House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
This Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes over this Parliament. Under the Tories, house building plummeted as they bowed to pressure from their Back Benchers to scrap local housing targets. We are taking bold action to reform our planning system, deliver a new generation of new towns and unblock stalled housing sites.
Mike Tapp
I recently met members of Dover district council, who told me that they are keen to help the Government where they can to deliver our ambitious housing targets. Around the edge of Dover High Street we often see consistently empty units. What can the Government do to help us turn those into the housing that our community so badly needs, and will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can help?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Compulsory purchase orders can be used by local authorities to acquire empty properties where the authority can demonstrate that the acquisition would be in the public interest. I am also aware that there is a problem with homes built under section 106 agreements being left empty. The Government will continue to work with house builders, local authorities and affordable housing providers to tackle the problems. I am sure that the Housing Minister will be happy to meet him.
Mr Dillon
Will the Secretary of State consider allowing councils the ability to buy land for houses based on current use rather than hope value, and commit to reforming the Land Compensation Act 1961?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member will know that we are looking at a number of measures to help council houses to be built. Further measures will be announced in the Budget, as I have mentioned in a written ministerial statement today. We want councils and social housing providers to be able to build those homes, and we will help them as much as we can.
Josh Simons
We know that the barriers to building more houses in towns such as those I represent in Makerfield are often political, not technical. For years, Conservative Members allowed themselves to become mouthpieces for the blockers and the naysayers, which is why, as co-chair of the Labour Growth Group, I welcome the commitment by the Secretary of State to back builders. What steps is her Department taking to increase the supply of housing in towns such as those I represent in Makerfield?
Angela Rayner
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and the reason he is here—he is absolutely correct on this—is that the previous Government did nothing to help house building, and we did not see growth either. This Government will reform our planning system, deliver a new generation of new towns, unblock stalled housing sites and reform the housing market, as well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With so much good agricultural land now covered by solar panels, how will the Government incentivise builders to build on brownfield rather than good agricultural land, thus ensuring regeneration rather than imperilling food security?
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Member will know that we have already set out a number of steps, including the brownfield passport and the national planning policy framework, and the use of local housing targets to ensure that brownfield is used first and we get the houses that we desperately need. For the last 14 years, the Conservatives failed to meet their housing target every single year. This Government are determined to meet our target.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Certainty for councils is vital for housing delivery, but given the uncertainty created by the Government’s new top-down targets, which will delay the implementation of local plans and therefore planning decisions, how confident are the Government of meeting their housing targets?
Angela Rayner
Britain is facing the sharpest housing crisis ever because of the failure of Conservative Members. We will ensure, through our mandatory housing targets and in the announcements that have been made, and that will be made in the Budget, that we get the houses that Britain needs. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to hear a conversation all the way through.
David Simmonds
In the rush for numbers, we must not ignore the need to ensure that new homes are built to appropriate standards. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), has been stripped of responsibility for building safety because of conflicts of interest, can Ministers assure the House that the haste for targets will not undermine building safety?
Angela Rayner
We will ensure that houses are built to decent homes standards, which we have already set out, and that we meet those targets—unlike in the 14 years under the Conservatives.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Councils across the country, of all political stripes, work hard to deliver vital public services in our country. We know that 14 years of mounting pressure is biting hard. We are committed to moving towards a multi-year funding settlement, ending wasteful bidding competitions that essentially set one council against another. Last week, I met political group leaders at the Local Government Association conference to understand what specific demand pressures they are facing, and we are committed to working together on those big issues. Members will know that we cannot pre-empt the Budget statement due later in the week, but we are of course fully engaged in that process. We stand ready to speak to any council experiencing financial difficulties, as I confirmed in my letter to MPs just over a week ago.
Mr Forster
As the Minister knows—I have met him to discuss this subject—my local authority, Woking borough council, effectively went bankrupt last year. It has had to cut services that many consider essential, and it will have to consider cutting others. Does the Minister agree that it is time for Government and Parliament to review which services are classed as statutory and non-statutory?
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Member for meeting me at one of our regular drop-in sessions. His concern is reflected across the country. Local communities recognise that their council is being forced to choose vital neighbourhood services against targets for adult social care, children’s services and homelessness services. In the end, we need to rebuild the foundation from scratch, and that is exactly what we are committed to doing.
James MacCleary
My constituency is largely rural and, as in many rural constituencies, parish councils play an important role in local government service delivery. Does the Minister agree about the importance of parish councils to rural communities, and what role does he see for parish councils as part of the Government’s devolution agenda?
Jim McMahon
We will of course publish a White Paper on the English devolution Bill. It will set out an ambitious programme for a power shift from this place and Whitehall to combined authorities, to local government and, of course, to communities. We are absolutely committed to that top-to-bottom power shift. We recognise that parish and town councils have a role to play.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rising demand, rising costs and 14 years of Conservative public sector cuts mean that many local authorities and services are at breaking point. My own borough of Lambeth, a deprived inner-London area with higher demand for social housing and temporary accommodation, and for social, public and youth services, has been particularly affected, which has been quite challenging. Will the Minister commit to an emergency increase in funding to combat the immediate crisis for local authorities, and, in the long term, to a much-needed update of the funding formula to better reflect local need?
