely clear no. What should the minimum age be? Should there be a minimum age? Six countries in Europe that we looked at have no minimum age. In various countries, the minimum age is set at 10, 12, 14 or 16. We wanted to use the trials to collect evidence and make sure that we understand how e-scooters are being used, how people are riding them, what the patterns of behaviour are, what works and what does not work. That is why we have been collecting data from the various trials: so that we can learn how they are used in the UK, but also learn lessons from other countries.
It is important that we take the public with us on this journey. This is a new technology, and people need to know that they are being kept safe despite the pace and scale of these changes. We need only look across the channel to see the impacts if we get this wrong and the potential benefits are outweighed by the very real and understandable concerns. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield knows what happened in Paris: rental e-scooters were banned following the so-called blitzscaling, where streets were overwhelmed by these new-fangled forms of transport and the public became very strongly opposed to them. Other countries such as Lithuania and Belgium have gradually introduced tighter restrictions, having started out with a more deregulated regime.
Mr Sheerman
I am listening with great interest. The Minister is obviously very knowledgeable about this area, but I beg him to rapidly assess the best course of action. Beside me I have my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), who is a great friend—I recently campaigned in his by-election—and I will be on him as well.
The worst thing that can happen to you as a human being is to get a knock on the door with the news that your mum, your dad, your daughter or your son has been killed in a road accident. It is all avoidable—I am sure the Minister agrees. This should give us the passion to make sure that, even if we have to feed it all into AI, we come up with something quick. Let’s do it!
Anthony Browne
Clearly I agree. All road deaths are absolutely tragic, but that is why it is so important that we get it right. I will come to some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but these scooters are completely illegal at the moment. Anything we do to regulate them or legislate on them would be legalising something that is currently illegal; presumably that would make them more widely used. That is why it is important that we learn about their safety features, the way they are used, what the age limit should be and whether we should legally require helmets, licences or whatever else. Other countries, as I say, started out with more liberal regimes. Lithuania and Belgium tightened them. I think it would damage public confidence if we started out with a regime that was unregulated, and then ended up having to ratchet it up because safety had not been protected. That is why we really need to get it absolutely right.
In our first evaluation, the trial data showed that the accident rate is higher than bicycles, but we do not know whether that is just because this is a new technology that people are getting used to. Some 72% of e-scooter accidents happen during someone’s first five rides. That suggests a learning curve: once people have used them for a while, they are less likely to have an accident. One point of reassurance is that 82% of accidents did not involve other vehicles or other pedestrians: it was simply the riders hitting something themselves, although obviously that could also be serious.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the research that he has done. I commend him on his research into Toys “R” Us; I am rather alarmed by what he said, and will follow it up with officials. All retailers have to meet the product safety standards, and everything that is sold has to meet the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. All retailers are required to tell people buying e-scooters that they cannot use them on public land, roads or pavements. We do monitor that: last year the market surveillance unit took up 24 different online retailers that it found not to be complying with that law. Some of them had to go through the Advertising Standards Authority, but all those that we found not to be complying with the law are now doing so. The year before, there was one that did not comply with the law, even when we told it that it needed to; that case is now in the courts. We have taken legal action against those retailers that are not abiding by the law, but I will ask my officials to look at the case of Toys “R” Us, which the hon. Member mentioned. That absolutely should not be happening.
The hon. Member mentioned that the police should be enforcing the law. E-scooters are illegal at the moment —the private ones, not the trial ones, obviously. It is up to the police to decide what to enforce and what not to enforce. In my constituency, I have tried to encourage the police to enforce parking regulations; I am in one of the few areas of the country where there is not civil enforcement. The police quite rightly make the point that it is up to them to decide what their operational priorities are, but I urge them to enforce this. I get frustrated when I see people on private e-scooters riding around. It is clearly illegal and I point that out to them, but I think there probably does need to be more enforcement. That is the case whether or not e-scooters are legalised through some form of regulation.
The point about fires that the shadow Minister mentioned has been a cause for concern; the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire and I have met the fire safety people about it. As the shadow Minister mentioned, most fires are caused by people using wrong batteries or wrong connectors. It is a product standards issue, and we are ensuring that there is enforcement. We have issued guidance to retailers and to the wider public on how to reduce the risk of fires.
The shadow Minister also mentioned pavement parking for people with sight loss, which is a real issue. One thing that we have been learning through the trials is how to get people to park in safe places, for example by having parking bays. The benefit of the 22 trials is that different areas have tried out different things, and we have seen what works and what does not. There has been dramatic progress on that, and we now know far better how to stop people leaving their e-scooters on the pavements and causing hazards. I should say that that is only really relevant for rental scooters, because no one is going to leave a private scooter out on the payment; it is a valuable thing, so people will take it home. But that is an example of how we have been learning through the trials.
The hon. Member for Bradford South mentioned the regulation of e-scooters to prevent dangerous riding. I should point out that e-scooters are classified as motor vehicles and are, at present, covered by exactly the same offences as cars. Things like death by dangerous driving are already covered for e-scooters.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being very kind on this auspicious occasion. Could he say something about the insurance of e-scooters? People are going to get killed and their lives are going to be destroyed. What about the insurance aspect?
Anthony Browne
The hon. Member makes a very valid point. If we do legislate, one thing we would want to look at is whether we should require insurance or not. Of the 22 countries that we have looked at that have legislated on this issue, 18 do not require insurance and four do. We do not require insurance for pedal bikes; if we did so for e-scooters, there would be a question about why we do not require them for pedal bikes. There is a range of issues there, as well as the safety side.
Finally—I am conscious of time—the shadow Minister asked about the recommendations that PACTS made on data gathering. Basically, we are abiding by all the regulations, and officials met PACTS just last month. We are improving police data collection. We are improving the trial data collection and are about to launch a second evaluation of the data from the e-scooter trials. It is incredibly important that we get the best information from those trials.
I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield again for securing this important debate. I agree that we need legislation, but it has to be based on evidence. I understand that during my speech a general election has been called on 4 July. If that is true, I can guarantee that we will not get any legislation in before the general election. Whoever wins the general election will have to do the legislating, but they will have the support of the officials at the Department for Transport and will get all the information that I have about the need for legislation. Again, thank you for bringing forward this debate. It has been very instructive; a lot of valid points have been made, and we will take them away.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I understand that earlier today the Prime Minister spoke to the King to request the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of a general election on 4 July. I call Barry Sheerman to wind up the debate if he so wishes.
Mr Sheerman
I am surprised to be called again: looking at the time, I was not sure I would have the opportunity. This has been an excellent debate. There are a lot of good people here who are knowledgeable and care about the subject.
This is almost a tsunami that is going to hit us. It should not be party political. We should make sure that we protect people, especially children, and we should act now. I thank all colleagues for their contributions—and thank you, Mr Dowd, for your wonderful chairmanship.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-scooter deaths and serious injuries.
Written Correction
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Green
Last year, I wrote to the Department about a loophole that allows paying parents who earn non-taxable income overseas to avoid making child maintenance payments. For one of my constituents, that loophole has allowed their ex-partner not to pay any maintenance and effectively engage in financial abuse towards them. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that loophole, to ensure that paying parents are fulfilling their financial obligations to their children?
Paul Maynard
I am obviously concerned to hear that case. We have just had a consultation on the possibility of moving from collect and pay to direct pay for all claimants, which would certainly help to put a greater focus on compliance.
[Official Report, 13 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 3.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard):
Paul Maynard
I am obviously concerned to hear that case. We have just had a consultation on the possibility of moving to collect and pay from direct pay for all claimants, which would certainly help to put a greater focus on compliance.
Written Statements
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Conflict, Stability and Security Fund: Estimated Spend 2023-24
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement: Financial Year 2023-24 Estimated Spend (millions) *as of 10 May 2024 Estimated Spend Non-ODA ODA Total Africa 27.689 37.199 64.888 Americas 2.216 7.430 9.647 South East Asia Pacific 2.086 11.761 13.847 Eastern Europe Central Asia 26.284 59.488 85.772 Western Balkans 10.059 28.920 38.979 Middle East and North Africa 25.463 54.793 80.256 Overseas Territories 16.541 3.732 20.273 Afghanistan and Pakistan (includes a £3.3m ODA credit) 2.048 13.037 15.085 India and Indian Ocean 0.494 6.053 6.548 REGIONAL TOTAL 112.882 222.417 335.299 Counter Terrorism 13.745 20.445 34.190 Cyber 15.989 15.240 31.230 Gender Peace and Security 0.415 4.210 4.625 State Threats 8.712 0.000 8.712 Information Threats and Influence 16.877 0.000 16.877 Economic Deterrence Initiative 10.857 0.000 10.857 Migration 1.770 7.010 8.781 Multilateral 1.507 3.229 4.737 National Security Communications Team 2.129 0.000 2.129 Serious and Organised Crime 5.134 13.252 18.387 THEMATIC TOTAL 77.141 63.388 140.530 Peacekeeping 253.701 53.230 306.932 African Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) /United Nation Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) 34.798 0.000 34.798 Operation Tosca (Cyprus) 11. 079 0.000 11.079 Operation Newcombe (Mali) 7.994 0.000 7.994 Non-Discretionary TOTAL 307.574 53.230 360.804 Corporate Delivery Support & Other (this includes Joint Funds Unit and pilot activities) 8.129 4.153 12.283 TOTAL 505.727 343.190 848.917
I wish to update the House on the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund’s estimated spend for financial year 2023-24.
The CSSF, now replaced by the Integrated Security Fund, was a cross-government fund which used Official Development Assistance (ODA) and non-ODA funding to enable the integrated delivery of National Security Council priorities. The most recent annual report, for financial year 2022-23, was published in January 2024. A copy of this document can be found at gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conflict-stability-and-security-fund-annual-report-2022-to-2023.
The CSSF is estimated to spend approximately £848.9 million in the financial year 2023-24. £505.7 million of this was ODA and £343.2 million was non-ODA funding. Total CSSF spending in the financial year 2022-23 was £830.4 million as set out in the annual report.
The CSSF transitioned to the Integrated Security Fund on 1 April 2024. The ISF is designed to help address global challenges and build on the unique work the CSSF has done to tackle conflict, stability and security challenges overseas which threaten UK national security. Through integrating domestic and overseas national security programming, the ISF aims to have strategic impact, bring value for taxpayers’ money and demonstrate UK innovation. It will take an integrated, agile, catalytic, and high-risk approach to find solutions to the most complex national security challenges outlined in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023.
The ISF retains many features of the CSSF, including international programmes and projects notably in Ukraine and the middle east. It also includes new areas of programming such as maritime security, economic sanctions, emerging and disruptive technology, notably Al, and incorporates existing economic deterrence and cyber programmes into a single fund. This recognises the transnational nature of some of the threats facing the UK and will enable a more coherent and joined up government response.
[HCWS497]
Large-scale Nuclear Power Station: Wylfa
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
In January this Government published the civil nuclear road map, which represented the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years. It set out our ambition for 25% of our power to come from nuclear by 2050.
Since then, the Government have been powering on to deliver the road map commitments. We have launched the next phase of the small modular reactor (SMR) technology selection process, with bidders having until June to submit tenders; announced support to a multi-year programme of work to boost nuclear skills in the UK; and announced £196 million of support for a high-tech nuclear fuel facility in the north-west. We intend to take a final investment decision on Sizewell C before the end of this Parliament.
I am proud that this Government are delivering on their commitments and this statement outlines progress on another of our key commitments: to explore a further large-scale nuclear project.
At the spring Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that Great British Nuclear had reached agreement with Hitachi to acquire the Wylfa (Anglesey/Ynys Môn) and Oldbury-on-Severn (Gloucestershire) nuclear sites.
Today my Department has published a prior information notice (PIN), exploring building a further large-scale nuclear power station, similar in scale to Hinkley in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. As part of the PIN the Government have indicated that their initial preference is that any such nuclear project should be located at Wylfa. Sitting on the north Wales coast, Wylfa is ideally suited to host a large-scale nuclear project given its proximity to water and nuclear heritage. This announcement has the potential to bring thousands of jobs and investment to the area, boosting the local economy.
This PIN invites interest from all potential large-scale vendors to engage with the Department as it carries out market engagement and builds an understanding of the capacity of the sector to support large-scale project ambitions. The Department will use the information gathered to inform future policy on large-scale nuclear development in the UK. This is an important step in signalling the Government’s intent, and while it is not compulsory for potential vendors to express an interest at this stage, we would encourage all with an interest to do so.
Importantly, I am clear that this announcement does not in any way seek to predetermine outcomes of the ongoing SMR technology selection process, and that indicating the initial preferred use of Wylfa should not preclude access to sufficient site capacity for future SMR requirements.
I am depositing a copy of the PIN in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS494]
Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board: Annual Report 2022-23
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the annual report of the forensic information databases strategy board for 2022-23. This report covers the national DNA database and the national fingerprints database.
The strategy board chair, DCC Ben Snuggs, has presented the annual report to the Home Secretary under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(8) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The report highlights the continued value of fingerprints and DNA in solving crimes and the part these biometrics play in bringing offenders to justice, keeping the public safe and preventing harm to potential future victims. I am grateful to the strategy board for its commitment to fulfilling its statutory functions.
The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office. It will also be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS496]
Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021: Lord Chancellor’s Review
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I would like to announce today that I have completed my review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 following careful consideration of the available data and evidence, including submissions to the “Statutory review of the Whiplash Tariff” call for evidence.
Part 1, section 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 provides for the Lord Chancellor to set a tariff of damages for whiplash injuries of up to two years in duration and to make regulations to do so. Section 4 of the Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review regulations made under section 3 within three years of implementation. In laying this statement today, I meet my statutory obligation to review the regulations by 31 May 2024.
As per the requirements of the Act, I will lay a report outlining my review and conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses on the return from Whitsun recess.
[HCWS495]
House of Lords
Company Directors: Identification
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act will require that directors, people with significant control and the majority of those who file information with Companies House verify their identity. As part of that process, individuals will be required to provide their usual residential address. Today, we have laid regulations that establish the procedure for identity verification. The new requirements will be introduced in phases, beginning in spring next year.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Before spring next year, 700 new Chinese fake companies will be registered every day. There are streets that have been targeted literally hundreds of times—dozens of times per property. People who have never dealt with this kind of thing before are being threatened with fake invoices. Credit referencing by the credit reference agencies has been impaired, as has the ability to sell houses. Can we have a simple, fast-track system so that householders who are being deluged by this horrendous onslaught of fake companies can remedy it with Companies House and cleanse their records immediately—within days—rather than in the six or eight months that it currently takes?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for making those points. As I said, today we have introduced the statutory instrument that will enable us to clean up the register, but since 4 March we have already removed details that we thought were erroneous to the tune of 12,600, which is slightly more than we thought. If you are called, for instance, Jack Hanson and your name is being erroneously used from your address in Worcestershire, that is now being corrected by the registrar of Companies House. I have communicated with Companies House today and it is progressing extremely rapidly in solving this problem.
Since 1904, no such significant reform of Companies House and how people register their companies, their addresses and their verifications has been undertaken. The Government have done more than any other for over 120 years to make sure that we crack down on fraud and corporate crime and ensure that our companies register is indeed verifiable.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister will remember that during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act last year, we had a lot of debates on how to tackle the problem of nominees being used to hide shareholders’ real identities. During ping-pong on the Bill, he rightly referred to
“what we perceive to be an industry of nominee service providers prone to acting unlawfully”.—[Official Report, 11/9/23; col. 685.]
As a result, the Government introduced a power to make regulations that would impose obligations on nominees to enable companies to find out who their persons of significant control are. Can the Minister please tell us whether HM Government still intend to make such regulations? If so, when? If not, why not?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his extremely collaborative input in the ECCT Bill over the past year or so. The statutory instrument that we are introducing today looks at the identity verification checks that ACSPs will have to undertake. As he will know, ACSPs are well covered by their various industry bodies, and, as I said, we have done an enormous amount to ensure that information on the register in Companies House is now true and verifiable. He will also know that we have gone even further to ensure that people with significant control are caught by the new regulations.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, the previous Parliament passed an amendment to extend to the overseas territories of the United Kingdom the legal obligation to have a company register show beneficial ownership and to make that register open to public inspection. Can the Minister let the House know what progress there has been in making the British Overseas Territories, such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, comply with our obligations and open a register of beneficial ownership?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that point. We are making very good progress and we collaborate with all such jurisdictions. There is more work to be done. A consultation on how much identity can be published has concluded recently, and we will report back to the House when we have our own findings that are appropriate for these measures.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Andrew Mitchell said recently that over 40% of laundered money globally passes through London. How satisfied are the Government that the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies are indeed making progress on registers? Surely they are defying the Government.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am afraid that I will push back slightly on the noble Lord’s point. We have had extremely high degrees of collaboration with the overseas territories. We are now very clear on who the beneficial owners are of land in this country, and, as I said, we have just completed a consultation that will allow us to go further in ensuring that everything is extremely transparent. I truly believe that real progress has been made, without impinging on the ability of legitimate businesspeople to open companies, run their businesses, make profits and grow the economy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that some progress has been made, but a great deal more is required. There are somewhere between 4.5 million and 5 million companies registered with Companies House, and they also need to be cleaned up. Can the Minister tell us how Companies House is getting on with that and when we will know for sure that all those companies are what they say they are?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord for pointing back to my previous answer about the 12,600 or so companies that have had their identities checked, expunged, changed or verified. That is clearly a significant starting number, which we expect will increase over the next year or so as Companies House deploys the £50-odd million that we gave it to introduce new systems to hire new people. That goes hand in hand with the 475 new economic crime prevention officers we have hired and the £400 million we have dedicated to fight economic crime between 2023 and 2026.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on his Question. I stand here today as a victim of identity theft. I was listed as a director of a bogus company back in 2021 and became aware of that only recently. I can tell the House that it was not an easy exercise to have my name removed from the Companies House register. Will the Minister outline to the House what assistance the Government provide to the many people who find themselves in a similar position? I declare that unfortunately I have no interest in the goldmines in Ukraine which are listed.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord for the discovery that he does not have a significant interest in a goldmine. I am sure it will be something he would not want corrected on the register but I am pleased to say that now Companies House actually has the power to make common-sense changes, effective immediately. I assume that there is a process that requires some additional verification but Louise Smyth, the registrar, is particularly focused on this issue. It was something that was raised continually in the debates. For many people, the situation where they found themselves erroneously registered as directors or their address as a company’s address has been extremely traumatic. I am glad that we have now solved this problem with the 12,600 or so companies that we have taken action on, which is a good start, and we expect more to continue. I appreciate the anecdote.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, registering a UK company costs as little as £50. Companies House, as at today, does not verify the names and addresses supplied by applicants. It was recently reported that nearly 40% of money laundered in the world is going through the UK, and London in particular. Can the Minister tell the House how much of this laundered money goes to shell or ghost companies?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for that question. It is certainly work that we continue to do. I do not have that information to hand. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord seems like an incredibly high amount and a surprisingly large number. But the reality is that there is clearly economic crime in the system and we have done everything we can to remove that. I stress to the House the incredible cross-party consensus that we built around the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to ensure exactly this. We have gone further than any Government for the past 120 years and I think we should get some credit for it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, there are thousands of people in this country now of whom there is no identification by the state. It applies not just in companies but in so many areas. If you know anything about the Chinese community, you will know that there are literally scores and scores of people there who do not exist as far as the UK is concerned. As we are seeking to work together, is it not time that we return to trying to produce a proper digital identity scheme for the whole of the country?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am delighted to say that the introduction of ID cards is not a component of this Question, as far as I am concerned. However, I should say that Companies House now will require electronic verification, so one will have to provide registered, nationally approved identity. One has to have one’s photograph taken. Importantly, to make life easier for businesses, we are going to have an effective digital system. So one has one login ID, however many directorships one has or companies one is involved in, whereby we can track people. For businesses and individuals, the system will be extremely simple.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, one area where open registers and public registers do not exist is for companies in freeports. Have the Government taken another look at this set of issues? Of course, those companies also do not have the normal tax and customs checks over their various activities. Does the Minister intend to link up registers of freeports with Companies House?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I beg to push back against the noble Baroness’s question. All companies in this country have to register and all have to go through similar processes. Freeports are no different and it is important to quash the idea that somehow there is a free-for-all in freeports. There are still checks. There is still our own English national law framework and all the other components that make sure that these are very exciting opportunities for companies which want to set up in this country. They cannot avoid their obligations. What they can do is profit from the opportunity.
Covid-19 Pandemic: Educational Attainment
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the attainment of children in schools, and what measures they are taking to address any adverse impacts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the challenges of the pandemic were unprecedented and almost £5 billion was made available specifically for education recovery. The latest results from 2023 show positive signs. For example, reading attainment at key stage 2 is back to pre-pandemic levels but there is more to do. We know that regular school attendance is vital for children’s attainment and mental well-being, which is why attendance is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education’s No. 1 priority.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, studies have consistently shown that Covid-related disruption in schools negatively impacted the attainment of all pupils, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In August last year, Teach First’s polling showed that young people from the poorest backgrounds are twice as likely to feel pessimistic about their future career opportunities compared to the most affluent 16 to 18 year-olds. What more will the Government do to ensure that they get the support and the confidence they need for future success?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that our focus needs to be on those disadvantaged children. That has been reflected in our strategy focusing on 55 education investment areas, where we are working with local schools and other stakeholders in particular to make sure that we address exactly the sorts of gaps the noble Baroness identifies.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right that there is much more to do—you have only to look at the problems facing schools, particularly in socially deprived communities. It is not just about academic achievement but pupils being able to socially interact and regulate their emotions. Research consistently shows that parental engagement is crucial to the academic and emotional development of young people. Do the Government have any plans to start programmes that would involve parents in this way?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the importance of social interaction and parental engagement. When I talk to schools about this, they frequently cite examples showing how important it is that they know their local community and have that relationship with parents. Of course we support schools to do that, and some of our communication campaigns on attendance have been directed very much at parents, but we support schools to make those judgments in their communities. However, I absolutely agree about the importance of that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I think the House is calling for my noble friend Lady Berridge.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, thousands of young people will be taking their GCSE examinations this year who were also in year 7 when the pandemic began. Unfortunately, they have been doubly affected by being educated in schools which have been disrupted by the RAAC situation. Can my noble friend the Minister please outline what advice, assistance and best practice is being shared with those schools, so that they can make effective representations to the exam boards—which do listen to those representations—about the disruption that may have affected their education for a second time?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We in the department have worked very closely with each of those individual schools. Of course, the disruption may have affected coursework rather more significantly than specific exams. We have therefore worked with every school that has wished to have our support, providing them with the funding to support their children in order to be able to catch up on any learning that was lost for those pupils in exam years, but also liaising with and supporting them in their engagement with the exam boards.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister take the time to congratulate a class of children from Sulivan Primary School, in Fulham, who were the first to design a garden for the Chelsea flower show? It has been extraordinarily well received. It is called “No Adults Allowed”—although they did allow the King to go in. Does the Minister agree that gardening is brilliant for young people and there should be more of it in the curriculum—which could help with the post-Covid situation—and that it provides opportunities for careers beyond school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to join the noble Baroness in congratulating Sulivan Primary School on its garden at Chelsea. I take this opportunity to shamelessly plug the National Education Nature Park, which is available to every early-years setting and every school and college in the country. It looks at opportunities for children to get outside, including gardening, and develop skills; and at opportunities to collaborate with other schools.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, head teachers in my diocese in Nottinghamshire are reporting that the adverse impacts of the pandemic include a dramatic increase in attendance concerns, parental anxiety and pupils’ mental health difficulties. At the same time, they are reporting severe pressures on schools funding, leading to staff reductions, which cannot be in the best interests of children, especially where SEN provision is reduced. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the educational needs of SEN children, and what more can be done to mitigate this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Children with special educational needs and disabilities were of course greatly impacted during the pandemic. The Government have been working with a wide range of organisations in that area, including the National Network of Parent Carer Forums. Crucially, those organisations have been extremely supportive and helpful with our attendance work. The Government have committed considerable funding to increasing specialist capacity of places for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the House will recall that during the pandemic, the opposition parties wanted longer and fiercer restrictions than we got. Indeed, I have to tell the right reverend Prelate that the Church of England did not exactly cover itself in glory.