Jim McMahon
Like every Member of the House, my hon. Friend will know that those 14 years have taken their toll, and that it will take more than three months to repair that, but we are absolutely committed to repairing the foundations, and our multi-year financial settlements will give security. Of course, we recognise that the demand-led pressures in many places are the back-end of a bigger problem. Temporary accommodation relates to the housing crisis that needs fixing. The same applies to children’s services and adult social care.
Alison Bennett
The financial future of West Sussex county council is bleak: it faces a cumulative budget gap of over £200 million for 2029-30. At present, 64% of the council’s budget is being spent on adult and children’s social services, and that is set to rise. How will the Minister ensure that West Sussex county council and others do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes or reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demand for the most vulnerable members of our community?
Jim McMahon
We always say that local government is paid for one way or the other: either we pay at the front-end through fair funding being fairly distributed across the country, or we pay at the back-end because eventually the system falls over and we must repair the damage. If we take ourselves back to the coalition years, when austerity first came in, the cruelty was that we did not reform public services, repairing them from the ground up, to get ahead of those system changes. That was a wasted opportunity.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This year, Hartlepool borough council is set to overspend on children’s social care by some £5 million, due in no small part to the outrageous charges levied by private sector children’s homes. What can the Minister do to cap those providers’ charges to ensure that local government can continue to deliver its statutory obligations?
Jim McMahon
I recognise that, in large part, children’s services are the funding pressures that are driving council budgets. We cannot forget, though, that behind every one of those numbers is a child who often is not getting the outcomes they need. Far too often what we are seeing in the system is that high costs are not just sending councils to the point of bankruptcy, but delivering worse outcomes for young people. We want to see far more resilience built back into the system, and there are examples today of councils that are building that public sector provision back into the marketplace.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The previous Government cut County Durham’s budget by 60%, and we have all seen the Royal Tunbridge Wells video in which the Leader of the Opposition boasted about that act. That is having a real impact on my constituents and the ability of Durham county council to deliver vital services, so will the Minister consider a discussion with Cabinet colleagues about revising those funding formulas to take account of social care costs and deprivation?
Jim McMahon
We did see the former Prime Minister taking great credit for essentially shifting money from primarily urban and deprived communities into rural shires in an overtly political way. I want to ensure that in the funding review we are carrying out, whether that is the initial rescue operation that will take place this year or the recovery operation through the multi-year settlement, we do not pit one council against another, but take an approach that genuinely understands the needs, cost demands and cost pressures faced by local authorities. In the end, though, we have to accept that there is no fair funding at all if funding does not reflect the deprivation in an area.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
At the last oral questions, the Secretary of State assured me that she had no plans to increase council tax for anyone. However, when pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), she would not give the same guarantee that the single occupant discount would be retained. Will Ministers take the opportunity to do so now?
Jim McMahon
I can see the shadow Secretary of State making that point repeatedly, because at this stage we are all waiting for the statement and the Budget that will contain that information, but I can say that the right decisions will be made in the interests of working people. We recognise the cost of living crisis that is being faced across the country. I am sure that she, like all Members of the House, is waiting with interest for Wednesday.
Mrs Badenoch
Local authorities employ 2 million people and commission services such as adult social care. The impact assessment for the Secretary of State’s Employment Rights Bill says that the Bill will increase costs. Those costs are likely to be passed on to councils, so has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of the Employment Rights Bill and an increase in employers’ national insurance specifically on local authorities? If costs do increase, will local councils be compensated?
Jim McMahon
Any decisions related to the Budget will be taken at the appropriate time, as will any decisions on the local government finance settlement. What I can say, though, is that this is a new partnership from this Government: we are not locking local government out, but standing shoulder to shoulder with it. Only last week at the Local Government Association conference in Harrogate, the Secretary of State launched the leaders’ council, a forum where central and local government will reset that relationship.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Rough sleeping is the most visible end of the homelessness crisis, but it is also brutal—the average age of death for rough sleepers in London is just 44. The rough sleeping initiative is literally saving lives—in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, 102 people are kept alive every year through that programme—but it is due to end in March 2025. Removing it has been described by local teams as nothing short of catastrophic, so what assessment has taken place of the impact of that initiative, and what assurance can the Secretary of State give local authorities about the maintenance of the scheme so that they can plan for the long term?
Jim McMahon
Again, I ask hon. Members to wait for the spending review on Wednesday, and for the provisional settlement in December. We are under no illusion about the pressures faced by councils on homelessness. In the end, we need to repair the system, which is about providing safe, secure and affordable housing for people to live in. We will do that, but we also recognise that there is a problem today. Further detail on that will follow.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Stretton Hall is one of seven sites that the Government have identified to date that we believe would benefit from support through the new homes accelerator, which is a joint programme between the Department and Homes England aiming to speed up the delivery of large-scale housing developments across England.
Neil O’Brien
Documents from Harborough district council reveal that there are sites with a capacity of up to 16,000 homes around Stretton Hall. The Government’s press release in August said that there would be around 4,000 homes on the site that they are involved in. Will the Minister confirm which Minister visited the site before the announcement? Will he agree to publish the methodology that led to our community being selected, and the list of sites that were considered but not selected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have not had the opportunity to visit the site, but I intend to do so in the future, along with the other new homes accelerator sites. On the point of principle, to meet housing demand and housing need in England, every area of the country must play its part. The site in question is currently being promoted in both the Harborough local plan and the Oadby and Wigston local plan, as it crosses the boundary of both local authorities. Although I appreciate that it does face a number of planning and enabling challenges, the Government believe that it nevertheless has the potential to make a significant contribution to housing supply in Leicestershire.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is essential to keep pace with growing demand for internet bandwidth and mobile data from local businesses, residents and those who visit our communities. That is why the Government’s ambition is to reach national gigabit and national 5G coverage as soon as possible, by committing to support investment in high-quality, reliable digital connectivity, so that communities can benefit from faster economic growth and greater social inclusion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading that work and will provide an update in due course.
Mr Amos
In the parishes of Ruishton, West Hatch, Staple Fitzpaine and Castle Neroche, the term “Connecting Devon and Somerset” is clearly understood as exactly what is not happening in the two counties, rather than a description of the so-called delivery agency. Cabinets and trunk cables are in place, but there is still no sign of houses being connected. Will the Minister or the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), meet MPs for the affected areas to understand how those houses can finally be connected?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the question, although I was sorry to hear it. Those are contracts from the previous superfast broadband programme, which has been superseded by Project Gigabit. That means that Connecting Devon and Somerset is responsible for the management and oversight of the contracts, which are jointly funded by central Government and local authorities. The communities in discussion deserve a high-quality service, so I or the Minister for Telecoms will meet the hon. Member.
Richard Foord
The village of Gittisham in Devon is also subject to Connecting Devon and Somerset. Four different companies have attempted to enable broadband access, but the fibre often stops 100 metres short of the houses. Gittisham is also a 4G notspot, so residents are cut off and unable to contribute to the economic growth that the Government say they want to see. According to the Labour manifesto, the Government’s target for achieving broadband coverage is 2030, but can the Minister offer a percentage of broadband coverage that will be achieved in rural areas in this Parliament?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to our manifesto commitment, and he has heard a commitment today that we want to see full gigabit and full national 5G roll-out as soon as possible. We are getting on with it, but I am sorry to hear that there are issues. As I am keen to meet the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos), I may well meet him too, if he is similarly keen.
Tessa Munt
Third time lucky: it is Somerset here. I know that the Government want services—finding a home, looking for help, paying taxes, working, and even learning during covid—to be accessed online, but in my part of mid and north Somerset, people can only dream of gigabit broadband; they would be really happy if they had superfast. Can the Minister investigate how to inspire a national broadband roll-out programme that is realistic? Is it time for a new national plan, as access to superfast broadband has so many holes and still costs billions?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, and I think of the challenges in my own constituency, where my constituents ask me questions in a similar vein. To be very clear, the Government know that the market will be able to provide considerable coverage across the country, but that there will always be communities—including her own, I suspect—where that has traditionally been a challenge, and we are committed to making sure that that gap is filled. We have the same aspiration and, as I say, we intend to meet it as soon as we possibly can.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Jermy, you started to bob and then you stopped, so I was not sure you had a question, but please let us hear it.
Terry Jermy
Many rural villages in my constituency have spent hours producing excellent neighbourhood plans, with some areas hoping to go to public referendum and adoption soon. Given that such plans help communities to shape growth, will the Minister confirm what prominence the Government will afford neighbourhood plans as part of planning reforms?
Alex Norris
Our commitment as a Government is to bring communities into that conversation and to make sure local leadership has that say in the service of a wider national goal.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to ensuring that those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous property agents. The Government will set out our position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the Minister for his reply. My constituent Paul faces inflation-busting maintenance cost rises and unexpected in-year fees. His attempts to scrutinise FirstPort’s work and his willingness to fight back have resulted in an exchange of letters with solicitors. When my hard-working office team asked FirstPort for an explanation of what is going on, the company took more than six weeks to reply with inadequate answers, and it did so only when I took the step of contacting it personally to say that I was raising its name in the House today. While long-awaited changes are being considered, what would the Minister advise my constituent and others like him to do in the meantime?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I am sorry to hear about Paul’s experience with that particular property management company—an experience that will, I know, be reflected in the experiences of many others across the country. There are two existing routes to redress in such circumstances, the property redress scheme and the property ombudsman scheme, to which people can submit complaints. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman to set out in full the various sources of advice and support and the avenues for redress that his constituent might pursue before we bring in more fundamental changes to the regulation of the sector.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I should draw the House’s attention to the fact I am a leaseholder subject to service charges, as are hundreds of my constituents. There is very often a real lack of transparency and accountability from service providers. Bills are not very clear, and it takes quite a lot of effort to understand them. The Government could regulate, but will the Minister use his convening powers to encourage service providers to do better, prior to discussing legislation that could take a very long time?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am more than happy to look into what more can be done by convening to get the various interested parties around the table. The Government are committed to implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which includes measures to increase the transparency and standardisation of service charges and empower leaseholders in that way.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are making rapid progress on reforming our planning system. We launched a consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework within our first month in office, and my Department is analysing responses with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. As was set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to bring forward a planning and infrastructure Bill in this parliamentary Session to accelerate the delivery of high-quality infrastructure and housing.
Alex Ballinger
I thank the Minister for his update. My constituents in Halesowen recognise that homes have been unaffordable to first-time buyers and welcome these planning changes, but they are frustrated by some of the scaremongering from the Opposition. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that protecting the environment will be central to our planning changes as we roll out lots of additional new houses?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him and the House that the Government are committed to securing better environmental outcomes alongside facilitating the development that our country so desperately needs. In our consultation on proposed reforms to the NPPF, we made it clear that land safeguarded by existing environmental designations will maintain its current protections. We are exploring how we might streamline house building and infrastructure delivery by using development to fund nature recovery where both are currently stalled. However, we have made it clear that we will act with legislation only when we have confirmed to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Ministers dropped the last Government’s plan for the development of Cambridge and connections to nearby towns including Haverhill in my constituency. When will the Government come forward with an integrated plan to develop Cambridge and improve road and rail links to towns like Haverhill?