Lord Robathan (Con)
It is true. Does my noble friend agree that the questionable benefits of those lockdowns were extremely dubious, given the appalling damage that was done to people’s education, and to the economy and other things?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not entirely sure that revisiting whether we should have locked down gets us much further forward. The Government are genuinely, tirelessly focusing on everything we can do to support schools in order to ensure that children are back in school, attending every day and thriving.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister may recall that three years ago, a very distinguished educationalist who was appointed by the Government to make some recommendations on how to deal with education post-pandemic, Sir Kevan Collins, advised that £15 billion was required to set right the damage that had been done—whatever view we take about whether that damage was inevitable. Does the Minister think that the amount of resource that has been put in since that time, bearing in mind that he resigned when the Government reduced that figure to £1.4 billion, has been adequate?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The money the Government have put in has been focused particularly on the most disadvantaged children and on leaving a legacy in our schools. The proof of the pudding is that attainment at key stages 1, 2 and 4 are all on the increase.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Compensation Scheme
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Primarolo
To ask His Majesty’s Government when the compensation scheme recommended by the Infected Blood Inquiry will be established.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s priority is to deliver compensation as swiftly as possible and with the minimum possible delay, as advised by Sir Brian Langstaff and the inquiry. The infected blood compensation authority is up and running in shadow form already and will be formally established in law as soon as the Victims and Prisoners Bill receives Royal Assent.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As a former Minister for Public Health, I offer my apologies to the victims of this health tragedy—I am very sorry indeed. Can the Minister clarify the Statement he made yesterday and explain what steps the Government are taking to ensure that people who have not received the first interim payment do so as soon as possible?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness’s long-standing interest in this very vexed area during her time as a Minister in the Treasury and the Department of Health. On that particular category of claimant, there is a GOV.UK page where those who have not already received payments in an interim form can register their interest. We have also said that we will pay interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased infected people who were registered with existing or former support schemes, and that would apply where previous interim payments have not already been made.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, yesterday in the Commons, John Glen, the Minister, said that there are
“a couple of categories in which there is a potential risk”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/24; col. 759.]
of claimants being worse off. Some of the widows have been in touch because they are concerned that the Government’s proposals will repeat the problems relating to top-up payments from the Macfarlane Trust. Sir Brian’s recommendation 13(b) to keep regular payments and merge them fully into the new scheme, supported by Sir Robert Francis, already seems to be different from what the IBCA helpline is telling these widows. Will the Minister agree to meet and to make sure that this does not happen?
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, most certainly. That should not happen. We are determined that no eligible claimant should lose out as a result of the transition from the support payments to compensation payments; I am concerned to hear that different messages are being propounded on that. I announced yesterday the plans for the support scheme payments, but those who are legitimately in receipt of support payments have an expectation of receiving a certain sum of money over their lifetime and that expectation will be honoured.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, something really rather terrible has been going on, because it is not just the infected blood scandal that we are suffering from. We have the Post Office scandal that has gone on for 25 years and counting, and the Hillsborough Stadium disaster lingered on for 35 years. We have the Rotherham grooming scandal, which is another three decades; the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, with the family requiring two decades to get justice; and the Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash—another two decades. Something has gone very badly wrong with our system of justice; these scandals have become endemic in our system of government. I ask my noble friend to reflect on that and to perhaps propose what we are planning to do to stop our fabled system of justice becoming junk.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have no doubt that the same thought has occurred to many of your Lordships. The systemic moral failings exposed by Sir Brian Langstaff in relation to infected blood raise profound questions about the defensive culture of government and the public services at every level. The findings of this recent report undoubtedly have a resonance with a number of findings in other reports on high-profile calamities, and this issue merits deep reflection and honest thinking across government and the public sector.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, as a former Secretary of State for Health, I associate myself completely with the expressions of regret and apology issued by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Primarolo today. As far as compensation is concerned, as Secretary of State I managed to give some financial assistance to those suffering from hep C, but only by reversing a very long-standing policy against huge resistance. It has been noted that civil servants are sometimes unwilling to change. What has not been noted is that one institution in government has the right to prevent such things being done but does not carry responsibility if there is a mistake: the Treasury. I warn the Minister now, if he is here after 5 pm today, that the Treasury will always try to find a way, because it does not recognise moral compulsion—but that should be as important to us as legal liability.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord’s words will resonate with anyone in this Chamber who has had the privilege of ministerial responsibility. Having said that, I do not think we should necessarily point the finger solely at the Treasury when it comes to the responsibility that lies at every level of government in this terrible disaster.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest. As this House may know, my nephew, Nick, was a haemophiliac infected with hepatitis C and exposed to CJD and died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter, Niamh. Compensation should be first on the list to alleviate immediate suffering, but can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether the Government will seek prosecutions for those who Sir Brian’s report indicates are culpable in this most terrible of tragedies?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I do not think it is for me as a Minister to opine on potential criminal liability. All I can say at this early stage is that the Government will make all relevant information available to those conducting any future criminal investigation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s comments about the awful circumstances and the apology. Yesterday, after the repeat of the Statement, I reassured the Minister that what was required to implement all the recommendations of the report was cross-party working, and that we will continue to do that whatever the circumstances. He gave a commitment about the other 11 recommendations of the report; the Commons were due to debate it on returning from the Recess. I hope that we can keep that firmly on the agenda so that we properly address all the issues that the report raises.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am personally keen that we should have that opportunity. I am aware that discussions are ongoing with the usual channels to enable us to have a debate not too far from when we come back from the Recess. Clearly, it is important that these findings be given the most thorough consideration by government. They are very grave indeed. As I said yesterday, the wrongs that have been done are devastating and, in many cases, life altering. A comprehensive response will be given in due course, but that should not prevent us debating the report in the meanwhile.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend the Minister has said there is more information available on the website for victims and their families. Has his department considered how those who are digitally excluded and not very digitally proficient or able to access digital services can get more information?
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, indeed. I know that Sir Robert Francis, the interim chair of the shadow compensation authority, has this very much at the top of his agenda in his engagement with the infected blood community.
President of Iran: Death
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for UK foreign policy of the death of the President of Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, and Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, died in a helicopter accident on Sunday 19 May. The funeral, as noble Lords will be aware, is taking place today. Our policy towards Iran has not changed. We remain committed to supporting the Iranian people in the challenge of the human rights abuses that they face, and, importantly, to holding Iran to account for its destabilising activity. As we have said repeatedly, Iran must adhere to international norms and standards in any upcoming election.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. First, do the Government have access to any intelligence that may shed light on the effect of the President’s death on the population at large in Iran? There have been some reports that the reaction has been somewhat muted. Secondly, are the Government or the West more generally able to do anything to use the current situation to assist pro-democracy groups in Iran, as a way of undermining support for a regime that, among other things, so brutally denies women their political and civil rights, and recently launched the first ever direct attack on Israel?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount will have noted, I made reference to Iran’s destabilising activity. We have all, not least within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, been fully seized of the challenges we are facing in the wider region. That said, I know we were at one when we saw the tragedy of Mahsa Amini and the suppression of human rights in Iran. I speak as the UK Human Rights Minister in saying that it is important that, while this was clearly a horrific accident, our thoughts remain with the Iranian people as they continue their struggle for human rights and dignity within Iran.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister just used the phrase “adhere to international norms and standards”, talking about internal elections. Can he think of any regime that has less adhered to those standards in its foreign policy and in its disrespect for territorial jurisdiction and national sovereignty, from the siege of the US embassy through to sponsoring attacks as far afield as London and Buenos Aires, through to this most recent horrific attack on Israel? Does my noble friend the Minister see any prospect for regional peace as long as we have that regime there, in Leninist terms, exporting its internal contradictions—in other words, trying to replicate its revolution far afield?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend articulates the extreme and intense challenges that many in the region face, not least from the destabilising activity of Iran. We have seen this in the context of the current conflict in Gaza, in support for Hamas, and through support for Hezbollah and for the Houthis in Yemen. We are determined to ensure that peace, security and stability must come when we see progressive Governments across the piece, but equally people committed to ensuring that peace, security and stability can be achieved only when it is for the whole region.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, commentators have noted that these deaths are not likely to change the direction of the Government of Iran. Could the Minister update us on discussions that the Government may be having with the EU and whichever US Administration may come in after its elections on what can be done to take forward the curbing of Iran’s nuclear programme?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to draw attention to the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. She will be well aware that we kept the JCPOA on the table, notwithstanding America’s withdrawal. We have seen increasingly—coming back to the point my noble friend articulated—Iran going directly against this by, for example, immediately prohibiting IAEA access to Iran. We have pressed on that; my noble friend the Foreign Secretary recently met Mr Grossi to assess the levers we currently have to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capability is not weaponised. We continue to be focused, including in our discussions with both the United States and European partners, and, I also add, with other key partners in the region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this is a regime that is repressive at home but also aggressive abroad, not least in this country. We have seen attacks on individuals, and attacks on and threats to the BBC, et cetera. I could continue. The Minister knows that we have repeatedly asked in this Chamber what the Government will do to ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps cannot operate. Will he commit his Government to take urgent action to proscribe this organisation as soon as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I am not going to say what we may or may not do around proscription. What is very clear is that we have taken action directly against the influences of Iran, its people and its organisations, including the IRGC. The noble Lord is aware that we sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, including key individuals. Iran’s actions have not gone unpunished. We have now sanctioned over 400 individuals and organisations in this respect and remain very much focused on ensuring that the very actions that we have seen here in the streets of London, which the noble Lord mentioned, are fully curbed. In that, I pay tribute in particular to our agencies, as well as other key components, including the police, who have had to deal with this to provide the security that every person in the United Kingdom deserves.
Lord Bird (CB)
I do not want to be a pain in the rear, but I feel like one because I want to talk about history. I wish the Americans, the British, the CIA and all that had not screwed up Mosaddegh, overthrown him and brought back the Shah. That led exactly to where we are today. When will we start learning from our history? We seem to forget it. We are the products of these problems.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I never see the noble Lord in the way that he describes himself. The challenges that any Minister faces from him in your Lordships’ Chamber are regarded with great respect. I welcome his insights. I assure him that the lessons of history inform the policies and programmes that the Government undertake. Both our personal as well as our professional experience lead us to ensure that we do not forget the lessons of history.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister share my dismay that our representative at the United Nations stood in tribute to the death of the person who is now called the “Butcher of Tehran”? Will he ensure that all our actions in the United Nations are designed to keep Iran in its proper place, and not, for example, chairing committees on human rights and women, et cetera?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, as I am sure she recognises, of the action that the Government have taken. It was the United Kingdom, together with the US, that led the campaign to ensure that Iran was removed, for example, from CEDAW, an organisation very much focused on the rights of women. We remain focused in that respect.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I understand it, the Government have not proscribed the IRGC because they believe that we have to keep open channels of communication so that we can moderate Iran’s behaviour. Given that this is a state that exports terror right across the Middle East and here in the UK, kidnaps British citizens and launched an appalling attack on Israel just a few weeks ago, can the Minister point out what benefits the Government’s policy of engaging with Iran has brought?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has said on a number of occasions, we have incredible differences and challenges, and we have held Iran to account. Importantly, the engagement that we have had even in recent weeks, in advance of the attack on Israel which the noble Lord referred to, ensured that representations were made so that we did not see an increase in Iran’s destabilising influence. Those were conveyed not through any third party but directly to the now deceased Foreign Minister. It is important, as my noble friend has indicated, that when we are required to deliver those very direct messages, as we do consistently, we can do so directly to the particular representative of that given state.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I will follow up the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and go into the history. We know that the current Iranian regime is appalling and atrocious, but can we also reflect on the fact that our policies in the Middle East over recent decades have led to failure and disaster? The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Libya—we set out to do good things and we failed, and in many cases we made the situation much worse. Can my noble friend assure me that the Government will be much more realistic about their handling of the situation and our relations with Iran? There is no magic wand or weapon that we can use to change the situation there. Our foreign policy will be much more effective if we make it more realistic to what we are able to do rather than what we would, in some circumstances, simply want to do.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, having two questions posed to me about learning the lessons of history, I keep looking in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord West, but I fear he has run out of time on this Question. I agree with my noble friend. We have reviews that look at our interventions and strategies in conflicts past and at having a direct strategy on exit policies, for example. There are many noble and gallant Lords in your Lordships’ House who have reminded us of the importance of operational planning to ensure that, when we go in, as my noble friend said, with noble intent, we recognise what the intention is and how we will extract ourselves from conflicts. The lessons of history are important, but it is also important to remain seized of current challenges from those who oppose us, and to stay united in our response from your Lordships’ House and the other place as we look to these international challenges across the world.
Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 May.
South West Water: Brixham Contamination
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, recent events in the Brixham area have once again highlighted the sorry state of the water sector, yet just this week water companies in England and Wales have asked the regulator for permission to increase bills by up to 91%. They say that this is necessary to improve the water network, something that Professor Chris Whitty says is a public health priority as well as an environmental one. This pressing need has not prevented United Utilities increasing its dividend payments by nearly 10% while at the same time polluting Lake Windermere. Other firms are increasing payouts to investors despite their poor performance. Is it not time for the Government to call time on the current system by putting water companies into special measures and ensuring that law-breaking bosses face criminal charges rather than receiving bumper pay packets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have debated a number of times the issue of special measures, and I think I have been clear in the House every time I have stood at the Dispatch Box that the Government will use special measures when the criteria for them are met. I accept that that is quite a high bar, but there are a number of other options for all those water companies that they should fully explore before the Government will consider putting them into special measures.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the first television news on the Brixham infection indicated that contamination was contained to those already infected. The next day’s bulletin retracted that statement, telling viewers that the area of contamination had widened. Bottled water was available to some, but not all, living in that area. As the source was known to be a reservoir contaminated by animal faeces, why was action not taken sooner to alert people to the dangers of drinking their tap water and to provide everyone with bottled water?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am always nervous of taking as fact what I read in the papers or listen to on the news. I have spent the morning speaking to the chief inspector of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and he is not able to tell me what the noble Baroness has told me. I am just guessing that he might have slightly better access to that information. It is dangerous to say with that level of assertion that that is what has happened, because it is not what I am hearing. It is a live investigation and I cannot go into the details of what I have been told. I can say that South West Water has been handing out bottled water and in many cases over the last week it has been prioritising priority service customers and vulnerable sites. It has opened three bottled water stations, at Broadsands car park, Freshwater Quarry car park and Churston car boot field. It is supporting both vulnerable areas and local residents with bottled water.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my previous interests—no longer—as chairman of a small water company; therefore, I know a bit about it. I hope that my noble friend will insist that the water companies behave properly, of course, but will he please remind the Opposition that when it was run by the state and municipalities, we had no investment at all? That was why it was privatised, and not for any other reason. In the years after privatisation, a great deal of investment has taken place. The problem was that both Governments—Tory and Labour—told the control, which started off with Mr Byatt, that he was to keep prices down instead of allowing the kind of investment that we need. You do not get water free, and we have to have proper investment.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend must have the same pack as I have in front of me because he has virtually said word for word what is in mine. We have discussed the issue of privatisation many times both in this House and in other debates and that is not a route that this Government are going to go down. I completely concur with what my noble friend has said.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, in Scotland, real bills are still the same as they were 17 years ago, while English bills have increased by over 16% in real terms over the same period. The publicly owned Scottish Water invests over one-third more per capita in its water industry and supplies than any private English company. That is £282 per household over the last 17 years compared to only £210 per household in England. Does not one conclude from that that publicly owned companies are doing better than privately owned ones? If that is not the Minister’s conclusion, how does he explain the differential?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord has some very impressive statistics on Scottish Water. I happen to be the beneficiary of Scottish Water because I live up there. It is not quite as rosy as he tells us, because one area on which we have made great progress in England has been storm overflows and monitoring and understanding exactly what is going into our river systems. If the noble Lord was to look at that area in Scotland, he would find it very deficient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the water companies play an important role as owners of agricultural land? It is extremely important that we get to the bottom of what caused this incident to ensure that tenant farmers know exactly what their position is concerning South West Water and the Brixham contamination, as well as other landowners.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I completely concur with my noble friend that it is critical that we get to the bottom of what has happened to have generated this outbreak of cryptosporidium. It is currently far too early to know the exact cause of the outbreak. South West Water is continuing its investigations to confirm the source of the contamination. The Drinking Water Inspectorate has initiated its investigation into the cause, extent and actions of the company and begun collecting evidence on site. I should point out that it is the Drinking Water Inspectorate which is taking the lead on this investigation.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, is not this instance a failure of the central role of the water companies to deliver clean and healthy water to every household? In the days before privatisation, we used to pride ourselves on our water and decry foreign water. Whether that was true or not, this is a central failure of regulation. There are three regulators of the water industry. We need to have a new start on regulation of water, with a single regulator for it, if we are not to have renationalisation. On the point of renationalisation, I know that my Front Bench, as well as the Government, are not in favour of it, but I note that the largest shareholder in Thames Water wrote down its shareholding to nil. If the rest of the shareholders, which are very guilty in this, did the same then the cost of nationalisation would be pretty small.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right that the Canadian pension fund’s owners wrote down the value of its shareholding in Thames Water to zero, but that of course does not mean that it is zero. I am not sure that would help him in terms of its privatisation.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, there is quite justifiable anger at the way that some companies, including Macquarie, have dealt with taking money away from water companies. The problem highlighted in the south-west is that there is an enormous amount of anger in the country towards water companies. However, this has led to an increase in the amount of abuse and actual physical assault that workers in the water companies are facing at the moment, as has been highlighted by some of the work of the GMB. Could the Minister make sure that, when MPs or others discuss this issue, they should commend the work of those people on the ground rather than the higher issues that are causing problems?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I completely concur with those statements, because it is absolutely unacceptable that those who are sent out to sort a problem end up being abused and given a tough time for something which cannot conceivably be their fault. I totally accept that and will ensure that we take that message back.
Israel and Gaza
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the focus of all politicians should be on achieving an immediate ceasefire to end the war in Gaza, free the hostages, alleviate the humanitarian crisis and create a pathway towards a lasting political solution. In March, the Foreign Secretary said that we needed to work with our international partners to give hope to that process and to move towards recognising a Palestinian state, not wait for the end of the process. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Foreign Secretary and the Government have made of the announcement today by Norway, Spain and Ireland recognising a Palestinian state?
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. As signatories to the Rome statute, the United Kingdom should support the independence of the ICC, which is a corner- stone of the international legal system. We must remember that the decision of the ICC chief prosecutor is only the start of the process. Therefore, we should wait for the decisions of the wider court, which will assess the information before it and decide whether to issue a warrant. It must be allowed to do so with independence.
Labour has been opposed to an Israeli offensive in Rafah for months. The UK Government’s priority must be to work with the United States and other allies to prevent a full-scale Rafah offensive. Does the noble Lord accept that, if the Rafah offensive goes ahead, we should join our American allies in suspending weapons or components that could be used in that offensive?
At the Business and Trade Select Committee this week, Andrew Mitchell confirmed that the assessment that no serious risk of a breach of international humanitarian law exists undertaken on 8 April only included evidence taken
“up to the end of January”,
so any actions the IDF may have taken over the last four months have not been taken into consideration. His department has said that it reviews its assessment of Israel’s actions on a rolling six-weekly basis, which means that a fresh assessment should have been published by Ministers on Tuesday. Can the Minister confirm whether a new assessment has taken place and when it would be announced?
In that same Select Committee meeting, Andrew Mitchell also said:
“You cannot use starvation as a weapon of war and remain within international humanitarian law: that is clear”.
Yesterday, I reminded the Foreign Secretary of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2417, which condemns the use of starvation against civilians as a method of warfare. It also condemns
“the unlawful denial of humanitarian access”
and the act of “wilfully impeding relief supply”. The Foreign Secretary acknowledged that Israel has not had
“a clean bill of health”.—[Official Report, 21/5/24; col. 947.]
on allowing humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Does the Minister accept the Foreign Secretary’s description of the Israeli action and, if so, does he believe such action to in breach of Resolution 2417?
On Monday, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Alicia Kearns, welcomed
“the effort on the maritime port”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/24; col. 648.]
However, as we have heard, the United Nations has expressed deep concern about that and particularly stressed that land routes are the most viable, effective and efficient aid delivery method, which is why we need all crossing points to be opened.
Since 6 May, when the attacks on Rafah 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 to support aid distribution.
Andrew Mitchell acknowledged the importance of getting aid in by road—the Minister himself has said this—and the difficulties caused by Rafah having been effectively closed for the last few weeks. He pointed out the ability to do that is one of Britain’s specific demands of the Israeli Government. Andrew Mitchell also expressed the hope that there will soon be a deal between Egypt and Israel to put that right. Can the Minister give us an update on those talks? Will they succeed?
Concern has also been expressed about the safety of aid workers. On 5 April, the Foreign Secretary called for an independent inquiry into Israel’s killing of seven aid workers, including three Britons. Israel did take some action against those responsible for the decisions made in those attacks. However, Andrew Mitchell said on Monday that
“we are considering, with our allies, the best way to inject further independence into that investigation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/24; col. 655.]
Can the noble Lord tell which allies we are talking in this respect and what action will be taken?
Finally, I want to raise something else that we have considered in this Chamber, which is the increased violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank. They are facing increased attacks, clearly in breach of international humanitarian law. I have also raised the attacks on the UNRWA headquarters. Can the Minister tell us what steps he and his department are taking to boost accountability for settler violence?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we on these Benches have been making a set of points, essentially from early October, when the terrorist attacks against Israel started a cycle of violence and killing, and a situation that no one could have wished to see.
The first duty is surely for the Israeli Government and Hamas to come together and for Hamas to return the hostages. Like some other Members of your Lordships’ House, I have a small yellow lapel badge. Nobody has asked about it, but I was given it when I was in Israel before Easter, as declared in the register of interests. It basically calls for a return of the hostages. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to try to work further with the Israeli Government, and through other means, to get negotiations going again, to bring about a ceasefire and to discuss an appropriate way of bringing back the hostages? There are still over 100 hostages, some of whom we hope are still alive. What is going on? At the moment there seems to be very little discussion about a negotiated ceasefire, temporary or permanent, yet that is absolutely essential. And, again, we have long called for a two-state solution.