Matthew Pennycook
I wrote to local leaders in the greater Cambridge area a few weeks ago to make it clear that the Government believe the area is a site where we should take forward nationally significant housing growth. We will set out further details in due course, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Cambridge growth company is taking plans and pulling together an evidence base to set out precisely what the scale of development should be and how it should take place in that area.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government attach great importance to the green belt, including the more than 20,000 hectares in the borough of Waverley in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. In planning terms, the green belt serves a number of specific purposes, but the fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government do not intend to change the general purposes of the green belt or its general extent, but we are committed to taking a more strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we can build more homes in the right places.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the Minister for that response, but the Government are proposing to double the housing targets in Waverley and East Hampshire. Over 57% of East Hampshire is in the South Downs national park, so it rightly cannot be built on, but if the target is still based on 100% of the East Hampshire district, that causes massive pressures on the rest of the district, including places such as Whitehill and Bordon, Liphook, Headley and Grayshott. Will the Government commit to looking into this inherent unfairness, which is totally unsustainable for my area, and will he meet me and local councillors to discuss it further?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further. On the principled point he raises, when local authorities are developing local development plans they can put a case forward to the inspectorate to be tested in examination, where they specify hard constraints of the type the hon. Gentleman has identified. When we talk about housing targets, we are talking about an identified housing need for a particular area, but those local plans will be tested by the inspectorate at examination to take into account some of the concerns he has raised.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
This Government are getting on with fixing the mess the Tories left behind. We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and at the Budget this week the Chancellor will set out the next steps, including an additional £500 million for the existing affordable homes programme to deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes.
David Smith
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Conservative-run Northumberland county council’s own figures show that over 6,000 people in Northumberland are not adequately housed. Despite that, since the Conservatives have led the council, its own housing stock has decreased in number. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need more social homes in the right places to support the thousands of people in North Northumberland in need of a safe and secure place to live?
Angela Rayner
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and he is absolutely right: it is a source of national shame that just over 1.3 million households are on social housing waiting lists. Nearly 14,000 of them are in Northumberland alone. This Government do not accept that it has to be this way; we will deliver a fairer, more sustainable right-to-buy scheme where existing social housing stock is protected to meet housing need. I recognise the particular housing challenges faced by rural communities, and that is why the Government announced that the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme will be targeted, so that 5% to 10% of delivery outside London will be homes in rural areas.
Warinder Juss
Our plan to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament must include the building of affordable homes, which implies that we will build more council housing. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to my constituents in Wolverhampton West that they will have access to good-quality affordable homes, particularly for first-time buyers, and that if they need social housing, they will not have to wait excessive periods of time to get a council house?
Angela Rayner
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to support councils to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. That is why the Chancellor will set out at the Budget our plans to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales and to increase protections for newly built social homes. We are committed to giving first-time buyers a first chance to buy homes and to introducing a permanent, comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme.
John Slinger
At Rugby borough council, there are 300 households on the waiting list for social houses. Officers and councillors are working hard to meet the demand. They have knocked down older tower blocks and are replacing them with one to four-bed, energy-efficient, good-quality homes. Last year was the first year for many years that they built or acquired more social homes than were lost through right to buy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while that is good work, my council is ultimately able only to tread water? My constituents who are in need of decent, affordable social homes desperately need a Government who will help councils to reverse this trend. Will she consider visiting Rugby to see the great work being done in difficult circumstances?
Angela Rayner
I once got stranded in Rugby on a train, so I have visited that wonderful area before. I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend; councils should not be losing homes through right to buy quicker than they can be replaced. It is great to hear that councillors in Rugby are working hard to meet demand. The Chancellor will set out at the Budget the action we are taking to reduce right-to-buy discounts to deliver a more sustainable scheme. We will also increase protections on newly built social housing to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
In Ashfield, we have a big problem with nuisance tenants in social housing, who are creating mayhem and upsetting their neighbours and the neighbourhood with crime, antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and so on. Does the Secretary of State agree that these nuisance tenants should be given one chance, and if they cannot behave themselves, they should be evicted and refused access to social housing in the future?
Angela Rayner
I agree with the hon. Member about nuisance neighbours; we do need to do something about that. That is why there are provisions, so that councils can take action on people who are nuisance neighbours. They should not be terrorising other people who are trying to live nice lives.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I pay tribute to Westbourne community land trust, which, after six long hard years, has finally started delivering affordable homes for its community. That is exciting for the trust, and I was delighted to put a spade in the ground when it started building. Does the Secretary of State agree that communities are best placed to understand the need for housing in their area? Will she make it easier for community land trusts to acquire land and build homes quickly?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I welcome her to her place. We want to see communities being able to build houses, and we want to ensure that those houses are safe and secure and that we work with community housing trusts and others to deliver the 1.5 million homes. I am sure that the Housing Minister will be happy to meet her to discuss the matter.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
There are private developers in my constituency in Bridgwater that have obligations to build social homes and are ready to do so. The difficulty they face is that there is no social landlord available to take those units. What steps will the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure that those units can be built to house local people?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am aware of those concerns, and the Government will continue to work with house builders, local authorities and affordable housing providers to tackle the problem. We need to make sure that section 106 notices are adhered to and that when we have affordable and social housing on those sites, they are tenanted and people are in there.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to improving public health and reducing health inequalities. As part of the consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework, we sought views on how national planning policy could better support local authorities in promoting healthy communities and specifically in tackling childhood obesity. The framework already expects policies at a local level to aim to achieve healthy places, and we are considering how to ensure that a more consistent approach is taken, for example in relation to controlling hot food takeaways near schools.
Dr Cooper
I thank the Minister for the update. Will he consider working with Cabinet and Health colleagues to empower local authorities to regulate physical junk food adverts around schools and on public transport?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said in my original response, we recently consulted on how the planning system could do more to support the creation of healthy places. I will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care when considering next steps, as well as engaging with local authorities. As I said in answer to a previous question, my Department is analysing responses to the NPPF consultation with a view to issuing a Government response before the end of the year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I always try to be helpful to the Minister, and I thank him for his answer. In Northern Ireland, the steps we have taken on fast food outlets include close liaison with school principals to ensure that pupils do not access carry-out food, and addressing the issue of litter, which is the responsibility of fast food outlets. Perhaps the Minister might want to contact the relevant Northern Ireland Department to gauge what has worked for us.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is as helpful as ever. I always look at the experience of other nations on planning reform. I recently met the Housing Minister from the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and I will happily contact him about this specific point to see what lessons we can learn.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
We regularly discuss a wide range of topics with ministerial colleagues, including the important matter of tackling poverty, and we also have the ministerial child poverty taskforce. The lack of furniture and other goods is an issue for many people in our country and it contributes to poor outcomes. We are absolutely committed to tackling poverty and inequality, and the household support fund for local authorities, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions, provides considerable support towards that.
Danny Beales
I welcome that response. Eight per cent of families in this country are in deep furniture poverty. I have seen at first hand the impact of that: people are unable to have a hot meal without a microwave or a cooker and are unable to have a decent night’s sleep without a bed—they sleep on the floor with a mattress or a duvet. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the End Furniture Poverty campaign to discuss what more we can do as a Government locally and nationally to tackle this issue?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend makes important points about the impact of the lack of these essential items through poverty, and I am happy to meet him and the End Furniture Poverty campaign.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Clearly, people need a home to be able to furnish it in the first place, so what action is being taken across Government to address the barriers that care-experienced young people face in accessing the private rented sector, including through guarantor and deposit schemes?
Rushanara Ali
As the hon. Member will be aware, we have a plan to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the ministerial taskforce on ending homelessness. My colleagues have highlighted the work that we are doing to build 1.5 million homes. This is an absolute priority for us and I look forward to working with hon. Members on this issue.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government intend to act quickly to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. Over the course of this Parliament, we will further reform the leasehold system to honour the commitments made in our manifesto. To that end, the Government have made it clear that they intend to publish draft legislation on leasehold and commonhold reform in this parliamentary Session.
Kate Osborne
My constituent David has reported that his service charge has tripled in the past few years, even though dangerous cladding has still not been removed, leaving him in a leasehold debt trap with an unsellable property. I thank the Minister for confirming our intention to abolish the whole feudal system of leasehold, but what more can be done in the meantime to help people to challenge unfair service charges?
Matthew Pennycook
One of the most urgent things we need to do—we are working on this at pace—is to bring into force the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. As I made clear in response to an earlier question, that will increase transparency and standardisation across service charges, but we want to go further. We are committed to finally bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end, and across the Parliament that is precisely what we will do.
Jim Dickson
In Dartford, residents in new build estates in Ebbsfleet and elsewhere all too frequently experience opaque and unaccountable charging practices on the part of management companies, who seem far more motivated by making a profit than by providing services. What comfort can the Minister offer my constituents that these management companies will be brought within a fair and accountable legal framework in the near future?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and recognise his constituent’s experience. As outlined in the King’s Speech, the Government are committed to bringing the injustice of “fleecehold” private estates and unfair costs to an end. We will consult in due course on the best way to achieve that. In the interim, as I said, we need to implement the new protections for homeowners on private estates in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. That will create a new regulatory framework to make estate management companies more accountable to homeowners for how their money is spent.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Against my wishes and advice, the previous Government brought in a planning presumption in favour of applications to add extra floors to apartment blocks, irrespective of the horrible effect of building those extra floors, and attempts by rogue freeholders to sting the leaseholders for the remedial works resulting from errors in building grafted-on extra floors. As a short-term measure, will the Minister consider removing that presumption in favour of planning permission for these ill-considered schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He is absolutely right that the previous Government significantly expanded permitted development rights after 2013. We acknowledge the criticism of those expanded rights, particularly because of the low-quality development that they have brought forward. He raises a specific issue for leaseholders, but the problem goes wider than that. I am more than happy to give consideration to the point he raises.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place. The Labour party has proposed several reforms to the private rental sector, including to the leasehold system, which will only punish landlords, more of whom will sell up. At a time when people are struggling to get on the property ladder, why are this Government determined to drive out landlords and reduce the supply of available rental properties for those who rely on them?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, though it is not about leasehold but about the private rental sector. Our Renters’ Rights Bill, which is currently in Committee, poses no threat to good landlords. Indeed, it will improve the situation for good landlords by driving out unscrupulous and rogue landlords from the system. As part of that Bill, landlords have robust grounds to take back possession of their properties when it is appropriate to do so. What they cannot do is arbitrarily evict tenants through section 21. We will finally abolish section 21 no-fault evictions where the previous Government failed to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
As I have already told the House, this week’s Budget will set out our next steps to put us on the path to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. The Chancellor will set out further details on a number of measures, including a cash injection for the affordable homes programme, confirming funding for new social housing projects and a consultation on a long-term social housing rent settlement. We will provide certainty and stability, and reform right to buy to deliver a fair, sustainable scheme.