The Foreign Secretary, who I understand is due back in the UK—sadly not to repeat the Statement in your Lordships’ House but to be at a Cabinet meeting, I gather—has talked about recognition of Palestine “when the time is right”. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, three countries have today recognised Palestine. Although I do not expect the Minister to say now whether there is likely to be an announcement from His Majesty’s Government, what is the British Government’s longer-term thinking about what a future settlement might look like?
Minister Mitchell in the other place was very clear that His Majesty’s Government cannot support an Israeli attack on Rafah without seeing a plan. He explicitly stated that the United Kingdom
“and 13 of our partners, including France, Germany, Italy and Australia, set out our concerns in a detailed letter to the Israeli Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/24; col. 646.]
What is the basis of that letter? Do His Majesty’s Government feel that they have any leverage? Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary ruled out a suspension of arms sales, pointing out that UK arms sales are very small in quantity compared with American sales of arms. But Germany is the second-largest exporter of arms to Israel—has it considered a suspension of arms sales? Is that being considered? Is there a position of saying that we do not support attacks on Rafah and that a way of leveraging might be to say that we would potentially suspend arms sales?
I will finish with questions about one brief mention of the ICC, because we have now heard that the prosecutor has put forward his recommendations and Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has clearly pointed out the importance of giving the ICC our full support to deliver justice. Clearly, that is the Lib Dem position, and surely it should be the United Kingdom’s position, because we are signatories to the Rome treaty. The problem is that Israel is not—nor is the United States. So what is the Government’s position on persuading Israel and the United States to take notice of the ICC?
Finally, Minister Mitchell pointed out that the Minister was in Qatar on Monday, looking at provision for health support for Palestinians. Is he able to elaborate on those discussions and whether it is now possible to evacuate some of the sickest children from Palestine?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and their observations, many of which I agree with and, indeed, are reflective of the Government’s position. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we continue to work with international partners. As he clearly outlined, that is exactly the focus of the Government: bringing the war in Gaza to an end; ensuring that hostages are returned after—as the noble Baroness pointed out—being held for so long; and ending the suffering of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. That remains the number one priority of the United Kingdom Government, together with our key partners.
The noble Baroness mentioned Qatar; that was not just about a health partnership. We announced a new health partnership on psychosocial support, looking at each other’s equities, and how we are currently working with key partners in the Gulf states—again, noble Lords have raised this in your Lordships’ House before—on how to work practically to get people out, who are now receiving support. We are also, working with key partners, extending training not just to Qatar, which we have announced formally, but to other Arab states, including Kuwait. I will continue to update your Lordships’ House in that respect.
The hostages themselves were part of the discussions with Qatar, which continues to play an important role, together with Egypt. Earlier this morning, I convened a meeting with Arab ambassadors to gauge their updates. There was of course interest in the United Kingdom’s position on a number of issues that both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have raised. I will go through those in turn.
I stress that we remain very much focused on this. My noble friend Lord Cameron and I have been engaged in extensive diplomacy. On Sunday, I hope to be in Brussels for specific meetings to follow up recent engagements in Riyadh with Arab partners and—I know that noble Lords have raised this as well—with EU partners on how we work together. It is clear to me, from a number of meetings that we have had, that we need to ensure that this is not just about the current conflict, which must cease, but that we get the hostages out. Anyone who has met with hostage families realises that. I have met with Palestinians who have left Gaza and seen their predicament, and I have met with doctors who are treating Palestinian children and women in Qatar. We need to ensure that humanity prevails in all that we do. That is the guiding beacon—if I may put it that way—in all my engagements.
My noble friend Lord Cameron spoke to Minister Gantz yesterday and he has also spoken to Minister Dermer. The Prime Minister has also engaged at prime ministerial level with Prime Minister Netanyahu. In all these, the primary focus is on the humanitarian, as well as seeking a resolution on getting the conflict ended —and the long term.
I would add that, when you see certain statements from Defence Minister Gallant and Minister Gantz recently, there is a real question that Israel needs to answer on whether the option of Palestinian governance is a real one—recognised not just by us in your Lordships’ House or by the United Kingdom Government, but within Israel and its Cabinet. It is important that that point continues to be emphasised. We are pressing on the humanitarian issues that were raised and on the issue of getting the Erez crossing fully opened. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the challenges there. He will be aware that I myself called out the attacks on those convoys. I am travelling to Jordan next week to see how we can enhance our partnership and get more through the Jordan corridor.
The issue of settlers was raised quite specifically by the noble Baroness. As she will know, earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions on extremist groups and individuals for inciting and perpetrating settler violence in the West Bank. We will not hesitate to take further actions in this regard. I know that noble Lords across the House have been supportive of curbing those particular actions.
We are very much seized of the two-state solution, and I come on to the point of recognition. My noble friend Lord Cameron articulated very clearly the United Kingdom Government’s position. Of course, we have noted what has been announced today by Norway, Ireland and Spain, and we are engaging with those countries: I have done so. Our position is also different from that of the United States. We have said repeatedly, as the Foreign Secretary recently articulated, that Israel does not have a veto on Palestine coming into existence. We have also said that this is not something that should wait until the end of any given structured process for peace. We remain focused on that. But the first step must be, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, bringing this current conflict in Gaza to an end for the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians, particularly the hostage families and those who are suffering in Gaza.
On the issue of IHL, questions were asked reflecting Minister Mitchell’s recent appearance before the Business and Trade Committee. I was very clear when I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week that the principle of law must prevail. I assure noble Lords that, both in the advice that I give and in the decisions that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary takes, those are the key principles that are considered in terms of the overall position when it comes to export licences. Noble Lords know of our very extensive and robust regime in that regard, but its application is also important. We are not a state supplier of weapons to Israel and, equally, the processes that are undertaken are well tested. Of course, the issue of the World Central Kitchen workers forms a big part of the assessment process which is currently being undertaken. I cannot give a specific or definitive date; what I can share with the noble Lord is that it is imminent, and I know it is being looked at specifically.
On starvation as a weapon of war, there is no way of holding back: of course, no one should use starvation as a weapon of war, and where it is seen, as I have said before, it brings serious questions. We rely on the strength of our relationship with Israel, which means that, as an ally and a friend, we continue to raise these issues, privately at times and quite directly. Equally, where we feel it necessary to take public action, we continue to do so.
The issue of the maritime port was raised. I pay tribute to those who worked to bring this into operation but, to be clear, what was delivered was a payload of only about 20 trucks. My noble friend Lord Clarke, who is in his place, asked me previously about British troops. The decision was taken to position no British troops, which then provides logistical challenges on the ground. We were able to deliver some of this, working with key partners such as the World Food Programme, but this is a desperate humanitarian situation on the ground, people are suffering and we need to alleviate that. That is why we are focused on land routes, on the situation in Rafah, on Kerem Shalom, and on the crossing in Erez, to get more aid in. The Ashdod port is also key. That is now operationalised but we now need that flow of aid. It was Israel that said quite publicly, “We need to flood Gaza with aid”. Yes, that is a good intent; it needs now to be seen in action.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to clear up some of the misinformation that is being put out, not least, I am sorry to say, by the BBC? For example, there are already 142 states that recognise Palestine and it has not made a scrap of difference. Humanitarian aid is being sent in but it is not being distributed, or it is being stolen by Hamas and sold. Even the United Nations has now admitted that the casualty figures relating to women and children should be halved—we have been given false casualty figures. Finally, I am puzzled by the way that we put Israel under a microscope but no one has anything to say about the hundreds of thousands of people who have died recently in Congo, in Yemen, in Syria and all over the place, without any concern, it seems, for their humanitarian aid.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s last point, I disagree with her. On Yemen, we have announced additional funding of £139 million. On Syria, we have announced further funding of £89 million, so we are very much seized of the humanitarian plight of those suffering across the region. On Congo, the situation is desperate. I myself visited Congo with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, so the noble Baroness is wrong to say that. I cannot speak for others, nor will I: I speak for the British Government and our country. We are very much focused on that.
On the casualty figures, yes, the UN revised them because they are based on casualties that it is now finding. I fear, and I do not want to add to speculation, that we need to make a full assessment on the ground. I agree with the noble Baroness inasmuch as we need to have these figures established and verified. To do that, we need the UN agencies and we need the verification process to take place, because what is undoubtedly true is that much of Gaza is currently in ruins and we need to ensure that those souls who have been buried under that are given dignity.
At the same time, I recognise that we hold Israel to a high standard because it is a democracy with a rule of law. We do not have the same standard for Hamas. It is a terrorist group. When we hold Israel to account, we do so as a friend and constructive partner. It is important that we continue to focus on that.
On recognition, and I am sure the noble Baroness will, on reflection, agree with me, I have said repeatedly that stability, security and peace will be possible only once there is stability, security and peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The Statement refers to
“a political horizon for the Palestinians, providing a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution”.
Is that not a mountain the top of which will never be reached? Why will the Government not do as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does—of course, now Norway, Ireland and Spain are added to the 142 countries—and recognise the state of Palestine? My party has long argued for this so that we can move forward in the way that the Minister describes, to a peaceful and just existence for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I am proud of the work done by the late, lamented Lord Goodhart and many other British lawyers to bring about the ICC. Is it not important that we do not undermine its work?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of international law and the role that the ICC has played. We have seen this in areas such as Russia and Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, articulated, it allows a pre-trial process to be followed and it is important that that process is now undertaken. Many have expressed their personal perspectives on that, but when it comes to legal processes, less is more. Let the ICC get on with its process. There will be an opportunity to discuss it further at an appropriate time.
It is very clear that we continue to engage with Israel as a constructive partner. There are those in Israel who recognise the same credible, irreversible pathway to the two-state solution. On recognition, I have articulated the United Kingdom’s position. We will continue to work constructively with Israelis and Palestinians, and do so in quite a dynamic fashion, between my noble friend the Foreign Secretary’s engagements and my own. We have been working in tandem on this.
The noble Baroness mentioned a mountain, the top of which will never be reached. If there is one commodity one must have in abundance when it comes to public service, it is to never give up on hope.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his support for the two-state solution, which I share. Israel has sought to live in peace with its neighbours. For the last few decades, it has offered a two-state solution and every time the Palestinians have rejected it. Israel has withdrawn from territory to make peace with Egypt and Jordan. It has given back Gaza unilaterally and withdrawn from the settlements. It is willing to do so in exchange for peace.
Meanwhile, we have recently seen the Palestinians using Gaza to attack Israel. The Hamas leaders of the Palestinians have hijacked the aid that is going in. They are making threats against America for building a pier to distribute aid. They have targeted and attacked the crossings, killing Israeli soldiers who were trying to facilitate the aid. Can my noble friend tell us what evidence there is of the Palestinians or their leaders actually wanting to live in peace with the State of Israel, or taking care to avoid the deaths of their own civilians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises some very important points. To achieve peace, you need to have partners for peace. It is very clear that Hamas is not a partner for peace.
From engaging with people who have left Gaza, it is my opinion that Hamas has not done the Palestinians any favours. It is abundantly clear it has not put any security or protection in place for the people of Gaza. That is why we have been consistent that Hamas cannot be the governing authority in Gaza.
We also need to ensure that Israel comes to the diplomatic table. My noble friend is correct that peace agreements have been signed with Jordan and Egypt, but there are further chapters in that process with Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. There is talk of normalisation with the wider Gulf region. These are important elements, and, ultimately, that is what we strive to achieve. I agree with my noble friend about the recent appointment of a new Prime Minister in the Palestinian Authority, with whom we are engaging. We also need the Palestinian Authority to mitigate the previous issues that have arisen with the Palestinian leadership, to ensure that there is an inclusive approach and that, when direct discussions begin, both parties are committed to the notion of peace, stability and security. That should remain the aim of any Government.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, we all share the sense of outrage at the massacres on 7 October. Is it not now unrealistic to expect Hamas to give up the remaining hostages for a pause and not a ceasefire, knowing that giving up its main bargaining counter will open the door for Israel to seek to eliminate the remaining Hamas militants in Gaza itself? Can the Minister say what the preferred solution is for the post-conflict governance of Gaza?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, it is important that Israel is very much part and parcel of that discussion. We have seen Ministers in the Israeli Government ask that very question of their own Prime Minister. It is important that that discussion takes place within Israel. Two options currently prevail, both of which are unpalatable: that Hamas remains in governance or that the Israelis retain the security of Gaza. Neither is palatable—that is not me saying that as a British Minister; that is the opinion of the Israeli Defence Minister.
On the issue of hostages, I have just come back from Qatar, and while I cannot go into detail, we will continue to pursue that particular avenue. I have met with the hostage families, and I assure the noble Lord that anyone who has done the same knows that they can never give up. Even if it is the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we should continue in that endeavour if it means that, with all our efforts, we get one more hostage out.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. Can the Minister turn his mind again to the ICC? It is my understanding that the prosecutor usually declines to act where there is an independent and effective legal system in the state concerned that can address any legal charges. Are we really suggesting that that is not in place in Israel?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have previously talked about the strength of accountability and the justice systems in Israel. As I said earlier, the prosecutor has submitted his evidence and a process is now under way. What we also implore Israel to do—and which it has demonstrated on certain issues—is to show accountability; for example, by investigating the tragic events around the World Central Kitchen that resulted in the killing of people, including British nationals. In that vein, we have asked for further details, including how it can be looked at independently.
To answer the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we are talking with key partners, including Australia, which are also undertaking a similar process. When we look at these processes, we of course look at the local system, but the ICC is an independent organisation that will make its own judgment.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the ICC seeks to prosecute individuals and not states, in answer to some of the questions that have been floating around here? What does he have to say, and what is the response of the British Government, to the comments made by the National Security Minister of Israel, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the day after the ICC’s announcement? He said:
“Only Israel will control Gaza … Israel will occupy Gaza, completely & fully including Jewish settlement in”
the “entire enclave”, and he called for the
“‘encouragement of voluntary migration’ of Gazans”.
He also stated that he wanted to live there in Gaza. Today, he stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque, in response to the declarations from Norway and Spain.
The Minister will know that Netanyahu’s Government oppose a two-state solution; the ambassador to this country has said very clearly, on record on the radio and television, that her Government oppose a two-state solution. In the light of that, why are our Government—who are committed to a two-state solution, as are all parties in this House—giving so much comfort, and not showing more resistance, to those opposed to it? We must consider those demonstrating against Netanyahu and the hostage families who want a ceasefire and to see their families brought home—which is not in the interest of Netanyahu, who is just trying to cling on to power to avoid corruption charges.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, ultimately, who governs Israel will be a matter for Israelis. On the noble Baroness’s point about the hostage families, we are extending extensive support to them by facilitating engagement, including in private meetings with key negotiators.
On the issue of statements by Israeli Ministers, I and the United Kingdom Government are clear on what needs to happen. The prevailing view of one Minister within the Israeli Government is not necessarily the view of other Ministers within that same Government. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that the current Government in Israel do not believe in this two-state solution; it is a stated policy of the Prime Minister and the current Government. That does not stop us engaging quite directly on this important issue and making the case in advocacy that, ultimately, as I say repeatedly, that will be the time for the realisation of the two-state solution, and of peace and security for both peoples, while equally recognising that the long-term future is an interdependency between Israelis and Palestinians to ensure the long-term prosperity of those two nations.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I recognise His Majesty’s Government’s position to wait for the second report into allegations of UNRWA staff involvement on the 7 October terror attack before making a final decision on the new funding, once our current allocation has expired at the end of this month. UNRWA supports 3.7 million Palestinians, 2.3 million of whom live in Jordan, and hundreds of thousands of whom live in Syria and Lebanon. If there is no further commitment to aid, refugees who have nothing to do with 7 October or the situation in Gaza are going to suffer as a result. In order to avoid this scenario, will my noble friend consider exploring the option of restoring the funding for UNRWA’s activities outside Gaza or outside the Occupied Palestinian Territories as an interim measure, pending the second report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On my noble friend’s second question, our funding structures do not allow for that differentiation. We are waiting for the OIOS report—the oversight report—which is due this month, because it is specific to the abhorrent events of 7 October. However, this has not stopped us extending humanitarian support into Gaza, which is now well over £100 million. Last week, I met the head of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain, when she was in London; earlier today, I met the executive director of UNICEF, Catherine Russell, to focus on how we can extend the best level of support. However, I agree with my noble friend, though I know that there are others who have differing perspectives. There are mitigations which are required, and UNWRA is addressing them. Philippe Lazzarini is very much focused on this, and I have seen the detail of some of the direct mitigations he is putting in place. I agree with my noble friend about the important role that UNRWA plays, both within Gaza and in neighbouring countries.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Green Party and then we will move on to Labour.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in oral evidence yesterday to the Business and Trade Committee on UK arms exports to Israel, two Ministers, Andrew Mitchell and Alan Mak, confirmed that there is data available only for the first two quarters of 2023, and that the data for the following two quarters of the year is overdue, which the committee expressed concerns about. Does the Minister agree with me that, in the current situation, it is deeply concerning that the British public does not know what is going on, and, perhaps more damaging, that the world does not know what is going on? Whatever the volume, surely what is being sold is not a determinant of the UK’s legal position on arms exports to Israel. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, suggested that the US and the UK were in a different position because our volumes of sales were much less. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it is no defence in court to say, “Well, I did not commit very much of the offence.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On all these assessments, as I have said before, there is a process. If we are not talking at cross-purposes, it was about data and information we received, as my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell said earlier to the committee about the assessments made during a particular period of time in 2024. On the issue of the principle of law, I agree with the noble Baroness that the principle should be directly applied.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, no one can view what is going on in Gaza with any equanimity; it is truly horrendous, and Israel is coming in for a lot of criticism for what is happening there. But one has to look at this with some form of balance and look at who may be responsible for the majority of the problems. Hamas was responsible for the original horrendous acts, and its terrorists are preventing its own people sheltering in its caves. It is purloining the aid that is getting in and selling it on at a high price to its population, which is very cynical. It is also cynically sending rockets to the crossing at two places, closing them temporarily. So Hamas must bear some of the responsibility, and I am afraid that UNRWA is not entirely blameless either. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord on the role that Hamas has played. As I said earlier, I think that many in Gaza recognise the devastation it has wreaked on the people of Gaza. The United Kingdom position is very clear: we regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and it cannot be part of the future of Gaza. It could end this now.
The noble Lord points out the missile attacks on Kerem Shalom specifically, which curtailed the aid delivery. Equally, the current Rafah operation has closed the Rafah border, which was crucial for fuel supplies getting into some of the key hospitals, so we are also seized of that. On the issue of not holding Hamas to account, nothing could be further from the truth. We hold it accountable and responsible but, when we deal with this, this is not unfair scrutiny of Israel. Israel is a country that everyone from your Lordships’ House stood with, and rightly so, after those abhorrent events of 7 October, and we continue to work with it as a constructive friend and partner.
Media Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (21 May 2024)
Lord Storey
“(a) be made using a process OFCOM shall create within six months of the passing of the Media Act 2024 to enable application on a continuous basis, and”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 71, 73 and 74 are concerned with local radio. For a moment I just want to remind people of the importance of local radio. In my own city of Liverpool, in the halcyon days there were two local newspapers, the Echo and the Daily Post, then along came Radio Merseyside—originally it was in two small almost cupboards in council buildings—and then, to a great fanfare, commercial local radio was established. The two print local newspapers and the two broadcast stations became an ecosystem. In those days, there were personalities presenting local news, current affairs and phone-in questions, and even attending local events. They had a local government reporter and they would vie with each other to get the best scoops and the best news.
Who would have thought in those wonderful days that now you would switch on your local commercial radio station and get a programme made in London, presented by somebody living in London, with production staff from London? You then discover that the local allowed input is probably just under a minute of local news and, if you are lucky, the weather and traffic news. Is that what local news is really about? Is that what we want in our country? I was fascinated to hear the Minister the other day quite rightly talking about the great successes of our PSBs, how they have embraced the whole country and how we have seen the establishment of production and of television studios in all parts of the country.
I wish the same was true of local radio. It is as if there are two furniture removal vans, one marked “radio”, which is heading towards London, and the other marked “television”, which is moving out of London and into the whole of our country. I received a letter from Radio Banbury, saying that a complaint was made that the former local radio station for Salisbury is no longer providing local news as required by its licence. The station is now owned by Bauer and runs as Greatest Hits Radio. Ofcom decided to take no action. One particular comment from Ofcom is of real interest:
“The Licensee explained that from 2 January 2024 it had planned to trial a ‘county’ bulletin for its stations in Wiltshire because it considered that the city-focused news bulletins for Salisbury ‘sounded jarring and parochial against industry-leading shows such as Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo’”.
As much as I like Ken Bruce and Simon Mayo, and think that there is definitely a role for commercial radio to cover the whole country, it should not be at the expense of our local radio stations. I hope the Minister considers my amendments very carefully. They are about saying that local stations that have been bought, almost ruthlessly, by Bauer or Global now get around the local news requirement by putting on a few minutes of local news, which is not really what this should be about.
The existing legislation within Section 314 of the Communications Act 2003 is being amended by the Media Bill so that the provision of local news and information is the only local requirement. It appears to regionalise the requirement, whereas existing FM licensees are held to a much tighter editorial area. A multiplex service covers a much larger area than the traditional FM coverage area. Under the current legislation, Ofcom allows local commercial licence holders to be compliant with just one 20-second local news story per hour. There is evidence that some stations have already moved to the regional model. Occasionally, traffic news is the only other evidence of information.
Existing legislation requires locally produced programming. FM licence holders are required to produce three hours each weekday from within their broadcast area. In recent years Ofcom has designed regions, aligned to the ITV regions, and the locally produced requirement is reached as long as the programme is produced within the region.
In reality, this means that stations as far apart as Banbury, Aylesbury and Winchester all share a local programme from Southampton. Often, there is no difference in the content, albeit the presenters are different. Aside from news bulletins, the content and music match that of all other stations in the network. The Media Bill removes the requirement for locally produced programming. It will leave local FM licensees allowed to operate as pseudo-national stations all day, every day, with the exception of 20-second regional news stories.
Ofcom last readvertised FM licences in 2019-20, allowing a fast-track process where current licence holders were not challenged. In 2020, the DCMS allowed unchallenged licence extensions for up to 10 years as long as the station committed to broadcasting on digital radio. At the same time, huge consolidation took place in the radio industry, with the main groups, Bauer and Global, purchasing radio stations across the country. For groups, paying to be on a digital radio multiplex is far cheaper and less risky than reapplying for their FM licence; most already have their service on DAB anyway. The result is that the vast majority of existing FM licences are held by the two big groups and are safe until 2030. At the same time, Ofcom is refusing to allow new applicants for FM licences.
If we want thriving local radio and if we want easy-listening competition for Radio 1 or 2, this is not the way to go about it. I am sure that, in our communities, we all want a radio station that is local.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, first, I need to apologise to noble Lords that I was not present at Second Reading. I am grateful to a number of local radio stations, and especially to Rob Persani of Rutland radio, which is where the Vale of Catmose is, for bringing to my attention the issue in Amendment 72. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who have put their names to the amendment. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for the meeting yesterday with the Secretary of State and the MP for Rutland and Melton, Alicia Kearns.