Lisa Smart
Hazel Grove’s 16 and 17-year-olds are all bright and articulate and never backwards in coming forwards to tell me what we need to do in this place, but they are denied their voice at the ballet box, unlike their Scottish and Welsh peers. When will the Government correct this imbalance, deliver on their manifesto promise and roll out votes at 16 across the United Kingdom?
Angela Rayner
Far be it from me to take on the Hazel Grove 16 and 17 year-olds—the hon. Member knows that I know Hazel Grove very well. This Government are committed to our manifesto commitment to give votes at 16, and we will make sure that we do that before the next general election.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2022, Lubov Chernukhin opened an amusement centre in Hastings town centre known as Owens. The project received more than £400,000 of taxpayer money as part of the Conservatives’ levelling up towns fund plans. Ms Chernukhin has also donated more than £200,000 to the Conservative party. Shortly after opening, Owens closed, and earlier this month it was covered in boarding, which now dominates Hastings town centre. Can the Minister advise me how my constituents can get their money back, and how we can ensure that money is never wasted again like that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
I was very disappointed to hear about the closure of Owens and about any money wasted under the previous Government. My officials are working with my hon. Friend’s council to maximise the remaining funding available from its town deal. On the general point, we are calling time on the waste from the previous Government, and moving towards multi-year funding settlements and ending competitive bidding for pots of money.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Labour made a big song and dance about tackling rogue landlords. No doubt Labour Members will have been made aware of revelations reported in The Londoner this morning about the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). Not only is he letting out mouldy homes with infestation, but he is the landlord of an unsafe private care home where children have gone missing and been left at risk of criminal exploitation. Do the Government have plans to tackle the rogue landlord on their own Benches?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. As I understand it, the Member for Ilford South says in his statement that there have been no conflicts of interest and that all interests have been declared in line with his council’s rules.
Mr Speaker
I presume the shadow Secretary of State let the hon. Member for Ilford South know that she was going to mention him on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
I say to all Members that mentioning other Members cannot be done without giving notice. I presume the right hon. Lady’s second question will be on a different issue.
Mrs Badenoch
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I will check with my office. I cannot say for certain that they did not let the hon. Member know.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that reducing the capacity of councils by 20% by allowing workers an additional paid day off every week—that is what a four-day week actually is—is unacceptable and does not provide good value for money for taxpayers or residents?
Angela Rayner
I am really proud of our Employment Rights Bill and I am really proud to stand here as someone who advocates for flexible working. We do not dictate to councils how they run their services; we work with councils. The right hon. Lady should be able to work out that flexible working is no threat to business and no threat to the economy. In fact, it will boost productivity.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Alex Norris
As a Government, we have been clear that the pace of remediation has been far too slow. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will be meeting developers to review their progress and to agree a joint plan for accelerating remediation in the coming weeks. I am, of course, very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues, and meet with constituents if that is helpful too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
High streets are the beating hearts of our communities. Those in places such as Broadstone in my constituency are really bouncing back and reinventing themselves. The public assume that councils are able to flex business rates and that they own most properties, but we all know that that is not the case. Will the Minister provide a timeline for the reform of business rates, and assure pubs and shops that their existing reliefs will be maintained?
Alex Norris
I am afraid the hon. Lady puts me in quite the pickle. With less than 48 hours before a fiscal event she would not expect me to pre-empt the Chancellor, but we have heard the hon. Lady’s calls and those from business. Alongside any rates changes, we will seek to provide the tools, such as high street rental auctions or community right to buy, to give communities control of their high streets again.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Alex Norris
We all want to see our high streets thriving. It is the business of government, local councils and local communities to push back on some of the decline that has been seen as inevitable in recent years. As part of that, we will be giving local communities the tools to reshape their high streets, such as high street rental auctions and the community right to buy.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As the shadow Minister will know from our exchanges in the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, the Government have absolutely no plans to introduce rent controls in any form.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Angela Rayner
The new deal for working people is contained in the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading last week. We will continue to push forward other measures that do not require legislation, but what we hope to see is a new culture between business, trade unions and local communities to ensure that work really does pay.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
This Government are acutely aware of the impact of the cost of living crisis on working people, and that is firmly in our sights as we approach the spending review this week, but we will have to repair a fair amount of the system, not just the finances. The early warning audit has been left shattered following 14 years of mismanagement, and single-year settlements have left councils not knowing from one year to the next how much money they have to spend, so we will have to introduce multi-year settlements. There is a great deal of work to do, and we cannot repair 14 years of damage in three months, but we are well on the way to it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Let me first draw attention to my declared interest as a trustee of Fields in Trust.
In the last Parliament, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee received a large amount of evidence concerning the importance of well-designed open spaces for children and young people, but the national planning policy framework mentions them once and mentions bats twice. Is it not about time we got our priorities right, and did more to improve the design of—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just a minute, please! One of us will have to give way.
The hon. Gentleman is one of the most senior Members of Parliament. He should be looking at me when he is asking a question, not at the Minister. Come on, Clive: I am better-looking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
The national planning policy guidance will recognise the importance of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sports, physical activity, health and wellbeing in our communities. Our proposals to release grey-belt land for development will depend on developers’ meeting one of the “golden rules” and ensuring that all new developments have accessible green space.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Alex Norris
Through Project Gigabit we have a commitment to level up all communities in the United Kingdom, and through the welcome work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister we have a commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Administrations. Hopefully, by putting those two together, we will be able to make significant progress.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for everything that she is doing to tackle Islamo-phobia. This anti-Muslim discourse is a scourge on our communities in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. Will she join me in celebrating the work of local volunteers, churches, mosques, Lancashire police and others who organised Burnley’s “Diversity Picnic—Bubbles in the Park”, and who worked so successfully in averting potential disturbances over the summer?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I cannot wait to join him at Bubbles in the Park on a future date, as Burnley is not that far away from my constituency. He is absolutely right to celebrate the work of volunteers in communities and public servants, who give their time and energy to strengthen our local areas and bring people together.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the question. Of course, I would be very happy to have a meeting. I point the hon. Gentleman towards the very helpful innovation of high street rental auctions at the back end of this year, which will give local authorities the tools to bring into use vacant units and to make sure that developers know that they must use them or let somebody else do so.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The planned increase in housing supply is crucial, as we all know, but my residents in West Lancashire are concerned about access to services. Can the Secretary of State tell us what she is doing to ensure that the increase in housing supply is met with the relevant infrastructure and access to services?
Matthew Pennycook
It is incredibly important that the relevant infrastructure, amenities and services are in place. We have taken a number of steps to better support that in the short period we have been in office, not least through the national planning policy framework, but there is more to be done in that area. I will keep it under very close review.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the merits of reforming the planning system to introduce new measures to help reduce flood risk?
Matthew Pennycook
The national planning policy framework is very clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. We consulted in the national planning policy framework consultation and sought views on how the planning system can more effectively manage flood risk. As I say, my Department is analysing responses, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know the financial difficulties facing so many of our local authorities. A recent Local Government Association report shows that one in four local authorities will apply for additional funding. It is fair to say that, for a number of them, March will be too late. What discussions have been had with the Chancellor to ensure that our local authorities get emergency support?
Jim McMahon
May I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee to her place? She will do an outstanding job for local government and housing.
The Government absolutely understand how difficult it is for local authorities to make ends meet. We understand that the pressures in adult social care, children’s social services and temporary accommodation are biting hard, and we are working through those issues with the sector.
Speaker's Statement
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before the next business, I have a short statement to make. In media interviews last week, the Chancellor announced that she intended to introduce changes to the fiscal rules relating to the funding of day- to-day spending through tax receipts, and to the measurement of public debt. These are major new policy announcements, with significant and wide-ranging implications for the Government’s fiscal policy and for the public finances. It is evident to me that they should therefore have been made in this House in the first instance, and not to the world’s media. This principle is clearly and unambiguously set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code. While this can hardly be described as a leak—the Chancellor herself gave interviews on the record, and on camera—the premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget has always been regarded as a supreme discourtesy to the House; indeed, I still regard it as such.
I am very disappointed that the Chancellor expects the House to wait nearly a full week to hear her repeat the announcements in the Budget statement on Wednesday. I have always defended the undoubted right of this House, including the Opposition parties and Back Benchers in all parts of the House, to be the first to hear major Government policy announcements. When such announcements are made, Ministers should expect to face proper, sustained scrutiny from the elected Members of this House, not American news channels. I can assure the Government that that is still my firm view, and that I will use the powers I have to make sure the House is able to hold Ministers to account.
I am glad that there will be a statement later on fiscal rules—perhaps that is no coincidence. Hon. Members may be wondering how they will get a seat on Wednesday, but to be quite honest, the way it is going, they will not need one, as we will have heard it all already. This is not acceptable, and I do not want it to continue. I want this House—Government and Opposition—to be treated with the respect it deserves. It is totally unacceptable to go around the world telling everyone rather than Members of this House. They were elected by the constituents of this country and they deserve to be treated better. When the Conservatives were the Government, it was Labour complaining to me. Get your acts together, on all sides, and treat Members with respect.
China: Human Rights and Sanctions
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that the case of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash is sub judice and no reference should be made to it in the House.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to China, on China’s reported human rights abuses in Xinjiang, on the case of Jimmy Lai and on sanctions on British parliamentarians.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. On China, this Government are clear that the UK’s national interests will always come first. Pragmatic engagement matters, not only to co-operate on shared challenges but to make progress in areas where we disagree. On my visit I made it clear that Chinese companies must stop supplying equipment to Russia that is being used in Ukraine. I also highlighted North Korean recklessness in stepping up its support for Putin—a threat to European security and stability in the Korean peninsula. I was robust on human rights, including in Xinjiang. I raised our serious concerns—which the right hon. Gentleman has also raised on many occasions—about the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of British national Jimmy Lai. I called on Beijing to lift its unwarranted sanctions against parliamentarians, including the right hon. Gentleman. This was a matter that I raised with you, Mr Speaker, before attending. I raised Taiwan, and warned that cyber-activity or interference in our democracy is unacceptable and will always be met by a strong response.