I support Amendments 71 and 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The purpose of Amendment 72, however, is to ensure that Ofcom issues licences where there is no digital coverage. I accept that the wording of the amendment would need redrafting on Report to more clearly define the test needed where there are areas of no coverage. Applying for licences needs to be in the system outlined in Amendments 71 and 73. Ofcom does not need to run expensive competitions any more for FM licences, and it is not surprising that no new FM licences have been issued since 2009 if it has to run such a competition. As has been outlined, if you have a DAB licence, your FM licence is now automatically renewed. That simple process of renewal online with the payment of a fee could apply to new licences, rather than the expensive competition process that we had previously.
Commercial radio stations used to come in all shapes and sizes, so it is sad to learn, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined, of the demise of local radio. “Much in little” is Rutland’s motto, and there are about 41,000 people living there, plus tourists. Rutland radio is a great way to find out what is happening in the local area, especially as you drive around, but it has areas where digital has no reach.
The vision of Ofcom for the digital switchover for local radio is called small-scale DAB—smaller areas where it issues what are called polygon licences. I assume for the purpose of Amendment 72 that, as with the internet, His Majesty’s Government’s policy is that everyone should have radio access. Looking at SS-DAB and FM, even if small-scale DAB was the answer technically, it is not small scale enough to work economically.
Instead of the one frequency that you need for an FM station—at a cost, I am informed, of around £15,000 plus your annual fee to Ofcom—under a polygon licence a station such as Banbury radio, as the noble Lord just mentioned, would have to buy three such licences for that small-scale area delineated by Ofcom, at triple the cost. The local economy of advertising, which is what supports those local FM radio stations, just cannot sustain that; the areas envisaged by small-scale DAB are just too big.
I am grateful that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will cover the more technical issues relating to small-scale DAB, but, as I have outlined, it does not reach everywhere. In a place such as Rutland, it comes in and out when you drive between the villages and the two towns—yes, villages and two market towns is Rutland. Alicia Kearns MP recited to us yesterday how the digital signal goes out for lengthy periods when driving around. SS-DAB is fine for areas of greater population, but those areas do not need it. Apparently, there are pockets all around the country where you cannot get digital radio. No one is sure precisely where all those are, but it would be interesting to know from His Majesty’s Government whether they have looked at where the gaps are and what the internet coverage is in those areas. I suspect that there is quite a lot of correlation, but it is merely a suspicion.
Internet radio is also not the solution for those areas. Statistics from the UK Consumer Digital Index from Lloyds Bank show that 2.1 million people in the UK are offline, and 4.7 million people do not access the internet. Age UK did a survey of over-65s, and 2.7 million people, which is about 22% of that age group, are not accessing the internet. That could be due not to lack of coverage but to disability, cognition failure or vision problems. They will continue to rely on digital or FM radio.
It was rather prescient that, only yesterday, we raised with the Secretary of State that national resilience needs FM. In the national resilience strategy, it turns out that FM is the most resilient form of communication, so we will not be switching off FM in the near future. In the event of power outage or solar flares, it is the most resilient. Today, it just so happens that the Deputy Prime Minister is outlining the preparedness of household strategies to boost national resilience. The advice is to boost your analogue capabilities and buy a wind-up radio—but to receive what? FM, of course.
Why not allow those who want a new licence to broadcast on an FM frequency that will remain for the foreseeable future? All the commercial risk is on the operators. It will not cost His Majesty’s Government a penny. Also, the more people who continue using FM radios, the more resilient households are. They will know that their FM radio works and will not be scrambling around in the back of the wardrobe to dust it off in an emergency—but perhaps I am only the person who, on reading the national resilience strategy, is wondering where the batteries are for that torch that I bought, and where the candles are that I bought when the Deputy Prime Minister last talked to me about resilience.
Finally—and to give my second “it just so happens”—your Lordships’ House has just had a repeat of an Urgent Question from the other place on South West Water. In areas with no digital coverage and an emergency that is not a power outage, sometimes there is time to communicate with your population—for example, if there is flooding or a forest fire. But if you need to tell the public, “Stop drinking your tap water”, that is an immediate message. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are looking at how South West Water managed to communicate with all its customers in the local area. Sadly, as we renew only 0.1% of our mains water network each year, instead of the 1% average on the continent, I think that such incidents will be more frequent.
Many in your Lordships’ House will know of “Rutland Weekend Television” by Eric Idle, but the local coverage of Rutland radio and other local stations is not a comedy; it is essential. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some good news to tell your Lordships’ House on this amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, to which I have put my name, and also to support Amendments 71, 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. These amendments will do much to support local radio.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has already explained to us the regionalisation of local radio and the destruction it has caused. This has not been helped by cuts at the BBC, which are forcing many of its stations to regionalise as well. In the area in which I live, East Anglia, BBC Suffolk and BBC Norfolk broadcast the same content for much of the day. These stations are not local; they are regional, and in some cases national. They have fired local staff and closed local studios, and as brands move towards national broadcasting there are fewer regional centres.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is an extremely surreal moment to stand up just as the Prime Minister is about to walk out of the door of No. 10, maybe to announce a general election for 4 July. Of course, if that does happen it means we will be dealing with these very important issues during the wash-up process.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I just wanted to let the noble Lord know that Downing Street is delaying the announcement for 10 minutes so that we can hear his speech in full.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am always grateful for suggestions from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.
The amendments that have already been debated are extremely important. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for explaining the somewhat complex details surrounding the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments are really important in the context of going back to the sort of local radio stations we used to enjoy. He is also right to point out that a number of our debates have already demonstrated how important it is for Parliament to give a clear direction to Ofcom about its various activities.
I will concentrate on my Amendments 75 and 76. On Monday, I referred to the vital importance of Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act in creating an impartiality framework for TV and radio, building on earlier ones. That tradition of impartiality is the basis for the very high level of trust in our broadcast journalists—a tradition as vital for radio as it is for television. As I said on Monday, in an era of disinformation and conspiracy theories, spread so easily and quickly via social media, those impartiality requirements and the trust they engender in broadcast news and information are more important than ever. However, they are now under threat from a combination of a new generation of opinionated news stations and what appears to be the increasing reluctance of Ofcom to implement Parliament’s will.
Those impartiality rules, laid down by Parliament in 2003, are very clear. Section 319(2)(c) of the Act lays down that one of the standards objectives to be enforced by Ofcom is that
“news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with”.
Section 320 states clearly that, for every radio and television service, due impartiality must be preserved in—this is critical—
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
In simple terms, I believe that means that the due impartiality requirements must apply equally to both news and what we might call current affairs.
Recently, however, Ofcom seems to be making a distinction, allowing greater latitude for current affairs programmes to escape the due impartiality requirement. The distinction was first raised on 21 March last year in an Ofcom blog posted by its then group director for broadcasting and online content, Kevin Bakhurst. It was headlined, “Can politicians present TV and radio shows? How our rules apply”. Mr Bakhurst stated that,
“generally speaking, if it’s a news programme, a politician cannot present”,
but
“They are allowed to present other kinds of shows … including current affairs”.
Yet that distinction between news and current affairs appears nowhere in the relevant statute; nor did it appear in Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code or in the guidance that accompanies the code, yet Ofcom now clearly sees a distinction.
Last month, looking further into the issue of politicians presenting programmes, Ofcom commissioned IPSOS to carry out some focus groups among audiences. One of the conclusions in the IPSOS report was:
“Participants thought they could easily distinguish between news and current affairs … However, in practice, the presentation and style of these types of content blurred the line between news and current affairs which confused participants”.
IPSOS concluded that:
“The most prevalent opinion was feeling uncomfortable with politicians presenting current affairs content”.
While Ofcom appears to want news and current affairs to be treated separately, audiences have difficulty distinguishing between the two, so, just as the 2003 Act intended, news and current affairs programmes should both be covered by Sections 319 and 320 of the Act. The arbitrary distinction that Ofcom appears to have made between news and current affairs has no basis in law. After all, both quite clearly relate to
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
Were the distinction to continue, it would significantly weaken the impartiality framework, so Amendment 75 makes it clear that Parliament always intended news to incorporate current affairs, in line with audience expectations.
This brings us back to the issue about partisan presenters. We have some outstanding radio show presenters with well-known political allegiances, including some from this House. I mention in passing the excellent programmes on Times Radio presented by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. We would not want to banish them from the air waves any more than we would want to banish, say, Nigel Farage from GB News. We are a liberal democracy, and we want to protect those contributions, but surely only if their shows live up to the same standards of impartiality required for news programmes.
Given the very high trust that audiences have invested in our broadcast services, as well as the clear audience discomfort with politically partisan presenters, we should seriously consider whether additional impartiality guardrails might be necessary for programmes hosted by well-known figures with well-recognised political allegiances. Amendment 76 addresses the rules around partisan presenters, whether on news or current affairs programmes, and it offers the simple proposal that the Secretary of State should review whether an enhanced duty of impartiality for such presenters might be necessary. The current rules around impartiality should not be allowed to be weakened by a regulator, certainly not without Parliament’s permission. Taken together, Amendment 75 and 76 seek to protect the legacy of trust which our broadcast media has taken decades to construct and which must not carelessly be disregarded.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
Well, if no one is going to fill the gap, I will. I can confirm that a general election has not yet been announced—in deference to the excellent speech on radio from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I thought I would make a few brief remarks —while we wait for this imminent event—with some reflections on radio.
I was lucky enough to be the Radio Minister for six years in the DCMS and now I am lucky enough to be a broadcaster on Times Radio—which is duly declared in my register of interests—so I have seen both sides of the fence. Ofcom has had a fantastic team looking after radio for many years and they are great experts on it. They were very much on the front foot when we discussed some of the mechanics and the engineering needed to extend digital radio.
The watchwords for radio are that we in Britain have an extremely successful radio ecosystem. We love our radio. We are also very far in advance of many other countries. To all intents and purposes, we have a universal digital network, which not many countries have. We still have our FM network. We have a plethora of radio stations, from legitimate national stations to quasi-national stations—which are really a group of regional stations knitted together—through to local radio stations and community radio stations. One of the things that I wanted to do most as a Minister was to support community radio. There is not enough money for it; there should be more money for it and for the engineering to support it. It is truly local radio. I used to visit places such as Swindon community radio which provided a vital service. It was run by volunteers and, rather like hospital radio, it is a great gateway into the radio industry and lots of young people still want to work in radio. That is very important.
It is a good thing, as it were, that the Government never made a firm decision on whether to switch over FM to digital and have allowed the radio industry in effect to lead that process and wait for it to come and say when it might be ready—when the dual costs may be too much or it might be sensible to go to a purely digital system. The other important point about radio is that the BBC sits at the heart of that radio ecosystem. That is one the important reasons to support the BBC but, at the same time, the BBC should be very mindful of its place and, in my view, be leaning in to providing the kind of radio services that commercial radio cannot afford to provide. In particular, that is local radio.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that there is far too much broadcast regulation being made up on the hoof by Ofcom, without any guidance from Parliament. That is partly up to the Government to drive consultation and to frame the debate so that Parliament can have that debate and make some decisions. However, I accept that, as a Conservative Peer, broad- casting a show on Times Radio, it feels very odd to interview Wes Streeting about Labour’s health policy. The people who run Times Radio and who run other radio stations take their obligations to Ofcom very seriously. They have compliance departments and ask whether something will comply with Ofcom or cross a line. They are very mindful of the existing guidance that Ofcom prepares.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, we should not be misled in terms of thinking about this kind of regulation for opinionated news—if you like—a sort of hybrid. We should not be misled because we might not like GB News, because it is deemed to be a right-wing station. We should have a proper debate about whether there is room for opinionated news in the broadcast ecosystem, particularly as we are now so deep into such a rich information environment with social media.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I can usually spot a cunning plan when there is one afoot, and I fancy that our debate this afternoon is going to be overshadowed by events outside this House as the lectern has already been rolled out. This is an eclectic group of amendments which raise some important issues on radio regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Amendments 71, 73 and 74 seeks to establish a baseline of locally provided programmes. I suspect we all have some sympathy with this.
There was a time when local radio was genuinely that: local. I well remember, as a local government leader, a time when both commercial and public service broadcast—BBC—radio stations used to call me up to face a quizzical reporter or phone-in audiences on local issues. But it has been a while since those days, as less and less content is generated from a locality. Basically, “local” means anything but that, as the programmes can be made and broadcast anywhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, accurately described, and have no particular geographical audience.
Most commercial radio stations now work to the same format and are owned by fewer and fewer companies, with little or no community input. Sadly, they have contributed to the overall decline of local news as well. As we know, the BBC has much reduced its local services—several noble Lords have mentioned this—as part of its slimming down of local radio. It remains an open question as to how practical and workable the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, are in the current context, and that is a question for us to consider.
I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, particularly Amendment 72, which I think we would all accept hits on a very significant issue. If we want to look at radio coverage in the context of levelling up—and I think we should—we clearly have a long way to go, because there are definitely issues of access. Last year, we passed legislation that in theory should enable better coverage digitally, but it remains the case that rural areas are still significantly disadvantaged. In replying to the noble Baroness, can the Minister update the Committee today on progress and how the Government see, and are seeking, other means to redress this widely perceived imbalance? Are there, for instance, any government targets in place that are designed to move the UK towards a more universal quality of coverage that will take account of rural and local needs?
Turning to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on radio news impartiality, I say that, yes, of course there should be careful consideration by Ofcom, both for television and radio, when current affairs shows are on either news stations or channels, or stations that focus heavily on news and current affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, seems to have introduced a new expression into our debate today: “opinionated news”. I thought that was a very good expression and not one I had heard before. I do not think that we can easily move away from challenging that. How we resolve the fact that politicians of a particular party host such shows in the face of regulations that are pretty clear on impartiality and balance is something we need now to seriously consider, and the noble Lord raises a telling question.
We must also ensure that Ofcom has the tools it needs to decide on impartiality when it comes to politically hosted shows. Perhaps the Minister could outline what discussions he and his department have had with Ofcom on this matter, because it is a matter of serious concern. We need considerable reassurance on this because, hand on heart, we cannot say that it is working as well as it should—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says about Ofcom having a very good team covering radio. I am sure that is true and that great diligence is exhibited there, but we need to move on and ensure that Ofcom can get on with the job in a way that satisfies widespread public concern about impartiality rules.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are now at the section of the Bill dealing with radio and able to say that the state of radio in the UK is in good health. The medium continues to be attractive to new generations of listeners, while the proportion of adults who listen each week is virtually unchanged from a decade ago. I imagine quite a few people are tuning in right now to their radios across the UK.
However, UK radio also faces many more challenges than it did in the past, with competition from technology platforms and online streaming providers, and it is vital that stations large and small are able to adapt their services in response to listeners’ preferences, which is why the measures in the Bill regarding radio are so important.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his Amendments 71 and 73, which would require Ofcom to determine the licensing process for new local and restricted services licences within six months of the Bill’s completed passage. We would, however, consider such a requirement on Ofcom to be unduly prescriptive. As the UK’s independent regulator, not only for radio but also for spectrum management and specific frequency allocations, we believe that Ofcom should continue to have wide discretion in how it carries out its functions in respect of its regulation of radio services. We are not persuaded that overlaying new and prescriptive requirements on its duties is necessary.
My noble friend Lady Berridge, speaking to Amendment 72, referred to the meeting we had yesterday with my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Tourism and the Creative Industries. I was very grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for giving up their time to join us to discuss it. Her amendment seeks to ensure that, in areas defined as rural or in those that present a topographical issue—hilly or mountainous terrain or other things that get in the way of radio broadcast and limit the availability of digital services—Ofcom would be required to grant an FM licence to the organisation applying. That would mark a departure from the present licensing system, as we discussed yesterday, and create legal uncertainties about when this requirement applies and who would judge whether a particular area is unsuitable for a digital radio service.
Since 2003, Ofcom has had responsibility to secure the optimal use of the spectrum in determining where and how to license FM and other radio services. This amendment would conflict with that responsibility, especially in the case of areas where Ofcom judges that there may not be spectrum available to license further FM services.
Since 2010, Ofcom has successfully focused on developing community radio. A number of noble Lords rightly pointed out that this is greatly valued by people across the UK, with 320 services, the majority of which are on FM, across the country bringing an important degree of local choice and diversity. Ofcom has also focused on developing digital radio. Ofcom is currently focusing on small-scale DAB, which is now in its sixth round of licence awards, with 59 areas currently licensed, giving cost-effective opportunities for small commercial and community stations to broadcast on DAB as well as online. A number of these new multiplexes are located in more rural areas of the country, bringing new stations on air in these locations.
My noble friend raised very eloquently some pertinent points about the lack of services in more rural areas, such as the Vale of Catmose in her territorial designation. Ofcom has offered FM community radio licences in the most recent licensing round between 2017 and 2020 to people interested in developing community services. Although the most recent licensing round was a successful exercise, with more than 70 new community radio stations launching, rural areas with smaller populations may have specific challenges in being able to bring together viable proposals for community radio services, as my noble friend outlined in her speech.
With Ofcom’s licensing of small-scale DAB coming to a natural break point, I can tell my noble friend that we plan to work with Ofcom to look at the case for supporting new radio services in rural and remote areas and to assess possible options for helping to support these services get on air. To that end, my honourable friend Julia Lopez is very happy to write to Ofcom, asking it to provide advice on this, and to publish a copy of her letter. That can be done swiftly and I hope that, with that commitment to ask Ofcom to look at the case for supporting new stations in rural and remote areas, my noble friend will be content not to press her amendment and perhaps to continue to discuss this with us.
I turn to Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Like many who spoke, I recognise the important contribution that commercial radio stations play in delivering local news and other local information. The noble Lord’s amendment, which seeks to put in legislation the current requirements on local production and news drawn from the current Ofcom guidance, would be a significant change to the radio deregulation measures. It would reinstate the requirements for maintaining local production, resulting in higher costs for commercial radio broadcasters. By putting the current Ofcom localness guidance on a statutory basis, it would also limit Ofcom’s flexibility to develop new guidance that will set the expectations to enable Ofcom to hold stations to account for their compliance with the new locally gathered news and to adapt the guidance in future. Fixing these requirements in this way would result in additional long-term costs, which may have an impact on the financial viability of the sector and its ability to invest in content. It is worth noting that there are no similar provisions for the BBC under its royal charter or agreement.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
The Minister is missing the fundamental point. There is a simple question: does he believe, and is it the Government’s view, that the due impartiality regulations contained in Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act apply to both news and current affairs programmes?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will happily write to the noble Lord with more detail on that, but we think the Bill strikes the right balance.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
I do not wish to comment in any way, shape or form on the value or otherwise of any amendment to the Bill; I will just correct a statement. There is one code on due impartiality; the only difference between news and current affairs is that politicians are prohibited from being newscasters, if I can put it that way. The requirements for due impartiality are the same for news as for current affairs. The key word is “due”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can help here. I am wondering what a newscaster is, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will write on that point, having consulted the noble Lord, Lord Grade, to make sure that I give the correct definition.
I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, will have understood, I am not able to accept his amendments and hope that he will be content not to press them.
Baroness Thornton
“(1) In this Part, “radio selection service” means— (a) a service provided by means of the internet which enables, or among other things enables, a user of the service—(i) to make a selection between internet radio services provided by different providers, and(ii) to cause a selected internet radio service to play,by giving spoken commands that are recorded by equipment connected to the internet, or(b) a service provided by an in-car entertainment system which enables, or among other things enables, a user of the system to cause a selected radio service to play, whether by giving spoken commands which are recorded by equipment or otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that “radio selection service” includes an in-car entertainment system which a person must navigate to access radio while in their car, as well as voice activated speakers.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The last group was fascinating and, in a way, this debate moves us on to how to future-proof access to radio stations. I will also speak to Amendment 78, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 81 from my noble friend Lord Bassam.
In the course of discussions with stakeholders in preparation for the Bill, it emerged that there is an issue about radio selection services. It was expressed to us as a matter of some concern. Given that the Bill is about future-proofing, the amendments in this group address an issue with regard to radio selection services in car entertainment systems, through which a person navigates access to the radio as well as using voice activation. The Bill seems to address the issue of selection services only with regard to internet radio services, which are of course a new category of designated radio selection services. These services are voice assistance services that enable listeners to select and listen to internet radio services by using voice-activated audio devices.
These amendments address the issue of how people might access radio not through internet or voice-activated mechanisms. Certainly, my car is much too old to do anything quite so sophisticated. They also address what happens to FM, which is very important. What concerns us is the place of public service broadcasters in such a system. Who decides on that prominence? I imagine that car manufacturers might be quite pleased if they also knew who deals with the regulatory regime that would apply under these circumstances. I read the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, since the Bill itself is a bit dense on this matter. I cannot see where the issue of public service broadcasting radio is addressed. My first question is: can the Minister tell us that?
Who will ensure that car manufacturers are—“doing the right thing” is not quite the right expression—making sure that our public service broadcasters are not neglected? As an avid Radio 4 and Classic FM listener, I really want to jump between the two with the sort of ease that I can at present. These amendments seek to address such issues, as well as the mandate to Ofcom, the accountability of the Secretary of State and Parliament, and how that might be best achieved.
My noble friend’s Amendment 81 is also about future-proofing, and would require the Secretary of State, through regulations, to expand the new protection for on-demand and online-only content, such as on-demand listening and podcasts. This is a group of amendments some of which are probing and some of which address quite a serious matter, which I suspect will have to be looked at as time goes on. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, radio is the background to my life; I have it playing at home, in the car and even when I am walking about, whether it is the BBC, Global’s LBC or Bauer’s Greatest Hits stations. I cannot be alone in enjoying this wonderful medium, so I am glad that today it is getting the attention it deserves.
The way we listen is changing, and Clause 48 recognises this with the acceptance that, in the future, most people will be listening to the radio online. It covers the Ofcom-regulated stations—BBC, Bauer, Global and others—which make up 85% of our listening, but the methods by which we listen to this medium are changing fast. I have tabled Amendment 78—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for their support—because I want to ensure that the way we listen is future-proofed, and that in the future online radio can be listened to wherever people are and on whatever device they want to use.
I very much appreciate that this clause is the Government’s response to fears that deals can be done between the manufacturers of listening devices, such as voice-activated speakers, to promote their own radio content, or even the content of stations which have paid them to promote their content over that of the Ofcom-regulated station. The clause’s “must carry” obligations for the top three voice-activated speakers takes its cue from the work that Ofcom has done on prominence in TVs, which has already been debated. However, my concern is that the focus on these three big voice-activated devices will be to the exclusion of other methods of listening to radio.
I also support Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the benefits of being able to listen to relevant internet radio services on in-car radio, which is not voice-activated and not covered by Clause 48.
Myriad different devices that might carry these stations in the future are also not covered. We need to be certain that our PlayStations, iPhones and even fridges, to name but a few devices, will carry these popular stations. For example, Sony Interactive Entertainment, which owns PlayStation, is a very competitive and successful company; it could do a deal with a youth station to the exclusion of other stations, stopping gamers accessing and being introduced to the joys of what is described in the new section inserted by the clause as “relevant internet radio services”. I know that the criteria for the “must carry” devices is set out in new Section 362BC(4) and that the Secretary of State can amend this section, but my amendment seeks to anticipate these changes, calling for a review of what devices people are listening on. The Government see this clause as a regulatory burden for the biggest speaker manufacturers, but I see it as protection both for the listening public and the nascent radio selection services.
I want to throw in another important thought here. The Government have been worrying so much about device manufacturers not carrying radio content that they have introduced a “must carry” burden on them. However, new Section 362BA requires an internet radio service to offer to a DRSS. There is no mandatory requirement for a relevant internet radio station to carry its service. I want the Minister and the Bill team to think very carefully about a world in which designated internet radio stations themselves do a deal with the big device manufacturers to carry their radio channels exclusively. I am sure that whenever this idea was raised during the drafting of the Bill, civil servants would have asked why a radio station would not want to be on a device.
Your Lordships have to look only at what has happened in television to see that content providers are just as active in creating monopolies for their channels as device manufacturers. Netflix and Amazon drove their own discreet prominence regime with specific TV manufacturers for vast sums of money, as noble Lords have already heard in the debate on prominence. It was the content suppliers that drove manufacturers to put a Netflix or an Amazon button on the channel controller and to ensure that they dominated the home screen.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which suggests that there should be a post-enactment review by the Secretary of State as to whether radio selection services should be extended to other devices. I fully support the case that he has made.
Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gives us an example of some of the things that need to be done and included in the Bill. His amendment, which seeks to extend the protections outlined in the Bill, would help future-proof the legislation and ensure that it keeps pace with rapidly changing audio-consumption habits. It is worth pointing out that this change was a key recommendation from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Media Bill last year. Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seeks to expand the scope of the regulation to cover non-voice-activated in-car infotainment systems, is another very good example of something that should be done now.
There is another area that should be addressed in the Bill that is covered by my Amendments 79 and 80. Amendment 79 would require voice assistant platforms to share data with broadcasters on the use of their radio services, and Amendment 80 would prevent tech platforms charging broadcasters for that data. The free flow of data is crucial—for commercial radio, community radio and even the BBC—in order to create a direct relationship between the listener, broadcasters and, in the case of commercial organisations, advertisers, to help them exist and grow.
Tech platforms are currently not obliged to share data with radio broadcasters on the distribution of their audio services. Any personal data shared between tech platforms and broadcasters would of course need to be subject to user consent and compliant with data protection legislation. Following consent, better access to data can help drive innovation in radio and audio services, unlocking new levels of personalisation and curation for the benefit of audiences. It is also vital for commercial radio broadcasters, as they depend on advertising revenues for their survival. Increased data transparency will therefore support commercial broadcasters of all sizes in taking advantage of targeted advertising, which is more attractive to advertisers and can command a higher price. In the long term, that would help to support the sustainability of the commercial radio sector as it becomes more reliant on online listening.
Access to data is currently inconsistent between tech platforms. For example, while Google and Apple provide virtually no data at all to radio broadcasters, Amazon provides some limited data through its Radio Skills Kit platform. However, there are important user insights that are not provided—such as age, gender, location and other interests—which would support the development of more personalised content.
This amendment would ensure a minimum standard for consistent, high-quality data to be shared with radio broadcasters by regulated radio selection services. It would also secure a minimum level of data access for all broadcasters, ensuring that tech platforms cannot engage in gatekeeping behaviours by revoking data access and/or charging broadcasters for the provision of that data. Without intervention, broadcasters will be at a disadvantage compared with the tech platforms, which have access to all the data generated by the listeners of UK radio on their voice-activated devices. In the long term, there is a risk that that data asymmetry could undermine the clear benefits that the Bill brings in levelling the playing field between UK radio broad- casters and large tech platforms.
There is a clear benefit to including data provisions in media sector-specific legislation, as they provide the most relevant opportunity to legislate for the specific challenges facing the media sector, without placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms to make significant changes to their data policies across all aspects of their businesses. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response not only to these proposals but to the others we have already heard.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As noble Lords have recognised, the provisions in Part 6 of the Bill are designed to secure the ongoing availability to listeners of UK radio services and will help to maintain the huge public value that radio provides as online listening continues to grow.
Turning first to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Government fully recognise how important it is that radio continues to maintain its presence in the car. On the provisions in the Bill, I confirm that, where a radio selection service using an in-car device is voice-activated and connected to the internet, it will fall within the definition of a “radio selection service” for the purposes of Part 6. Indeed, that is further clarified by new Section 362BB(2), which ensures that the assessment of whether the use of a radio selection service is significant can take account of specific usages, including the level of radio listening via that platform that takes place in a vehicle. Therefore, should a selection service have significant usage among in-car listeners, it would be subject to potential designation under this part of the Bill.
However, it is correct that there are no requirements on car manufacturers more generally, as the measures are focused on designated platforms that provide a radio selection service. Amendment 77 would extend the definition of “radio selection service” to include services not connected to the internet but accessed via the in-car system provided by car manufacturers. We are not persuaded that it is necessary to extend specific regulatory protections further, given that the evolution of systems and their integration into cars is ongoing, and given the progress made by the radio industry in the UK and across Europe in securing partnerships with car manufacturers and platforms.
However, we recognise that ensuring continued access to radio in the car will be an important part of the review of the radio market in 2026—to which the Government committed in their response to the digital radio and audio review of April 2022—and we will continue to keep the matter under consideration. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future, as listening habits change. While I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set that all out, I hope she will be satisfied and willing to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I agree with the sentiment that the definition of a radio selection service could change as technology evolves and listening habits change. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future. That could include amending the definition to include different ways in which radio stations are selected if a clear need arises in future. As I mentioned earlier, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, the Government committed to a further review of the market in 2026, and the growth and direction of online listening will be an important part of that review. While I am happy to talk to the noble Viscount, if he wishes, I think he will have discerned our reservations about the need for what he proposes, and I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
The Minister has not responded to my concern that there could be a stitch-up between the device manufacturers and the radio providers. Therefore, we should talk about whether there should be a “must offer” component in the Bill to ensure that the designated radio services actually offer their services. It is not just the device manufacturers that may need to be pushed, but, in a very competitive media world, the radio station providers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are heartened by the progress made by the radio industry in the UK and in Europe in securing partnerships with car manufacturers and platforms. We considered representations for a “must carry” provision, including from aggregators, but we concluded that it was not necessary and best left to commercial discussions between radio station platforms and aggregators. If the noble Viscount wishes to speak further about that, I am happy to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, tabled Amendments 79 and 80, on access to user data. While I appreciate the intention behind his amendments and the support from both the BBC and Radiocentre for them, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate to include such provisions in the Bill. This part of the Bill contains provisions to address issues specific to radio, such as securing the continued ability of BBC-licensed and Ofcom-licensed commercial and community stations to access their listeners via voice-activated connected audio devices. By contrast, the issues raised in the noble Lord’s amendment are common across a wide range of sectors. The Government have been taking forward broader work on competition, including in digital markets. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority will gain powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill which could, in certain circumstances, be used to tackle the unfair use of data by the most powerful technology firms.
I hope the noble Lord will also be reassured by the protections that the provisions in new Sections 362BI(3) and 362BI(4) will afford. These measures will allow radio stations to nominate a preferred route for their service to be delivered to listeners, provided that that route is not unduly burdensome for the platform to deliver. As such, they provide scope for routes through which—subject to a listener’s consent; for example, through logging in—a broadcaster may be able to access valuable data, enabling them to improve their service. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate why we cannot agree to his Amendments 79 and 80.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his Amendment 81, which seeks to extend provisions in Part 6 to cover a wider range of audio content that is accessible on connected devices by expressly including a power that would require Ministers to extend the provisions in Part 6 to online only and on-demand content. The amendment would require Ministers to bring forward secondary legislation within a specific timetable to broaden the scope of this legislation significantly, extending the regime to cover online radio and other audio content that is not currently regulated. This could include content that originated outside the UK and is available via the internet.
I have noted the points made about the need to future-proof the regime, and Part 6 includes a number of powers to enable the new regime to stay up to date to reflect market and listener behaviour. This includes the power to change the definition of a radio selection service. At the moment, the Government believe that there is no need for powers further to extend the scope to other on-demand audio content available online. That would significantly widen the scope of content covered and create additional uncertainty burdens on the platforms that might be designated without a clear reasoning or evidence that this was necessary on wider public value grounds. But the Government recognise that audio markets and listening habits will continue to evolve. That is why we have committed in our response to the Digital Radio and Audio Review to revisit in 2026 the issues raised in that review.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but how do the Government really envisage future-proofing to take account of those changes? That is quite important in this debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Bill sets out the ability for Ofcom to assess the state of the market with the Digital Radio and Audio Review. We will do our own assessment of it and, through the Bill’s secondary powers, that work can be updated.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Is the Minister content that that point is covered by that? Is there sufficient flexibility in the legislation to enable that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes. We recognise, and the provisions of the Bill acknowledge, that an increasing amount of listening is taking place online. It is not yet clear, however, what form the evolution is taking and, in particular, how the ongoing provision of radio’s public value, which has been fundamental to the strength of radio over the past century, will be retained. We have committed to that further review of the radio and audio market in 2026, and the growth and direction of online listening will be an important part of it. If it proves appropriate in due course, the provisions in new Section 362BA allow the definition of regulated radio selection service to be amended. The Bill provides for it in that way.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate because it is about future-proofing and the stage at which you need to undertake things. The Minister may need to think about taking powers that then may or may not be used. I thank him for his explanation and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“1A In section 393 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6), in paragraph (a), after “362AW” (inserted by paragraph 1A of Schedule 3) insert “, 362BC(6)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment relating to Clause 48.
Baroness Hollins
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in my name which seeks to provide the same protection against court costs for a journalist working for a publisher which was a member of an approved regulator as would be enjoyed by the publisher.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 84 to 86 in my name, and my comments will be relevant to other amendments in the group to which I have added my name.
At the heart of these amendments are the recommendations of the Leveson report, which followed a 12-month public inquiry ordered by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in 2011. I received clarifications from Sir Brian Leveson that are highly relevant to the debate, and I will share them with the Committee before I speak to the details of my amendment. First, I declare an interest in that I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry about the personal and family impact of unacceptable behaviour by the media, and I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pretrial disclosure stage.
The Leveson report recommendations aimed to balance press freedom with the rights of the public. The chair of the inquiry, then Lord Justice Leveson, proposed a new regulatory framework that was independent of political influence and would protect people affected by press wrongdoing. Although some legislative progress was made, those recommendations have been returned to repeatedly in this place over the past 10 years, with some noble Lords asserting seriously flawed arguments against reform—for example, that Lord Justice Leveson proposed state regulation or that his recommendations would imperil the survival of news publishers.
Sir Brian Leveson himself has never publicly responded to those arguments. I wrote to Sir Brian to put these oft-repeated arguments against reform directly to him. I was grateful to receive a detailed reply from him and, furthermore, I am grateful that he has agreed that I and other noble Lords might quote him in Committee today. I have put this correspondence into the hands of the independent body established by the royal charter, the Press Recognition Panel. It is now available on the Press Recognition Panel website for those interested to read it in full. It is an extremely helpful letter that forensically takes apart falsity after falsity. First, Sir Brian makes it clear that the principle behind Section 40 did not originate from campaigners or politicians but was inspired by the testimony of a national newspaper editor. He describes testimony from a national newspaper editor who could see merit in a framework that encouraged parties to seek out low-cost arbitration, rather than the vast expense of court proceedings, and how this could protect publishers from rich and powerful litigants and, at the same time, protect ordinary people from rich and powerful publishers.
That is the symmetry of protection that lies behind Section 40. Some noble Lords, even speaking on behalf of the Government, have claimed that Section 40 would force publishers to pay costs, win or lose. But Sir Brian explains in his letter that this is not true. Other noble Lords will cover this point in greater detail, but I am going to quote briefly from his letter. He says:
“Neither my recommendation (nor, as I read it, s. 40) ‘forces’ news publications to pay costs when they win”,
and
“the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator”.
I put to him the argument made by some that the recognition system constitutes state regulation. He replied:
“I simply do not understand how this assertion can be made”.
He continues:
“As I understand it, the Royal Charter was specifically designed to ensure independence—independence of the press and independence of politicians”.
He then concludes that
“the suggestion that it is some kind of ‘state regulator’ of the press flies in the face of all that it was set up to do”.
Another argument commonly made is that the problems the inquiry addressed are now out of date. Sir Brian is scathing on this point. He says:
“My Inquiry was set up … to make recommendations inter alia for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press … while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. Allegations of libel, invasions of privacy, misuse of personal data remain equally as relevant today and are as pressing as ever”.
I conclude from that that the reason that national newspapers are opposed to the Leveson recommendations is because they are opposed to the principle of accountability. It was never about political interference nor the financial risk to publishers, objections which Sir Brian Leveson confirms in writing have no basis in fact.
My Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86 would allow the partial repeal of Section 40. They would ensure that publishers inside an independent regulator would be protected from vexatious litigation while allowing the part of Section 40 which would disadvantage unregulated newspapers to be repealed. In other words, these amendments would retain the carrot of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords regulated publishers—while dispensing with that element which would provide access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing to which national news publishers so vehemently object. It is a heavy compromise, designed to meet concerns of the national press that many of us find somewhat disingenuous. However, given the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to repeal Section 40, it is a way, perhaps, of ensuring that we can still make some progress. If my amendments are accepted, there will be no detriment whatsoever to the interests of the national press, even if it declines to join an independent regulator.
In addition, my amendments support regulated, independent and local newspapers in addressing the threat of vexatious litigation known as SLAPPs. If His Majesty’s Government oppose them, can the Minister explain what specific objection could justify blocking the prospect of such a potent defence against SLAPPs for the local press? Indeed, my amendments go further than Section 40 in protecting press freedom from SLAPPs. They would also protect individual journalists from the threat of litigation where they have written for regulated publishers.
This package of amendments which I am supporting today would introduce unprecedented protection for our free press and the journalists working every day to expose the truth. These amendments would all retain compelling incentives for newspapers to abandon the industry-controlled IPSO and join a genuinely independent and effective regulator instead, and in doing so, they would protect members of the public who have been affected by intrusion, harassment or lies at the hands of the press. They would do so without threatening detriment or disadvantage to any publisher which refused to do so other than the reputational consequences of declining to make themselves accountable for what they publish.
Over 200 local and independent newspapers have sought the protection afforded to them under Section 40 by joining Impress, the independent regulator approved by the Press Recognition Panel. Your Lordships should not be in any doubt: repealing Section 40 in full would undermine the freedoms and interests of local and independent newspapers.
I commend Sir Brian on his intervention. He does not engage with the politics of the matter but has chosen to engage on the accuracy of the debate. He was sufficiently concerned to respond to my letter and to remind us of the facts. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are listening and will take the opportunities offered by these amendments to think again. I hope that the next Government will have higher aspirations for a safer and more ethical culture and an accountable press. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose name was to the amendment just so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. He had a back procedure this morning, is in great pain and has gone home. As he and I have been comrades in arms on this, I am glad to make myself a poor substitute for the great man.
Since we started this debate on the Bill this afternoon, the whole picture has been dramatically transformed by the Prime Minister’s announcement. There is to be a general election on 4 July. Why so? The Bill cannot complete its parliamentary passage by next Thursday, when the House is dissolved. That has a straightforward consequence: it goes into a procedure—I think it is called wrap-up, or it might be wind-up or whatever.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I thank your Lordships very much. It goes into a procedure, called whatever everybody shouted a minute ago, and the fate of this clause, along with the rest of the Bill, will depend on what arises from that procedure.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 87 is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I also have Amendments 92 and 94. We have all been somewhat distracted by our mobile telephones concerning the next general election. I have been even more distracted by just having received the result of the 5.30 pm race at Kempton, where my horse came last. I hope that is not an omen for the future.
At Second Reading, I gave a full explanation of why Section 40 should remain on the statute book, so I will now address some of the misconceptions in that debate. It is worth remembering first that the inquiry led by Sir Brian Leveson was concerned that individuals without substantial means caught up in public interest events were unable to seek redress for defamation or unlawful intrusion into their privacy simply because they could not afford to litigate against an all-powerful press. At the core of the inquiry was the importance of the freedom of the press and the vital importance of freedom of expression.
At Second Reading, it was claimed that creation by royal charter is state control. It is the opposite. Royal charter was designed specifically to ensure independence for the press and independence from politicians. The Press Recognition Panel’s charter can be amended only by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament. That is rather a high bar. I cannot see any way that it could ever be amended and for those three bodies to agree.
Sir Brian Leveson came to a meeting organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It was extremely useful and helpful to hear what he had to say, particularly on Section 40. One thing he said was:
“It is important to underline that the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator (or indeed against an individual—oligarch or otherwise—who does not avail himself or herself of available arbitration provided by an approved regulator”.
In the Act, Section 40(3)(b) clearly allows the judge, where
“it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs”.
Sir Brian concluded that this provision deals with so-called SLAPP litigation fairly and appropriately, thereby providing a way of defeating an oligarch intent on pursuing aggressive expensive litigation in an effort to silence criticism.
The second contention, repeated by my noble friend the Minister, was that Section 40 could stop publication of stories for fear of being taken to court and having to pay both sides’ costs. Sir Brian and the noble Baroness have addressed this issue. Sir Brian said:
“Section 40 does not force news publications to pay costs when they win. The recommendation encouraged news publications to establish an independent arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes which would then protect them from those intent on going to court in SLAPP type legislation while also allowing those without means who have been libelled or whose privacy has been invaded to seek redress without incurring vast costs which could not be afforded”.
Therefore, failure to attempt mediation can be taken into account in cost arguments. Sir Brian added:
“In any event, as I recommended, there is an overarching discretion so that the judge can reach a just and equitable resolution of any costs issue”.
Section 40 does not threaten small publishers who would not be able to fight libel and privacy cases. The reason to join a recognised self-regulator is to allow small publishers to offer an arbitration and therefore protect themselves from adverse orders for costs if expensive litigation was chosen in an effort to force them to retract irrespective of the merits of the case.
It is clear that those without financial means are unable to take on the press. However seriously they have been defamed or their privacy has been invaded, they are denied a remedy. We have seen how many millions have been paid in damages against those who have been able to take on newspapers; we do not see the ones that have not been able to. We saw the case recently of a famous actor who had to withdraw a case because of the threat of costs.
They do not get a chance of redress, and certainly do not get one from IPSO. Section 40 provides a warning to wrongdoers to behave; take it away and I believe we will be back to a free-for-all. I believe that my noble friend Lord Black is wrong when he says that Section 40 would be holding a gun to the head of the free and independent press and claims that it would be incompatible with our commitments to the ECHR—as much as I often dislike that court. I do not think Section 40 impinges on press freedom. It is quite the reverse; it protects the citizen and protects the press.
I am afraid IPSO has not worked as well as it should. It is too similar to its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission. It has never investigated or fined a newspaper; it lacks independence and, many say, effectiveness. It is important that Section 40 provides a useful deterrent that works. The final argument used against it is that it was a manifesto commitment, as my noble friend the Minister quite rightly said. But we have had three Prime Ministers since that manifesto, and most of them totally ignored the manifesto commitments of their predecessors.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and say to him that, while he unwisely backed the wrong horse, I know he is a very skilled and wise politician—too skilled to back the outcome of an election on day one. As I will talk about transparency today, I should declare an interest to the Committee, albeit a left field one: I am a current claimant in a voicemail interception litigation against News Group Newspapers.
To add to the surreal nature of this debate, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I will address directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the wash-up. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a fantastic substitute for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whom we wish well with his back procedure, particularly because he appears to be the only senior leader of any political party who has shown spine in this basket of amendments. I hope to convince both Front Benches to follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, this evening.
It is appropriate to ask both Front Benches whether they intend to follow the convention of Parliament to not rush through controversial clauses in Bills in the wash-up procedure. We are probably all united in the Committee that, whatever we think about Clause 50, it is certainly controversial. I will offer two other arguments about why we should proceed with caution in the wash-up procedure on this. First, much of the Bill will interfere with a regulated market, and in doing that we owe it to the consumers and providers within that regulated market to give full parliamentary scrutiny at all stages. I warn the Front Benches that the last time I remember Parliament deciding to interfere with regulatory matters in a wash-up was in 2005 with the Gambling Act, of which the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, will be aware. Some 20 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences of that rushed-through legislation. There is a third reason why we should proceed with caution in the wash-up. To add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about washing up: the electors now have us under the microscope, and if these clauses and amendments are rushed through by the Front Benches of both main parties, they will be airing their dirty linen in the wash-up, and that is a terrible start to a general election.
I have had sight of the letter from Sir Brian Leveson, quoted in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others, and I can confirm that it is damning about the disingenuous arguments employed by the opponents of reform on this issue—and, it must be said, the Government. I speak to this group of amendments to make the case that, despite two manifesto pledges, in light of recent evidence not easily available to the Government at the time, the Government should pause to reflect on their proposal of Clause 50.
Many failures have been attributed to IPSO in this debate. I add one other: it failed to protect ordinary people thrust into the media spotlight after a bereavement. IPSO was recently found by the independent Press Recognition Panel to be failing children and the victims of crime caught up in newsworthy events. The Press Recognition Panel was set up by royal charter, under a system backed by all parties in both Houses where there is no input whatever from politicians in its appointment. It is far more independent than Ofcom or any other regulator. Do not forget that IPSO members are appointed by a panel that it appoints itself, and it is chaired by a former Government Minister. The IPSO board also has former editors appointed by the industry who have the power to veto, just like the old PCC. It is no wonder, then, that it sits idly by while some newspapers are still neck deep in disinformation, inaccuracy, intrusion and the monstering of innocent individuals.
As noble Lords have said, in its 10-year history IPSO has done a total of zero investigations of the type that Ofcom does all the time, and thus there have never been any sanctions—no investigations and no sanctions ever. It is true that the PCC did not have the power to investigate; IPSO has been given that power but has never used it. Nobody is holding these hugely powerful people to account. They do exactly as they like, with scant respect for basic human decencies, let alone their own codes, and there are no consequences. They have no predators, and that cannot be good for our country.
We know that some newspapers were hacking the phones not only of well-known people and their friends, employees and relatives but of murder victims and politicians, not because of some tip-off of corruption or wrongdoing but for two reasons, neither of which has a shred of public interest justification. The first of these was to sell newspapers: the privacy of thousands of people was sold for profit by newspapers systematically. The second was to manipulate politicians, as we appear to be seeing in the wash-up of this process today.
We now know that serious allegations have been made against News UK that members of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, including me, were hacked while it was investigating the company from 2009 to 2011. Gordon Brown has recently said that he believes he was hacked while Prime Minister and, even more egregiously, that News Corporation claimed, absurdly, that he and I were involved in conspiracy to acquire stolen company emails, which was why it deleted millions of emails and scratched its back-up disks during the police reinvestigation in 2011. Some newspaper groups have treated Parliament, the Leveson inquiry, the public and their own readers with contempt, and no one can have any confidence that IPSO, just a rebranded version of the discredited PCC, has the powers, or even the inclination, to identify and expose wrongdoing such as phone hacking or illegally obtaining private medical information or itemised phone records.
There is another serious issue that has come to light since Parliament set up Section 40: the way that some newspaper groups were found to have misled Parliament or lied to a public inquiry—or stand accused of doing so—and appear to have done so with impunity thus far. In the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of the Duke of Sussex and others v Mirror Group Newspapers, which is now owned by Reach plc, the judge found that members of the board and then legal department egregiously knew about, concealed and allowed to continue the industrial-scale criminal hacking and blagging that took place from the mid-1990s until at least the end of 2011—that is, during the Leveson inquiry and the Select Committee inquiries themselves.
The legal department was found to have lied to Leveson, and the evidence in the 2023 trial was rejected by the judge, who also found that the editors at the time knew about wrongdoing and concealed it—“without doubt”, in his words—and many lied to the Leveson inquiry.
As for News UK, in 2011, it was exposed as having lied for years, claiming that phone hacking was by only one rogue reporter on the news desk in 2005 and 2006. It was found in 2014, the year after the legislation that we are proposing to repeal today, that from 2000 to 2006 the whole news desk and the features desk were involved.
In 2014, after a public inquiry and passing that Bill, we learned that scores of people who had been convicted in stings by Mazher Mahmood, the “fake sheikh”, could have been innocent, when the trial of Tulisa Contostavlos collapsed and he was later convicted of trying to frame her. Dozens of his victims are appealing their convictions, and many bring hacking claims. Mr Mahmood was instructed to tail me for days when I served on the committee that started investigating phone hacking.
In 2016, the Privileges Committee of the Commons found that two senior executives had lied to the CMS Select Committee. Only yesterday, the managing judge in the News UK and News Corp hacking litigation allowed amendments to the claimants’ case to allege—these allegations are currently untested and denied or not admitted—that two very senior executives and several others lied to the Leveson inquiry and gave misleading evidence to Parliament.
I could go on, but I hope I have demonstrated that the suggestion that the press has cleaned up its act is for the birds, and that there remains a rotten core to many of our newspapers and a culture of impunity when it comes to their illegal behaviour.
For those reasons, I have tabled Amendment 87A and support the others in this group. They are compromises, all intended to move us closer to universal press membership of an effective, independent regulator which would protect the public from press wrongdoing in all its forms. Amendment 87A would introduce a new right of reply for the British public against misrepresentations in the press where the publisher is not a member of a truly independent and effective regulator.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech from someone who has had direct contact with the media over many years and has been abused by them himself, but there are many other people who have been abused in a similar way. I support this group of amendments, but I must be clear that I would prefer Section 40 to be maintained and to cover the issues that we are all addressing now. It is better than nothing, but it is not really the sort of protection that we should offer the public.
The press barons say that there is no need for regulation. They point to IPSO and the courts, and ordinary people are supposed to use one of those organisations. Quite frankly, as we have heard, IPSO offers no protection. In the investigations it has carried out, 0.3% cases are upheld, so the accountability is non-existent there. It can fine up to £1 million, but it has not fined anybody so far. It is quite clear that it is not effective for anyone who has a case of abuse.
I will not talk about celebrities, but I will talk about a woman called Mandy Garner. I have done this before and will again. Mandy’s daughter, unfortunately, was the subject of a hit-and-run accident. That is a tragic affair anyway, but it was made worse when the Daily Mail got involved. It sent a reporter down to the area and secured CCTV coverage of the child’s death from one of the shopkeepers. It then carried the story and put the link to that child’s death online for its readers. When Mandy objected to that and took a complaint to IPSO, it told her to go and see the Daily Mail. She contacted it and, after six months, she had made no progress with her case at all and went back to the regulator. She told it that she was even more stressed out now because she had made no progress whatever over six months. What did IPSO say to that woman? It told her that, if she was stressed, perhaps she should drop the case and not proceed with it. That shows the level of independent calculation going on with that body.
We need protection not for celebrities, because they can go to court and can afford to spend millions of pounds on legal fees, as we have heard, but for Mandy and many hundreds of people like her who cannot. I ask the Minister, the Government and our Front Bench this: what protection are they going to give to the public—to a future Mandy? Quite frankly, in what is proposed today, there is no protection for Mandy and people like her. It is a disgrace on Parliament that politicians are bullied and threatened to act in a way that is counterproductive to having justice in our society.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it will not surprise many colleagues to hear that I oppose this group of amendments. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and director of a regulatory funding company, and I note my other interests as set out in the register. I have been very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for taking the time and trouble to talk these amendments and other issues through with me, and for his ongoing commitment to constructive dialogue, which I welcome. I wish him well and hope that he is better soon.
I will have some specific comments to make about Amendment 87A, but the main reason that I am opposed to everything in the group is that all the amendments derive their terms of authority from the concept of an approved regulator. That concept is something that I, as I have made clear many times in this House, find abhorrent and anathema to any concept of a free society, because, whatever Sir Brian Leveson may now say, the approval derives its authority from the state. I know that there will always be those who resort to sophistry to claim that the method of approval through the Press Recognition Panel is apparently independent of the Government but, in my view, that is plain nonsense. The concept of approval is set out in legislation: the Press Recognition Panel derives its authority from a royal charter, the terms of which are set by the Privy Council, the ultimate expression of state power and authority. It also receives taxpayers’ money, so it is in part funded by the state and therefore in part accountable to it. It is a state body. Regulators that seek approval from it are therefore irrefutably state-approved, and that is repugnant in a free society.
The press can never be free of the state in any form, whether Parliament, Government, Privy Council or a faux-recognition body doing their bidding if it is involved in any way in content regulation. That is why successive post-war Governments of all political colours, dating back from the Attlee Government in response to the first Royal Commission on the Press in 1947, have, for 65 years, up until Leveson, backed self-regulation by the industry. Section 40 and the introduction of the concept of approved regulation sought to change that by introducing the first form of what is, in effect, licensing since 1695. Fortunately, better sense has prevailed since that legislation was rushed through Parliament without scrutiny or consultation. We have looked into the abyss and decided not to fall into it. That is why Section 40 must go in its entirety. Whether it be carrots or sticks, the approval of content regulation of a free press is alien to a free society and the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.
Amendments 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, seek, perversely, to retain the incentive for publishers to join a state regulator, while repealing the provision that would effectively bankrupt publishers that print the truth. But even this leaves publishers with an insidious choice between shielding themselves from government influence and limited protection from SLAPPs. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have discussed, it is of course right that Parliament takes an interest in press regulation; no one disputes that. If noble Lords or Members in the other place want to have that debate, let us do so, but this Bill is not the place for it. This is an important Bill, and it is important that it goes through in the wash-up in its entirety, including the Government’s manifesto commitments.
The media world has moved on in every possible way since the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The way in which the press operates and is regulated has fundamentally changed, and its long-term future is probably under greater threat than ever before. We need to get rid of Section 40, lock, stock and barrel, and not keep it lurking in the dark like Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, as these amendments would do.
A whole host of international press freedom organisations, including the authoritative Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Global Witness, and English PEN, have pointed out another reason for getting rid of Section 40 now: the signal it sends throughout the world. In a statement released yesterday, they said:
“Repressive regimes will be sent a clear message that the UK stands squarely behind freedom of speech. Freedom of speech with no strings attached. That message is critically important in the uncertain and dangerous world we all now live in … Never again must the UK go down this dangerous road”.
I want to say a particular word about Amendment 87A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. I must admit that I was slightly surprised to see that he has put an amendment down relating to, in effect, a statutory right of reply to inaccuracies, given his own track record. Those he falsely accused of crimes —with stunning inaccuracy, to put it mildly—never had a right of reply.
I do not think any serious proposals in this area have been put forward since the mid-1980s, when our former colleague Lord Soley introduced them in a Private Member’s Bill. There is probably a good reason for that. Since 1990, there have been mechanisms for the redress of inaccuracies through a system of independent self-regulation, operating under a tough code of practice, on top of the laws of defamation. Today, IPSO has a strong record of getting inaccuracies corrected in a timely and prominent manner, along with an apology if appropriate. Furthermore, there already exist carefully delineated circumstances where the law provides for a right of reply—for example, following a defamation case—and data protection law, in addition to the Defamation Act, requires inaccuracy to be redressed. So, there is simply no need for such a measure as that proposed by the noble Lord.
Quite apart from that, the noble Lord’s proposal is wholly impractical. It would have the same effect as Section 40, had it been implemented, in simply allowing individuals to launch spurious and unfounded complaints against newspapers in order to gag them. It would be another version of SLAPPs, but without even having to bother a court to look at the merits of the case. It would be used by the rich and powerful to close down ongoing investigations and muzzle the press, and in doing so would weaken the public’s right to know and undermine investigative journalism. Frankly, this is simply another attempt to find some way to bully the press into a system of state-approved regulation.
It is time to move on from debates that are long past their sell-by date, to recognise the fundamental changes in the media in the last decade, to turn our backs on any attempts to impose state regulation on the media, and to get rid of Section 40 lock, stock and barrel. This Bill is an important piece of legislation for so many organisations and areas of the creative economy, and it is very important that it now goes through.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, but first I declare my interests as set out in the register. As colleagues will know, I was the independent founding chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made, but I strongly agree with my noble friend that we are really going back over the debates we had a decade ago.
I want to go back to the first principles that my noble friend enunciated. In many ways, free expression is the bedrock of our society, but it is also a privilege—one not enjoyed by many millions of our fellow human beings, and which therefore must be matched by a sense of public duty and responsibility.
We are all familiar with all those egregious cases. As chair, like my noble friend Lord Grade, of the Press Complaints Commission, I found that it was powerless in many cases. I had to have face-to-face meetings with victims to hear for myself their harrowing accounts of their experiences. The PCC was powerless in many cases, particularly where criminal acts had taken place; it was up to the police. One of our sadnesses was that the police seemed so slow to act. Most of the phone hacking cases have now been resolved in the civil courts, but that should not blind us to the fact—I say this to all those who have spoken—that serious criminal acts took place, not just regulatory breaches. So far as regulation is concerned, the key question we have to answer is how to police culture and standards while maintaining independence of thought and deed. It is a very difficult balance.
The rock on which the system is built is the editors’ code, a living document that, as I understand it, is still recognised right across the world as an excellent code. I believe that IPSO has been very effective at holding publishers and publications to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that IPSO had not been effective because there were a relatively low number of adverse adjudications, and those who have mentioned that have given specific examples. However, press behaviour has improved over the last period. The Press Recognition Panel, which has been lobbying us—lobbying me all the time—pretty hard, largely in its own interests, is funded by the taxpayer, as my noble friend pointed out. I am all for trenchant, highly politicised contributions to this important debate, but I wonder whether it is fair to ask the taxpayer to fund them.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My noble friend says that the PRP is funded by the taxpayer, but IPSO is funded by the newspaper industry. Which does he regard as the more independent process?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
When I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson pointed out to me that it was up to the industry to fund the regulator. When I first gave evidence to him, he asked me to sit down with the main newspaper groups and find a way forward whereby they would fund an independent regulatory process. My noble friend is quite right: it is very important that the industry itself funds the regulator, but the regulator should be independent. That is what I reported in my second line of evidence to the Leveson inquiry, and that is what I believe I managed to achieve.
The proponents of statutory regulation invariably nod sagely and sympathetically when I say all this, but honestly, they have no answers. I believe that state interference is not the answer. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson—he sits on a committee with me and I have great respect for him—that Amendment 87A is state regulation in all but name. The system proposed would grind the free press into the dirt with both statutory interference into editorial decision-making and the prospect of endless and often frivolous litigation. Experience also tells us that the principal beneficiaries of such an arrangement would be not individuals who had been misrepresented or traduced but deep corporate pockets and their expensive lawyers, who want to challenge the press at every turn in a war of attrition.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest that I chaired a local newspaper company which also defamed me. In addition, I am a trustee of the Public Interest News Foundation.
My view of these amendments and the subject matter behind them is that, whether or not Section 40 remains on the statute book, the outcome will not be satisfactory. Freedom of expression is clearly very important. There is a whole range of activities that we are properly free to engage in, but the law of tort steps in when people step over the mark and start hurting others. In my view, the way in which the world has developed, and within it the press, has meant that, under certain circumstances, that boundary is stepped over, and that we collectively, as a society, ought to have effective remedies to deal with the consequences. Indeed, that is what this debate is all about.
That is not easy, as we know, but it is important that we remember that, although a number of big names, including participants here in the Chamber, have been affected by this, what really matters are the small men. In fact, it is not only the individual citizens but some of the very new, small media companies that are setting up. There are two slightly separate aspects to this subject. The first is the relationship of what I might call the small plaintiff versus a large media company. The other way round is if you have a small media company versus a large plaintiff. When I chaired the media company that I did, we had a defamation action against a very, very rich man who liked litigating. We found ourselves in a position when it was jolly nearly a matter of risking going bust or standing one’s ground and holding the position in the courts. Our opponent withdrew at the very last minute, but it was a bad moment to be at, and it was not a satisfactory position for a media company to be in.
My view is that Section 40 is a near miss. There is a case for having a proper, enforceable regime that is independent of the state. I do not buy the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that if there is regulation it therefore follows, because of the nature of the society we live in, that that regulation is state regulation. After all, the common law was not put in place by the state. What we are discussing is an extension of old common law principles into circumstances that are very different from what they were in the Middle Ages.
Therefore, I think the right way forward is that the Government—whoever they will be on 5 July—should revisit this whole subject, because neither having Section 40 nor not having Section 40 is a satisfactory outcome. We need a form of regulation that is independent of interference from media companies, from celebrity and other pressure, and from any other outside concerns, and which is not only genuinely independent but recognised by everyone as such. That is at least as important, from a societal point of view, as making sure that the thing is not impugned.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I speak in opposition to these amendments and will voice support for the repeal of Section 40, which is long overdue. I heard the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on newspapers. I wonder what Lord Brittan might have replied.
As a former newspaper editor, my support for repeal is predicated on the simple principle that any state control or direct influence over a newspaper’s editorial content is anathema to a well-functioning democracy. A newspaper’s fundamental purpose is to speak truth to power and to expose wrongdoing. The very existence, let alone the implementation, of Section 40 puts that key democratic function at risk.
We must remember that we are debating this pernicious provision in the context of a legal environment where newspapers already have to self-censor and spike stories due to the threat of financial ruin, with the rich and powerful bringing strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as they are known. Section 40 would amount to state licensing of these lawsuits, with the rich and powerful able to force newspapers out of business for having the temerity to print the truth. This “truth tax” would be particularly devastating for local publishers, but even the better-resourced national titles would struggle to stay afloat if exposed to unlimited legal costs, even in cases that they won.
Criminal tycoons have frequently used the libel laws to silence their critics, control adverse publicity and suppress the truth about themselves. Among the worst offenders were Robert Maxwell and Mohamed Al Fayed. They set the scene and have been followed by others. To conceal their own criminality, global corporations, law firms and Russian oligarchs have threatened the media by exploiting Britain’s libel laws. Fortunately, some media owners, including Rupert Murdoch, risked millions of pounds to defeat those seeking to assert that their lies are the truth, but Section 40 would make any resistance futile: the rich would own their “truth” and newspapers would pay for criminals to peddle their lies.
Of course, the other side of this debate will claim that Section 40 attempts to protect publishers by giving state-regulated titles protection from legal costs. Yet Section 40 would in fact force publishers to choose between freedom from the state and freedom from the rich and powerful who try to bury their wrongdoing through abuse of the UK’s legal system. Therefore, even Amendments 84 and 85, which seek to repeal the part of Section 40 that penalises independent publishers while retaining the cost incentive to become state regulated, should not be countenanced.
SLAPPs require a legislative solution, and there is a Private Member’s Bill currently going through Parliament seeking to do just that, but the idea that fundamental press freedoms should be sacrificed to achieve this is repugnant. As a group of press freedom organisations in support of repeal, including RSF, English PEN and the Society of Editors, said yesterday:
“Journalists face a myriad of threats and challenges but their mission of holding power to account and reporting difficult or uncomfortable truths has never been more important”.
By repealing Section 40, we will not remove all those myriad threats, but we will at least ensure that it will not be the British state itself that inhibits a newspaper’s ability to print the truth without fear or favour.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think my interests have already been well and truly declared in this debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I have been the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation since 2020. I am not sure how appropriate it is for a regulator to extol its own virtues in a debate, and I do not propose to do so, but in view of the very trenchant attack on IPSO from a number of quarters, I think it may be helpful to the Committee if a few facts were presented before it.
IPSO regulates 90% by way of circulation of the newspapers published in this country. There was an attack on the organisation and, effectively, on those who work there. The young men and women who conscientiously look at complaints without any political bias or anything other than the conscientious approach you would expect from young people like that would be surprised and disappointed by many of the allegations that have been made against them.
The decisions that are made by IPSO are all published on its website. Details of the reasoning behind those decisions are available. IPSO provides advisory notices which help people, not only well-known people, but ordinary people who fear intrusion by the press, which I think is a successful aspect of what IPSO does. There is a board and a case committee, a minority of which has press experience. These are people whose identity is capable of ascertainment by looking at the website. Anyone can see what a wide variety of people they are. To suggest that they are somehow in the pockets of the press is unworthy.
Recently, there was an independent review of IPSO by a distinguished civil servant, Sir Bill Jeffrey. I invite critics of IPSO to read his report and his view of its independence. Independence is, of course, extremely important in a regulator.
As to the suggestion that effectively we reject the vast majority of complaints, of course many of the complaints that are made—
Lord Faulks
The appointment of Sir Bill Jeffrey was the result of a decision by the board. The identity of the board is available to anybody who seeks to find out who is on the board. If by that question it is suggested that Sir Bill Jeffrey was some sort of tame civil servant, I think he would be surprised to hear that, and his history of accomplishment and independence is something which I would be surprised could be satisfactorily impugned.
I was dealing with the suggestion about a vast number of complaints being rejected. Of course, a case has to come within the remit. A number of people are discontented with things they read in the press, but they do not come within the remit of a complaint which can possibly provide a breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The editors’ code comes from a body where the minority is of press interest. Very few people criticise the editors’ code, whether they criticise the press or the regulator.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is it not the case that 80% of our media is owned by five billionaires?
Lord Faulks
I am not precisely sure of the figures. Certainly, the ownership of the press is a matter of record. I am not in a position to respond to that. It is perfectly true that it is a relatively minor group of people. I am not sure quite what that has to do with Section 40. We are talking about whether someone can make a complaint adequately and whether that regulator is independent. I ask the Committee to express the view that it is an independent regulator. There is a manifesto commitment. It is time that this provision is repealed. I understand from what I have read in an interview with the shadow Secretary of State that the Labour Party does not intend to amend the current system of press regulation. I look forward to hearing reassurance that this important Bill, including this provision, will be the subject of discussions in the wash-up.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will just speak briefly, because I know that we want to get to Front-Bench spokesmen. A lot of detailed arguments have been advanced by those who have tabled amendments in this group and I think they reflect the detailed nature of the measures proposed. I have listened to those arguments and also heard some of the examples of people who have had bad experiences of the media. I sympathise with a lot of what has been said but, when it comes to matters of principle—and I believe that freedom of the press is a matter of principle—I also have the view that there are some circles that cannot be squared.
It is worth us just remembering that, only a couple of months ago, when we were debating foreign power ownership, Lord Ashcroft did a poll which showed that two-thirds of British people do care about freedom of the press. I think we can all agree that people might not always love or approve of everything done in or by the British media, but the principle of a free press, free from government interference, is something that matters to them. I believe it is a principle that serves the public interest and therefore one that Parliament must uphold. For that reason, I cannot support any of the amendments in this group and I will support my noble friend the Minister in resisting them.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by saying that, while I disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, I agree entirely with him in his view that this Bill is not the right place for discussing Section 40. I am enormously grateful for the best wishes for a speedy recovery that have been passed to my noble friend Lord McNally and I know that he is bitterly disappointed that he cannot be here. He would have been proposing a very simple way forward —that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill. The implication of that would, of course, have been that Section 40 would have continued to be on the statute book. But he would have gone a stage further and argued that it would be certainly the view of these Benches that it should not only be retained on the statute book but also should have been implemented.
There have been all sorts of debates about and criticisms of the proposal that came from Sir Brian Leveson. We should accept that a great debt needs to be paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the way in which she has forensically gone through many of those criticisms and debunked them. The one criticism that has not been debunked by her is that it is no longer necessary to have protection of the type that was proposed by Leveson because there is not really a problem now with what the press is doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watts, put it very clearly: there are still many examples of wrongdoing by the press. We need to be well aware of the implications of removing Section 40. There would be virtually no access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing. Ordinary people who find themselves defamed, have their privacy invaded or their grief intruded on by wealthy and powerful newspapers in search of higher circulation or clickbait will find themselves virtually helpless.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may well be right that the degree of wrongdoing has reduced. That does not alter the fact that it still exists and there needs to be a mechanism to help in particular those who do not have deep pockets to ensure that they can get justice. Therefore, it requires the Government—were they to be continuing—to make very clear what their alternative is to provide the protection for those very people. There may not now be the opportunity, given the announcement about the forthcoming election.
We have heard many alternative solutions put forward in the various amendments before us today. There is not now time to go through all the detail. So, on these Benches, we are very clear that the best way forward now would be for the Government to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that this is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40, that Section 40 should remain on the statute book and that a future Government—whichever party is in charge—should have an opportunity to discuss the right way forward to continue to provide the protection that is still going to be needed. I give way.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
Can I just make it clear that I did not say that this was not the place to deal with Section 40? I said this was not the place to open a whole debate about self-regulation. I was crystal clear that Section 40 needs to go in its entirety and I hope its repeal will go through with this Bill immediately.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise profusely to the noble Lord if I misquoted him. Let me say therefore that it is very firmly my view that this Bill is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40 and all the ramifications.
With those relatively few remarks, I very much hope that the Government will consider that the removal of Section 40 should not form part of this Bill, should not form part of the wash-up discussions and should just be kept as it is and we can debate it at a future date, whether we are on the same side of the Chamber or the opposite side.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have already spoken, outlining their rich and often diverging views on this important clause. I understand completely that there are very different views around the Chamber and we have heard them for the last hour or so. I will outline the Opposition’s view on Clause 50 and Section 40.
The Leveson report is now over a decade old. Responding to, rightly, the concerns of the time, Brian Leveson’s aims were to balance the competing concerns of protecting the free press—which the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke eloquently about—while ensuring high press standards. We have heard noble Lords championing those during the debate this afternoon.
Therefore, while the inquiry helped bring about a press regulator, it did not enforce mandatory membership for news publishers. Rather, it made membership voluntary but introduced incentives for publishers to join, including consequences if they did not. Section 40, which has never been commenced, would make publishers who had not signed up to the regulator vulnerable to paying the costs of those they face in legal cases even if the wider case was ruled in their favour. Press groups have long pointed out the impact this imbalance would have on their ability to undertake free and fair reporting.
The media landscape is now much changed, although some of the issues that were present then clearly are today. It is to be expected that that would be the case some 10 years on. Challenges from the rise of social media, online consumption of media and the consequences of falling advertising revenue mean that we have seen a significant impact on the ability of the press to compete in the market and undertake its vital work.
Additionally, a self-regulatory system for the press now exists—something not anticipated ahead of the creation of Section 40 in the 2013 Act. This alone makes the situation different from 2013 and, taken together, these changes mean that it is right that Section 40 should not remain in the Act as it is. Thus, and for those reasons, we cannot support the clause stand part proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and so ably and so colourfully supported by my noble friend Lord Lipsey.
On Amendment 87A from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his contribution, but we are unable to support his amendment. I know he will be disappointed at that and he made very powerful arguments and a powerful case in putting his amendment to the House.
In our view, Amendment 87A risks wrapping up publications in sometimes spurious legal disputes and opening the door to sometimes repeated and vexatious claims. It would also put the onus of determining factual inaccuracies on the High Court. We do not believe that to be the right place for this to happen.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as ever, for her carefully thought-through contribution. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, very ably and passionately, over many years. Outside your Lordships’ House, I look forward to digesting what Brian Leveson has had to say on this issue and, by extension, his contribution to this important debate. I shall speak to one of the noble Baroness’s amendments in particular: Amendment 84 presents an advantage in keeping parts of Section 40 that provide positive incentives to join a regulator and protections for those that do, while removing the part of Section 40 that has caused so much concern. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 83 and 86 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which, if taken together, would intend not only to keep Section 40 on the statute book but to amend its subsections (1) and (2), so that the protections offered by subsection (2) apply not only to relevant publishers but to individuals employed by relevant publishers. This would protect journalists employed by news publishers which are members of regulators recognised by the Press Recognition Panel from having costs awarded against them in legal claims based on news-related material published by that publisher, regardless of the outcome.
As I understand it, the noble Baroness’s intention is that Section 40(3), which would make publishers that are not members of a PRP-backed regulator liable for costs in claims made against them, should not apply in the case of claims made against individual journalists employed by such publishers. If subsection (3) were to apply to such journalists, they would be unfairly held liable for the costs of claims, in contrast to their counterparts employed by members of a PRP-backed regulator. This is likely further to exacerbate the risks to media freedom and quality journalism posed by commencing Section 40.
The noble Baroness spoke powerfully against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, invited me to say more on. We know that they are used as a deterrent to pursuing stories which expose wrongdoing due to the high costs involved with these lawsuits, making defending the case beyond the reach of those targeted by this form of litigation. The intention of her amendment appears to be to provide protection for only the cost of claims awarded against journalists employed by publishers that are members of regulators backed by the Press Recognition Panel, where material subject to the claim is news-related material published by the relevant publisher. As only one regulator, Impress, has sought approval by the Press Recognition Panel thus far, if enacted as amended in this way, Section 40 would protect only a small number of news publishers and journalists for the time being.
The Government believe that all journalists should be protected from SLAPPs, which are a pernicious form of litigation. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, the Government have supported the Private Member’s Bill introduced by Wayne David MP in another place, which had its Second Reading there on 23 February. Furthermore, it is why the Government have committed to protecting media freedom and the invaluable role of a free press in our society and democracy more broadly. As part of this, we are committed to independent self-regulation of the press. For this reason, we do not consider that measures penalising publishers which are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-approved regulator are necessary or proportionate. Their commencement would constitute an intrusion by the Government into the freedom of the press.
I turn to the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Amendments 84 and 85 intend to remove only Section 40(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and to commence the remainder of Section 40, including subsection (2). Subsection (2) would protect publishers which are members of regulators recognised by the Press Recognition Panel from being liable for court costs awarded against them in legal claims, regardless of the outcome. The amendment is to commence subsection (2) within two months of this Bill gaining Royal Assent. Accepting these amendments would be at odds with the Government’s clearly stated position to protect media freedoms and to repeal Section 40 in its entirety.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor, whom I commiserate on his misfortune in the 5.30 pm race at Kempton Park. The Government have committed to a free and independent press and do not interfere with what the press can or cannot publish; that extends to endorsing regulators of which they should become members. Consulting on, with a view to creating, other incentives for the press to join a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator that a consultation might identify would conflict with the Government’s position.
Indeed, the Government consulted on the repeal of Section 40 in its entirety in 2016 and the vast majority of respondents to that consultation backed repealing it. That was reflected in our last two manifestos. We therefore cannot delay repealing any part of the legislation that risks providing incentives for membership of an approved regulator. Incentivising a publisher to join specific regulators in any way is incompatible with protecting independent self-regulation of the press in the UK.
These amendments are unnecessary as the press regulation landscape has evolved since Section 40 was passed, as noble Lords have noted, with the establishment of two new press regulators and the decision of some publishers to use their own regulatory systems. In practice, as I say, the amendments would incentivise membership of Impress, as the sole UK regulator which has sought approval by the PRP. It is likely to lead to a chilling effect on publishers which choose not to join Impress. Accepting these amendments would not be compatible with the Government’s policy, so I cannot support them.
Amendment 87A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, would introduce a requirement on publishers which are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator to publish a reply or a correction where they have published information containing a “significant factual inaccuracy”. The requirement is triggered by a demand made by an individual to whom the information relates. If the individual seeking the reply or correction is not satisfied with the publisher’s response, he or she would have the right to apply to the High Court for a determination of whether the publisher has complied with relevant parts of the section. The court may order the publisher to print a reply or correction, or to make another order as appropriate.
In practice, this amendment would incentivise membership of Impress and, as with the commencement of Section 40, it could disadvantage publishers which choose not to join it. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, or my noble friend Lord Astor and hope that they will not press them.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
As this may be the final opportunity before a possible change of Government, can I thank the Minister for his service to the country? He enjoys the support of all political parties on the creative industries. His contribution is immense and is deeply appreciated, particularly his support for the music sector. Can I press him a little on my question about whether the conventions of the parliamentary wash-up will be respected when it comes to controversial legislation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words; he might be getting a little ahead of himself. It has been a pleasure to serve as Minister and I hope to continue to do so. I look forward to campaigning in defence of the arts and creative industries in the general election ahead. He will appreciate that I have been in the Chamber since the announcement was made, so I will have to disappoint him by saying that the discussions will be had in the usual channels and announcements will be made in the usual way.
Like other noble Lords, I was sorry to hear about the operation that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is having. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery, so that he can be on the campaign trail soon. His amendment, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, seeks to remove Clause 50 in its entirety. I refer noble Lords to the comments I made earlier on why the Government do not believe that an incentive to join a PRP-backed regulator is needed. The failure to repeal Section 40 in its entirety would be at odds with the Government’s manifesto commitment. For this reason, it is important that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Can the Minister deal with the question I raised on how poor people can pursue a case if they do not have the legal means to get satisfaction through the courts?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The landscape has changed a great deal since these debates were had. There are multiple routes for people to do it, and we think that that is right. The debate is one that has gone on for a great deal of time. Passionate though the contributions have been today, they have not significantly added to the debate that has gone on for a long time. I have little more to add.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness deals with her amendment, I ask that my noble friend the Minister, when he finishes this debate and the letter from Sir Brian Leveson is placed in the Library, might look at it carefully. He was asked whether a regulator recognised by the Press Recognition Panel must be regarded as a state regulator, with all that that implies about government interference and the powers of censorship. He points out that he simply does not understand how this assertion can be made, as the recognition panel simply does not regulate the press. He goes on to say that Section 40 does not force newspaper publications to pay costs when they win. I think the Minister would find it helpful if he read that document. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would find it even more helpful because—who knows?—in July he might find himself dealing with that issue from this side of the House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will certainly read the correspondence. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for quoting from it. I think it bears reading in its entirety, which I will be glad to do.
To continue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watts, there now exists a strengthened independent self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Despite Section 40 never having been commenced, both Impress and IPSO offer arbitration schemes for legal claims relating to defamation, privacy and harassment. These schemes are either free, through Impress, or low-cost, through IPSO, for claimants. We do not think it likely that the repeal of Section 40, to which we have long been committed, would have an impact on access to low-cost arbitration.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in support of these amendments. The distraction of live election news during my speech probably contributed to me being misquoted by some noble Lords, so I repeat that my amendment would cause no detriment to the interests of the press. I am sad that the Minister has offered no options for protecting ordinary people. I trust that my arguments, and Sir Brian Leveson’s letter, will be read carefully, because a number of things that have been said are just not true. I hope that this will be reviewed carefully before proceeding to wash-up. It would be wise to remove Clause 50 before allowing an otherwise good Bill to pass. I hope that the Opposition have the courage to insist on this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“OFCOM Chair discharging duties under this Act(1) Before appointing an individual as Chair of OFCOM, the Secretary of State must ensure that their preferred candidate appears before relevant select committees of both Houses of Parliament to set out how they would discharge their duties under this Act.(2) If a relevant select committee of either House publishes a report concluding that the candidate should not be appointed, and the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the appointment, they must make a statement to either House about why they are proceeding with the appointment, including but not limited to—(a) an assessment of that candidate’s ability to act independently in discharging their duties under this Act, and(b) a response to any findings or recommendations made in a report by a relevant select committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase parliamentary scrutiny of proposed OFCOM chairs in discharging their duties under this Act.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, we have spent a great deal of time during discussions on this Bill quite rightly talking about Ofcom—its duties and its vital role in supporting our creative industries and in protecting the public. Its primary purpose remains as laid down in the Communications Act 2003: to protect the interests of citizens and consumers. However, in recent years, it has become something of the proverbial Christmas tree on which we have chosen to hang a procession of new regulatory burdens and responsibilities, from regulating the BBC to overseeing online safety.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 91. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, outlined in his usual articulate manner the issues we are looking at in this group. We created Ofcom, and it is a hugely important regulator with a growing portfolio of responsibilities. This is a good time to look at whether it is being properly and adequately resourced, and supported in a way consistent with the enormous responsibilities it carries. In a way, that is what my amendment is about. There is a broader issue here than just Ofcom being accountable under this legislation. It is important that we have a good look at how Ofcom is supported to do its job properly. That might include looking at how the chair is appointed, or it may be a matter of resourcing.
We need to ask whether Ofcom is properly accountable to Parliament, in a way consistent with the important job it does. If we expect Ofcom to deliver robust regulation and protect our PSBs, viewers and listeners, we need to be sure that it is doing that job adequately and moving quickly when it needs to in order to deal with complaints and breaches of the regulatory framework for which it is responsible. So it is a question of confidence and accountability, and I want us to be confident that Ofcom is doing its job properly and has the right accountability to Parliament, given the growth in its work. I want to hear from the Minister that the Government are aware that this is not just business as usual for Ofcom now, because it is not.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I will address Amendment 88 first. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, brought up an important point about Ofcom’s impartiality and the process for appointing its chairman. I join him in commending the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, the current chairman, on his ongoing work to steer Ofcom through a time of great regulatory change—I acknowledge the change that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to in her closing remarks. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, he draws on his extensive expertise in the sector.
Given the trust we place in Ofcom to regulate our media sector, its independence and impartiality are of paramount importance. To that end, the existing processes ensure that the appointment of the Ofcom chairman is designed to give effect to just those objectives. The chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State following a fair and open competition. This appointment is regulated by the office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The chairman of Ofcom is designated as a significant appointment by the commissioner. This means that the advisory assessment panel, which advises the Secretary of State, must have a senior independent panel member to ensure its impartiality. This member must be independent of the appointing department and must not be politically active.
The parliamentary scrutiny of this process was enhanced in the update to the Governance Code on Public Appointments in February this year. The updated guidance specifies that, should the responsible Minister not follow the advice of the advisory assessment panel, she or he is required to write to the chairman of the Select Committee when she or he announces the chosen candidate, and must appear before the Select Committee if requested to do so.
Furthermore, the chosen candidate is required to appear before the Select Committee before he or she is appointed. These new processes, which I hope the noble Lord agrees will help to address many of the concerns he raised, will apply to all future appointments to the role. We believe that this process ensures robust scrutiny and promotes Ofcom’s independence. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment and agree with him about the importance of the topic it covers, but, given that this process was updated as recently as February, I consider his amendment unnecessary and hope that he will be happy to withdraw it.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 90 and 91 relating to Ofcom reporting. Ofcom has been regulating television and radio broadcasters since 2003, and we have confidence in its ability to continue to do so in the face of the changes brought about by the Bill. I appreciate what lies behind their amendments, which would ensure that the scope of the regulator’s functions, powers and duties—as well as its resources and capacity to deliver on its programme of work—is regularly reviewed. I am glad to say that there are already existing legislative requirements for Ofcom to report annually on how it carries out its functions. This information is published and laid before both Houses of Parliament, allowing the public and Parliament alike an opportunity for scrutiny.
In particular, Ofcom is already required to prepare a report on the carrying out of its functions each financial year, under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office for Communications Act 2002. This includes reporting on its work, performance and finances, as well as any other matters requested by the Secretary of State. The last such report was published last July. This existing requirement combines some of the issues featured in the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s amendments. More widely, it allows Ofcom to give a complete overview of its work. I hope that will reassure them.
On the noble Lord’s particular questions, the approach we have taken in the Bill is in line with that of other legislation. We have set out clearly defined principles that we want Ofcom to regulate against, and we have provided it with the tools it needs to do the job. On granular decision-making, it is right that Ofcom make these decisions. It has considerable sectoral expertise and is in the best place to judge the impact of its regulatory decisions. Off the back of the Bill, it will run 11 consultations, which will give a wide range of interested parties in the industry and beyond an opportunity to feed into its operational decision-making. Ultimately, Ofcom is in turn accountable to Parliament in the ways I set out earlier in Committee.
It is crucial that we protect Ofcom’s role as an independent regulator and give it the discretion to do its job. That is the approach we have taken in the Bill. We want to avoid a situation where a huge amount of parliamentary time is taken up making granular decisions about what is on our televisions. Rather, Parliament should set the direction and Ofcom can regulate accordingly, and broadcasters can continue to operate independently in their editorial decisions.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister giving way, but I wonder whether he can answer the fundamental question that I asked him. Quite simply, if he is saying that the driving documents, if you like, are the royal charter and the licences, what is the mechanism by which Parliament has an opportunity to discuss and amend them, if it so chooses? I also point out that he may have an opportunity, since the noble Lord, Lord Grade, is now in his place, to reiterate the huge praise that has been heaped on the noble Lord’s head in his absence.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Certainly—to make the noble Lord, Lord Grade, blush. He will, I am sure, read the tiny portion of Hansard covering the part of the debate that he missed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
He can frame it, indeed. I commend him for his presence in these debates and his occasional contributions, which have been very helpful. It has been extremely valuable to have him here for the passage of this Bill, just as it was for the passage of the Online Safety Act, which also gives a huge amount of new work to the regulator.
I had tried to address the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, by saying that what we have done is to allow Parliament to set the direction, but not to be so granular through parliamentary time. I will happily write to him to provide some more reassurance, if I am able.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am most grateful to the Minister for the very helpful response that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review: impact of this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of provisions in this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power.(2) The Secretary of State must consult such persons they consider appropriate in preparing the review under subsection (1).(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for debate.(4) A foreign power for these purposes of subsection (1) has the same meaning as in Section 70E of the Enterprise Act 2002 inserted by Schedule 6 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review of the impact of provisions in this Act on the ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move the final amendment to this Bill in Committee. Noble Lords will recall that we debated foreign government ownership of UK news at Second Reading, courtesy of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment to the Motion regretting that the issue was not in scope of this Bill.
However, it was possible to protect UK newspapers and news magazines from being owned, controlled or influenced by foreign powers via the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. I was going to say that I very much hope that the Bill gets on to the state book swiftly, but now we know that we are entering wash-up, I am sure that it will be top of the list as it is very nearly there anyway. The scope of the DMCC Bill did not allow us to close any gap in the legal framework that could allow a foreign power to own, control or influence news websites and our broadcasters. During the debates on that Bill, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government would bring forward secondary legislation to deal with online news and that we could deal with broadcasters in this Media Bill.
Before I return to this Bill, I would be grateful if my noble friend, when he comes to wind up, could update us on when we should expect to see the regulations relating to online news. Clearly, I take account of the news of this afternoon but, none the less, are these regulations ready? Has the work been done so that they are ready to be brought forward, even if it is not possible to deal with them in the short time that we now have available? Can he also tell me whether the regulations will address the concerns that were raised some time ago about what are known as “online news creators”, who are not currently covered by any of Ofcom’s ownership regime. I am talking about the kind of organisations, usually platforms, that now have huge influence and control over the news online but do not qualify as owners of news organisations. If he could cover that as well, it would be useful.
Indeed, while he is at it, can my noble friend update us on the timing of the regulations for what we termed the “carve-out” for non-direct foreign state investors in newspapers, capped at 5%? These are the regulations that would bring into effect that bit of the new regime for newspaper ownership which addressed the important aspect of financing and the sustainable future of newspapers. That is also an important objective.
To go back to this Media Bill, regrettably, and contrary to what my noble friend had hoped, foreign power ownership of broadcasters is not in scope. Sadly, the limit of this amendment—which, as noble Lords will be able to spot, is drafted in a roundabout way to make it within scope—is to require the Secretary of State to do a review so that the gap in the legal framework can be closed. Of course, I acknowledged during the debates on the DMCC Bill, when broadcasters were raised, that quite a comprehensive media ownership regulatory regime is already in place. However, we need to put beyond doubt the risk that exists in relation to foreign powers. There is no clear block, just as we discovered there was not in relation to newspapers and news magazines.
When it comes to UK broadcast news channels, we should reflect on the fact that Comcast has committed to Sky News only until 2028; Paramount, the owner of Channel 5, is subject to ongoing speculation about its ownership; and, as we saw recently with News UK’s decision to move away from TalkTV, broadcast news is a very expensive business and most news channels are operating with losses. They are therefore vulnerable to being targeted by those with deep pockets who seek power and influence.
Since tabling this amendment, however, I have learned that Ofcom’s next scheduled review of the media ownership rules will be published in November this year. It would therefore be possible for foreign power ownership to form part of that review. As I understand it, however, for that to happen, the Secretary of State would have to issue instructions to Ofcom. When Ofcom’s CEO was before my committee last week, she was under the impression that the issue would be dealt with in the Media Bill, so there is some confusion out there as to how and when this matter will be dealt with. Of course, it does not need to be looked at via the media ownership rules; it could be addressed through an amendment to the Enterprise Act in the context of the mergers regime.
My main point, however, is that the risk of a foreign power owning, controlling or influencing our news channels, public service broadcasters, or indeed any broadcaster or platform such as Sky, is real and needs addressing as soon as possible. What I am looking for today is clarity and a commitment from the Minister on when and how the Government intend to do just that. While I know that it will not happen this side of a general election, it would be good to know whether the officials are already working on it, so that they can continue working on it during the general election campaign and be ready for Ministers to act on it after the general election takes place.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we wholeheartedly support Amendment 89 and the case made for it by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I sense that this debate is coming rapidly to a close. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has doggedly pursued this issue with others and I wholeheartedly congratulate her on her determination to ensure that we maintain a free and fair press without foreign intervention.
This amendment takes the noble Baroness’s critique of foreign state ownership a stage further by seeking to review the impact of the measure on UK broadcasters. Obviously, government should always keep under careful consideration and review the impact of particular policies. This will, I suspect, be a feature of debate from time to time. We need to consider the impact of foreign ownership on all news media outlets, not just the press, and we need to understand, and protect our press from, undue interference. We have made it clear on our Benches, throughout the debates on the future of the Telegraph Group, that we are fully committed to upholding press freedom and the independence of all news outlets.
We cannot tolerate external interference in the politics of our country; that does not really need underlining much more on a day like today. At a time when the media are often being attacked by the exercise of deepfakes, this vital principle takes on a new importance. We need to ensure in the future, as much as we can, that our democracy is protected. A free and independent press and broadcasting sector is key to that, so I hope the Minister will give a considered response to that point.
I particularly pick up on the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, about regulations relating to the amendments we recently passed to another Bill. I do not think they are otiose, despite the calling of an election. They will be important in the future, and she is right to insist that work should be carried on to ensure that they are properly and correctly drafted so that they can be reviewed when a new Government are in place. Her point on the Ofcom review of ownership rules, which is to commence in November, is an important insight and one that we clearly all need to concentrate on and give some thought to while we go through the electoral process.
I am going to go slightly off-piste here before we conclude this debate and thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the time that he and I have spent together across the Dispatch Box and for the courtesies he has extended to me, my noble friend Lady Thornton and other colleagues during the passage of this legislation. I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and, although she is not in her place, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for her continued and assiduous interest in this. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is a powerful and important voice in your Lordships’ Chamber.
I suspect we will not have much more debate on the Media Bill, wash-up being the vicious process that it is, but we on these Benches have been happy to support it in the main. I am sorry we will not have the opportunity to give it a bit more detailed scrutiny on Report, but that is the nature of how we do our business. I thank the Minister for his attention to this, and I look forward to listening to his response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, an afternoon is certainly a long time in politics and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is probably right that this is a good moment to thank all noble Lords who have given detailed consideration to the Bill in Committee, and indeed during its pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been fortunate in the sense that it was scrutinised before it came to your Lordships’ House, it was improved by that process and we have had very good debates throughout this Committee. I too am grateful for the courtesies, the time and attention that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite have given to the Bill, as well as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Lib Dem Front Bench and noble Lords across the Chamber. I am glad we have been able to dedicate a lot of time to this, both in the Chamber and outside. It has been a pleasure working with them.
On the amendment, it is a delight to be able to join in the praise that was directed to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for her very careful consideration of matters not just in this Bill but on related issues in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
The Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape in which the public can access a wide range of accurate, high-quality news, views and information. Maintaining a free and thriving press is both a government-wide commitment and a personal priority for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who recognises, as I know my noble friend does, that our free press is a key pillar of our healthy and vital democracy. We acknowledge that the acquisition of UK news organisations by foreign states would run the risk of eroding trust in those vital organisations. This concern was the driving factor behind the introduction of the new foreign state intervention regime for newspapers and periodical news magazines, for which my noble friend was a compelling advocate.
It is clear from my noble friend’s remarks that the same concerns that led to the creation of that regime are also the motivation for the amendment she has tabled on ownership of UK broadcasters, including their ownership by a foreign power. Let me start by making clear that the restrictions on foreign state ownership of newspapers are designed to meet concern about a very specific risk, and the same approach is not necessarily appropriate for broadcasters. Newspapers and news magazines have a primary function to provide news and information, and therefore play a targeted role in helping to shape opinions and contributing to wider political debate. While our television and radio broadcasters also play a crucial role in the news landscape, their role is considerably more diverse, and the holding of a broadcasting licence is already well regulated through existing legislation.
Television and radio broadcasters in the UK operate within a well-established licensing regime overseen by Ofcom. As the independent regulator, it ensures that persons who own or control a licence are “fit and proper” to hold that licence and follow Broadcasting Code rules. There are also limitations on the persons who may hold or control broadcasting licences. For example, any
“body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”
cannot hold a licence.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on, would it not be appropriate, none the less, for Ofcom, when it does its media ownership rules review, to just consider again whether there are any weaknesses in the existing regime? He may be right that what is now in place for newspapers, or will soon be in place, may not be directly appropriate for broadcasters: a cut and paste may not be the right thing. Because it emerged only in the process of using the existing regime that there was a weakness in that regime, and we have had to take the steps that we have, it seems prudent for Ofcom to satisfy itself that there are no potential weaknesses in its ownership rules that ought to be addressed before they are put to the test.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether this matter has been under active consideration, because I think that is important. There is a shared concern across the Chamber on this, and the noble Baroness has touched on a very good point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly think it would be prudent for Ofcom to consider that. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that I do not put words in its mouth as an independent regulator, but it is important that it can do that and make its representations to the Government, to Parliament and publicly, in an independent way. On the extent to which it has done so to date, it is probably better if I set that out in writing so that I am able fully to account for what has been done so far. In brief, it is a matter for Ofcom as the independent regulator, and it has the means to set that out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I can advise the noble Lord that, during the period between now and the general election, he will be the Minister most watched and listened to.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Thank you. Let me turn to the questions posed by my noble friend Baroness Stowell. She asked when we should expect to see the regulations relating to online news. We will shortly consult on expanding the existing media measures regime and the foreign state ownership provisions to include online news websites. That will enable us to make changes which ensure that online news, whether from an established newspaper group or an online publisher, is covered by the media regime and the new measures we are introducing for foreign state media ownership.
My noble friend is right about civil servants’ ability to carry on working even during the election period. Judging from the activity in my private office, I can certainly say that they are already springing into action on a number of fronts in the best traditions of the Civil Service. Work will of course continue as it always does, notwithstanding an election. This is an opportunity for me to thank the officials who have been working on the Bill and who will continue to work on these areas—rather hastily—over the next few days, but also more broadly on an ongoing basis in the way we have set out.
My noble friend mentioned the review of media ownership rules. I confirm that Ofcom can look at whatever it would like to in its review of the rules. The Secretary of State does not have to issue instructions to Ofcom to do so. I am happy to clarify that and, I hope, assist with some of the confusion which my noble friend has pointed out.
On the timing of regulations for what we termed the “carve-out”, as my noble friend knows, we are currently undertaking a consultation on proposed regulations to follow the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill to ensure that the drafting achieves our stated policy objectives in terms of the partial carve- out of small minority stakes held by sovereign wealth funds. The regulations will be finalised when the consultation concludes. We hope then to align the timeline for the introduction of these regulations with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Bassam, for their support for this amendment. Before I withdraw it, I want to check on a couple of things that my noble friend has just said.
On the media ownership rules review by Ofcom, my noble friend said that it is a matter for Ofcom and clarified that the Secretary of State does not need to issue an instruction. He emphasised that Ofcom is independent, and it is a matter for it. However, I am saying that Parliament wants it to look at the rules. I know that my erstwhile noble friend Lord Grade is listening, and it is fortuitous that the chairman of Ofcom is also a Member of your Lordships’ House. It would be reassuring to know that the Government, having listened to this debate today, will say to Ofcom that the media ownership rules review that it is about to conduct should look at foreign state ownership. I do not see how that in any way undermines or jeopardises its independence. I urge my noble friend to do that.
On the online news regulations and the work being done on that, the other issue was the category known as “online news creators”; that is, not just the news websites but this other, powerful force in news online. It does not necessarily involve a platform owning a news site but refers to just how much they are able to have an impact on the success, or otherwise, of other news organisations. It sounds like that is not part of what the officials are looking at. Perhaps the Minister can consider this and write to me. It would be helpful to get some clarity on that too.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to do that. In relation to Ofcom’s review, my noble friend draws a helpful distinction. It is clear from the debate—which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, has heard—what Parliament is keen for Ofcom to do. There is a material difference between Parliament sending a message and government sending a message. Ofcom is an independent regulator. I am sure that it will heed what is said in Parliament, but I think it is better that it hears it from Parliament and is not instructed by the Government. It is an independent regulator, and I am sure the noble Lord will have heard the debate and feed it back to his colleagues.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I withdraw my amendment.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Wednesday 22nd May 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
Arrests and Prison Capacity
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, public safety must at all times be our primary concern. The fact that we now have a shortage of prison spaces and that these contingency measures were even considered is worrying. The Government have said they have not put the measures in place this time, but of course this shortage of prison spaces has been building for a long time and is having a knock-on effect throughout the criminal justice system. I agree with the need for contingency planning, even when the outcome is worrying. Can the Minister tell me, within contingency planning, what would be the priorities for the arrest or non-arrest of suspects?
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the assiduous and courteous way in which he has dealt with many questions, debates and lots of legislation. He must be one of the most hard-working Members of this House, and we appreciate it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for those remarks. They are very kind, and I am very grateful for them.
Obviously, public safety is the Government’s priority. We fully expect the police to arrest anyone who has committed a serious crime and poses a risk to the public. Police chiefs have been very clear today that officers will arrest anyone they need to in order to keep the public safe. The NPCC has suggested that, to its knowledge from daily engagement with forces, no arrests have been delayed because of the impact of Operation Early Dawn.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acknowledgement that contingency planning is obviously a necessity. Frankly, any serious organisation should prepare for contingencies all the time. There were some strange remarks relating to that in the House of Commons. I think it is odd that was perhaps highlighted as a thing.
I acknowledge the comments about prison capacity, but we have made significant progress with regards to building capacity, which I am happy to talk about.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Although I do not normally shadow this portfolio, I recognise the Minister’s hard work.
Groups such as the Howard League have repeatedly said that sentences of 12 months or less are associated with higher reoffending rates. Given that our prisons are dangerously close to capacity, despite what the Minister has said, what steps are the Government are taking to reduce short-term sentences, which would have the dual benefit of decreasing prison populations and lowering recidivism rates?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for her remarks, which I very much appreciate. Obviously, much of the debate around sentencing involved a Bill that we may or may not see—we probably will not—so I will talk a bit about what we have done on prison building. We have delivered the largest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with 10,000 of the 20,000 additional places to be delivered by the end of 2025. We have already delivered about 5,900 of the 20,000 places. Last October, a series of measures was announced that will help to ease the pressure further. I mentioned the Sentencing Bill and we will also further the 20,000 portfolio. In October last year, we announced an investment of £30 million to acquire the land we need to build more prison places, and we are intent on delivering an additional 460 RDCs across the estate. There is a considerable amount of work going on. I accept of course that there are short-term capacity problems, but that is the point of having contingency planning.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to short-term capacity problems, but we have a long-term situation, extending over decades across many different Governments, of very high numbers of people in prison in the UK. The current rate of imprisonment in England and Wales is 146 people per 100,000 of population. By comparison, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and the Nordic states all have a rate of imprisonment of less than 90 prisoners per 100,000 of population. Surely, the Government being forced to request chief constables to pause non-priority arrests and operations is a reflection of the fact that we have just kept shoving people into jail, without giving the jails the capacity to rehabilitate. That is causing damaging impacts on communities, prisoners’ families and prison workers, as well as on the prisoners, who will nearly all be released back into the community eventually. Is it not time to look again at the continual push to lock up more people, when, as the noble Baroness on the Lib Dem Benches said, there is so much evidence that that is not working?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness raised some very interesting points, which I will address in a second. To be clear, we have not asked police chiefs to stop arresting people, as I have already said. On the impact on communities, I suspect that criminals roaming free probably has a lot more impact on local communities than having them inside. On the international comparisons, I am not sure how we achieve them or draw any meaningful conclusions from them. The fact is that we make our own laws, which is what we are elected to do. Perhaps it will be a Green Party policy that we should let criminals out—good luck.
Official Controls (Location of Border Control Posts) (England) Regulations 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Official Controls (Location of Border Control Posts) (England) Regulations 2024, laid before the House on 22 March (SI 2024/416), do not contain information about how the Government intend to ensure that the drivers of vehicles subject to these controls attend the inland control posts.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the Motion in my name, as a follow-up to a very interesting debate we had in your Lordships’ House on 2 May, led by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the subject of imports and exports of food and agricultural products. It was a lengthy debate, with some excellent comments from a number of noble Lords.
The Minister gave some good answers to many of the questions, but one that I did not feel that he responded to in enough detail was about where all the different checks on trucks would take place—most of the vehicles coming in are trucks, both big and little. I came away with the impression that, if the checks could not be done in Dover because there was not enough space, the drivers would be told to go up the A20, which becomes the M20, and turn left at the fourth junction, which is called Sevington near Ashford.
Now I know that area very well and I thought that there would be a temptation for the drivers to forget to turn left and trundle up either to London or to a small shed, where the cargo could be transferred to another truck and possibly avoid some of the checks. I felt that that was an omission that the Minister might like to put right—and I am sure that he will do so tonight. I am very grateful that we had a quick chat about it recently.
In addition to the comments made by noble Lords in that debate, there has also been a lot of media coverage, particularly about the import of EU food, and comments about basic questions such as: what is a “consignment”? Noble Lords may not want to know what a consignment is, but can the Minister say whether it is a truckload, several parcels in a truck, or something in between? Several years after Brexit, this should have been sorted out. We are told that there is a shortage of staff and places to have the checks, which is adding cost and delay, particularly to the import of foodstuffs, which have a shelf life, and this is something the Government should have sorted out before now.
However, coincidentally, yesterday the Government published a new document—I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that we are having this debate today—called What To Do When Attending an Inland Border Facility. It might be complicated but is only about 10 pages long, so I am sure that all the truckers in the world will be studying it over their tea. It gives good information about what they should and should not do, but it also demonstrates how incredibly complicated the system is. The first thing it says is:
“Get ‘border ready’ … Get ready before you reach Kent”—
I suppose that depends which direction you are going in. But, under the heading “Common Transit Convention movements”—I am not going to read out the whole document because we would be here all night—the document indicates that a good debate that your Lordships held two or three weeks ago seems to have delivered something that may actually be of help to the importers and exporters. Maybe this is a lesson that the Government, who may change after the election, want to be remembered by this wonderful document, which has taken them two or three years to produce. However, there it is, and I look forward to the press comments saying how wonderful it is. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this debate, and I return to issues that I have previously raised with the Minister, particularly about biosecurity and the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises through the operation of these inland sites. I have three points to make.
First—perhaps the Minister can provide information on this—I have been speaking to the environmental horticulture industry and I declare that, along with the Industry and Parliament Trust, I have a fellowship with the Horticultural Trades Association. What seems to have settled into the pattern for the environmental horticulture sector is that it is seeing large numbers of lorry loads being simply waved through and not being subjected to any checks. I am well aware of the desire to make sure there is not too much obstruction at the border, but there is a general feeling, which I will come back to later, that Sevington does not have enough space or staff capacity at the right times and it is impossible to carry out the biosecurity checks that were previously done on-site when goods arrived at nurseries and other places. That presents a serious biosecurity risk, when we know the pests and diseases that potentially can be imported from the continent. There are also concerns about goods coming from other places.
Secondly, I refer to the comments made in the past few days by the director-general of the Institute of Export and International Trade, which particularly looks at the food aspects. He referred to
“businesses left in the dark with vital information provided much too late, the systems being introduced aren’t working properly. Businesses are frustrated, hauliers are angry and fresh produce has gone off due to repeated delays”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am not going to read out an enormous amount of detail here, but it is worth people in general knowing that, on 17 May, Defra issued a series of updates. These indicated that medium-risk plant products will now be split into two categories: “Medium Risk A”, which need phytosanitary certificate and pre-notification, and “Medium Risk B”, which need a phytosanitary certificate but no pre-notification. So far, only certain fruit, such as quince and stone fruit, are in the latter category; spinach leaves have just moved from the “Low Risk” to the “Medium Risk A” category. We have to look at the usage and what is happening to the facilities created by the instrument that we are discussing and think of how difficult it is for people to manage this system when those kinds of things are happening.
Finally, again referring to Sevington, I want to mention issues that were raised by the Dover port authority at the end of March but that still very much apply. Now that we have had some time for the facility at Sevington to be in operation, perhaps the Minister can comment on the way in which it is going. There was great concern about whether Sevington had sufficient capacity to be able to handle products of animal origin. The reports I am hearing suggest that many lorry loads are either being waved through or ending up having to wait for long periods, which for animal products is a serious issue.
We are going into an election period. I guess that these issues are probably not going to get much of an airing for six weeks or so, but they are continuing issues that will need to be grappled with by whoever is in government and by an industry sector that is giving strong indications that the Government’s systems are causing it to struggle enormously with getting in the goods it needs.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for putting down this Motion for debate and for rightly emphasising the importance of the short straits crossing in relation to these regulations. To pick up his final point about the government guidance issued yesterday, this new system was introduced on 30 April. It defies belief that, after all these months of preparation, the situation is still producing a time lag for instructions on how people should be using them.
Obviously, the area of greatest concern throughout the UK is the issue of Sevington in relation to the short straits crossing, because it is about 20 miles from Dover and from the mouth of the Channel Tunnel to Sevington. Previous questions I have posed to Ministers have produced what I understood to be a statement that there are no plans by the Government to escort vehicles from the port to Sevington and no plans to observe those vehicles to make sure that they get safely from one to the other. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that people will be trusted to take that journey and not to disappear en route. The drivers of those vehicles will already have been picked out and will know that they are under additional checks. They would have every incentive to avoid those additional checks if they were intent on some kind of malpractice. I fully understand that the average driver is not of that ilk, but there are people with what have been described to me as seriously dodgy loads.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing his regret Motion for debate this evening.
Speakers have raised concerns about how operating the inland BCPs will potentially make it more difficult to manage biosecurity and food safety risks. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, went into some detail around specific concerns. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee discussed these risks with Defra, and in its response Defra acknowledged that there was a small risk because of this approach. In its report, the SLSC said:
“We agree that the use of inland BCPs does not make it more likely that harmful goods are not detected. It is a concern, however, that transporting goods and live animals from a port to be checked at an inland BCP, especially where this is located at some distance away, makes it more difficult to contain potential biosecurity risks than carrying out these checks within the compounds of a port”.
As other noble Lords have said, I would like to press the Minister on how the Government plan to manage these risks effectively, as Defra has acknowledged that there is a small risk.
As my noble friend’s regret Motion is mainly around drivers, I will concentrate on that. We know that lorries must drive 22 miles from Dover to the border control post at Sevington. Anyone found to be carrying unsafe or contaminated food could then be asked to turn around and drive back again. As we have heard, there is not enough information or instruction on what drivers are supposed to do. The Government have not explained how lorries will be monitored between the port and the control post or how they will ensure that goods which have been identified as unsafe leave the country.
I was interested in the comments from Nan Jones, the policy technical manager at the British Meat Processors Association. She has asked how we will ensure that those products get back on the ferry. With that gap, how do we know that they have not unloaded a load of products when they have been rejected? Returning a large consignment of high-value product such as meat would constitute a big loss for a business. Relabelling a product and finding an alternative market such as a wholesaler or restaurant could be tempting. She added that, once it is in the country, if you are that way inclined there are many ways in which you can disguise it.
We know that drivers need a lot of support through the changes because the impact of new border controls on drivers can be pretty significant. We know that there is increased documentation and checks, a lot of additional paperwork, that safety and security declarations, customs forms and other documentation will be required. While you need documentation to ensure compliance with regulations to prevent illegal activities, it is a lot of extra work for drivers to ensure that they are compliant with.
We also know that you could end up with longer waiting times at border crossings. All of this we have discussed at length. However, it does put a lot of extra pressure on drivers. Efficient planning and understanding of any new requirements will be crucial for drivers to deliver on time and in a manner that they should be doing. We also know that fuel costs could rise because of longer waiting times at border check points. Various businesses have raised concerns about that with us.
Drivers need to understand what is happening. These relations are evolving. How do they ensure that they adapt their processes in a way that is compliant with all the biosecurity and safety measures that are coming in? If they are not careful, quite accidentally they could end up with penalties. It is important that proper information is available for drivers.
I want to mention a letter that the Cold Chain Federation trade group wrote to Steve Barclay, the Environment Secretary. The group was concerned that volumes of illegal meat seized at Dover were a demonstration of the determination of criminals to bring in and trade in illicit goods and that
“the 22-mile corridor now open to them (or indeed, other criminals to intercept high value goods) adds further risk to the UK food chain in that it provides numerous routes to exit from the inspection process”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, went into some detail about concerns about illegal behaviour. She also mentioned the short straits routes. I will not go into that, as we discussed it at length in the last debate, but these are real concerns for industry.
There have also been concerns that the Government’s plans to manage the risks effectively and enforce the arrangements in practice are not necessarily laid out and that there is not enough understanding about how that will work. That includes whether the authorities will be able to monitor properly whether the lorries are carrying out the checks that they are being instructed to do. How is that all being managed?
What plans are there to ensure that drivers who do not speak English properly understand the information and what they are supposed to be doing? I am sure that the Government will have something in place, but it would be good to have confirmation of that.
I would like to raise one final thing. Another potential problem is that UK government computer systems used to identify potentially risky consignments are prone to errors, which could send thousands of trucks for physical inspection. According to the Financial Times, people who attended a meeting on border management with Defra said that officials admitted the error rate was currently 33%. I am not sure if the Minister was at that meeting, but it would be interesting to know if that is correct.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
It is absolutely a delight to be here this evening and to get such a warm and thoroughly lovely reception from everybody. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the privilege of standing at the Dispatch Box in this important debate, and all of those who have spoken for their thoughtful and constructive comments.
The legislation that is the subject of this debate has been instrumental in implementing the second phase of the border target operating model. New controls under the model began on 30 April, and I am pleased to report that, contrary to some of the press speculation and some of the comments made this evening quoting the press, checks have been introduced successfully at border control posts throughout the country. Defra will continue to monitor the controls and the impacts, and their effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked how the Government intend to ensure that drivers of vehicles subject to controls attend the inland border control posts. Drivers will be instructed, if their goods have been called for an inspection at a border control post, by a port official at the point of entry or at the short straits through a digital system. That system comes up on their telephone, and their telephone number has to be inserted into the system for the electronic IPAFFS to actually pass; they cannot get in without that information being on the system. It cannot fail and so far has not failed.
Where a physical check is required, goods cannot be legally placed on the UK market until the load has been taken to a border control post, inspected and cleared. An instruction to attend a border control post for an inspection constitutes a legal requirement. Should a vehicle fail to attend a border control post, officials can require the return or destruction of the goods for the relevant local authority to carry out controls, such as identity or physical check. There is no evidence so far of traders taking advantage of Sevington’s inland location to circumvent checks.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also asked what a consignment is. It is a range of goods covered by the same certificate, which is pre-filled to enter the country through any of the border control posts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, took some delight in telling me that that we were failing on pretty much every single front in the system that we have implemented. She gave me a few examples, which I did not recognise. I am sure she would understand that this is a very significant change to what has gone on before. We have not ever done checks at our borders, or at least not for a very long time. The imposition on businesses importing into this country is significant, and the Government are well aware of the cost and the time and trouble this will cause. At the same time, I think that she would agree with me that it is extremely important that we do this for our own biosecurity. There are multiple reasons, which I think we would collectively agree on, for why we are doing this.
For many years, we have done nothing. We are now starting to build up our new border controls and biosecurity controls. To go from nothing to everything in one go would undoubtedly have created the scenarios the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson, Lady Bennett, and others keep telling are happening at the moment. They simply are not, and I gave a clear instruction at the beginning of the process that we want a pragmatic approach. We are not in the business of closing down UK business, but we have an imperative to check and to build up those checks over a period of time, taking a risk-based approach. It is not helpful to be told that we are not doing everything we should be doing. Of course we are not: we are in week two. We may be doing everything in a few months’ time, and perhaps somebody else will be standing here at the Dispatch Box answering questions on that. I think and hope that they will see the benefit of taking a pragmatic approach, because we do not want to stop trade in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that she felt that there were not adequate staff at Sevington—it is not “Severington”, just for information. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness has been there, but I have. I have spoken to the staff and seen them operating there, and I can tell her that it is working very well and is fully staffed, so I do not recognise the comments that were made.
There were comments too about getting from Dover to Sevington, which is 21.7 miles away, and the risk that might constitute. Of the goods coming in to Sevington, 99.9% are from organisations we trust and know; it is a formality to check that there has not been a mistake, and that we are not inadvertently bringing in some pest or disease. The people coming to Sevington are not looking to import things illegally into the UK; they are following our rules. They have export health certificates, have followed the whole system all the way through and have loaded everything up on to the system; we are simply checking that all those formalities have been done correctly.
We should not conflate that with the illegal importation of meat that comes in primarily, but not exclusively, through Dover, which is brought in by a van and a driver from Poland, Romania or somewhere else. Those people will never go to Sevington: they are not on our system and we do not even know they are coming. It is really important to avoid conflating those two things. If you do, you get very confused about what Sevington and every other border control post in the UK is trying to do. Stopping illegal imports is the job of Border Force at the border. Checking goods that are coming in through our prearranged system is the job of our border control posts. They are fully manned and fully operational across the entire country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked me about an error rate of 33%. That number is not familiar to me—I have never heard of it—so I will go away and check. If the rate is anywhere near that, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.
With that, I will conclude. Once again, I thank all those who have spoken this evening for their thoughtful and valuable comments.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It has been very interesting; so many examples from different parts of the importing world and cargoes have been cited. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, because he clearly disagrees with many of the issues that have been raised. He may be right that it is short-term.
I will make a couple of points. First, I think he said it in the previous debate, but the Minister mentioned again drivers in white vans from Romania. I used to live in Romania, about 50 years ago; I was working there. It is a member of the European Union, like so many other member states, and has just as much right to being treated with dignity and respect, and speed, as people from other member states. A lot of people criticise meat from Poland—
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I wonder if I might comment. I absolutely agree that anybody from Romania or Poland, or indeed any other country in the world, has the right to be treated in a dignified way. But the fact of the matter is that, in Romania, African swine fever is running riot. It might be in Europe, but it could be any other part of the world. The point is that we do not want African swine fever. If you import illegal pork into this country, you will bring African swine fever with you at some point.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. We will have to see. Where I live in Cornwall, there is a boatyard next to me that builds fishing boats, and it has about 15 Romanian welders—legally, I should say —and they are bloody good welders. The fact remains that we are importing most of these goods from the European Union, and I am sure the Minister agrees that everybody will be treated equally.
My main concern, which several noble Lords have raised, is when things go wrong. Whether or not there are enough staff we can go on debating until the cows come home, but government IT systems have a habit of not always being 100% successful. This is probably something for the next Government, but the Minister can keep on thinking about this for the next few days: what is the fallback situation when it goes wrong? In other words, is there a manual system that will keep the goods moving while somebody sorts out the computers?
We will have several months when there will be a lot of press about this, and there will be no Ministers to answer questions, so we will all watch it with interest. Somebody or other in this Chamber will be on the other side of the fence at that stage, and will be able to answer criticism. If it is the present Minister, then in Opposition, I am sure he will enjoy that.
It has been a very useful debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.