I also covered areas of mutual interest. China is the world’s biggest emitter, so we need to co-operate on the global green transition. It is also the world’s second-largest economy, and our trade with China is worth almost £100 billion. China has the second- largest number of AI unicorns of any country worldwide. Like the last Government, we will work with China to create rules to keep the public safe. This is grown-up diplomacy. After 14 years of inconsistency under the Conservatives, this Government will set a long-term, consistent and strategic approach to China. With Foreign Minister Wang Yi, I agreed to maintain channels of communication at ministerial level. This brings us up to speed with the United States, whose Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary have both made two visits in the past 18 months, as well as with partners including Australia, France and Germany. This Government are currently carrying out a China audit to improve our response to the challenges and opportunities that China presents to the UK. Once it is completed, I will gladly update the House again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. China is even now carrying out military exercises threatening Taiwan and threatening to blockade it, which would damage all our economies, yet I see in the Foreign Office’s readout after the visit to China that there was absolutely no discussion of that issue. Why not? On human rights in Xinjiang, the House of Commons, including the Labour party in opposition, voted that genocide was taking place in Xinjiang, yet the Foreign Office readout simply said: “Human rights were discussed”. This is a genocide taking place, with slave labour. Why is there not more robust condemnation from the Government to China?
In Jimmy Lai’s case, he is a British citizen and a prisoner in Hong Kong for committing no crime whatever. Did the Foreign Secretary not only call for his release, as he just said, but demand full consular rights of access? On sanctions on British parliamentarians, the week before last, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Secretary would tell the Chinese Government to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians. The Prime Minister said that he would. However, I see from the Foreign Office read-out that the Foreign Secretary did not even raise that, let alone call on the Chinese Government to lift those sanctions. Given your brave support, Mr Speaker, for those of us who are sanctioned, I simply ask why the Government cannot follow suit and demand that from the Chinese?
I have just heard—this is my final point—that there is a move in the Foreign Office to lift British sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the brutal genocide in Xinjiang as a deal to lift the sanctions on parliamentarians here. I must tell the Foreign Secretary that I, for one, would never accept such a shameful deal at any price, and I hope that he will stamp on that straightaway. Will he make it clear what our real position is on what is becoming a clear and massive threat to our freedoms?
Mr Lammy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his interest in my travels, but I have to correct him on a few points. I did, of course, raise Xinjiang in the context of human rights. I absolutely raised, as I assured you, Mr Speaker, that I would, the position of parliamentarians—of course I did—not just with the Foreign Minister but with the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Chinese Communist party. I raised that as a matter of huge concern. I also raised the threats and aggression that we are now seeing in the South China sea. Jimmy Lai, I raised; Members of this House, I raised; Xinjiang, I raised; Hong Kong, I raised. It would be totally unacceptable for any UK Foreign Minister to go to China and not raise those issues of tremendous concern.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Government bounced around on China. They had a golden era—he was part of the Government who had that golden era and were drinking pints with President Xi. A former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were found to be lobbying on behalf of Chinese belt-and-road initiatives, so I am not going to take any lessons from the Opposition on how to handle China.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has rightly outlined the complex nature of our relationship with China. May I add to the long list the tension in the strait of Taiwan and the effect that that is likely to have on international trade if it goes wrong? The fact that the relationship is complicated, however, does not mean that we should not get clarity. That is important not just for Members of the House but for others, whether they are promoting British exports overseas or are human rights campaigners such as Sebastien Lai, whom I met last week, or are British representatives in Mongolia. We need clarity in our approach to China, so we urgently need to know when the China audit will be completed. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when that is likely to happen, and will he also commit to appearing before my Committee to answer questions about it?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, I will appear before my right hon. Friend’s Committee, whenever she commands, to answer questions. She is absolutely right—the issues in the Taiwan strait are very serious. I raised those issues in China, and also in Indonesia and in Korea. We need a consistent approach to China, which is why we are doing the audit. It is my hope that it will be complete early next year.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to update the House following his visit to China. I want to press him on what the visit achieved because, comparing the read-outs, I would be forgiven for thinking that two very separate visits took place. The Opposition understand the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the Foreign Secretary inherited from our Government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this Government had concluded their so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further?
On the Conservative Benches, it looks as if the Foreign Secretary rushed into engagement without a plan. Concerningly, in a fundamental breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign, he was willing to pressure parliamentarians into cancelling the visit of former President Tsai of Taiwan the week before his trip. Unlike in an autocratic state, the Government do not tell Members of Parliament who they can or cannot meet. Indeed, the Conservative Government told the CCP on multiple occasions that, no, it could not shut me and other Members up, despite its requests.
We are told that the Foreign Secretary raised British citizen Jimmy Lai’s sham detention. Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary still has not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting. Will the Foreign Secretary now meet Sebastien to update him on his father’s prospects? And will he share with us the outcomes of his visit?
Will Jimmy Lai now be released? Will the Chinese Communist party now step back from its human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet? Will sanctions on MPs now be lifted? Will the Chinese Communist party now refrain from actions to support Russia’s war machine and the intimidation of Taiwan? Will the transnational oppression of Hongkongers and Uyghurs now end? Which of those objectives did the Foreign Secretary achieve thanks to his visit?
It is easy to say that the visit was a reset in relations but, as we all know, in every relationship there are givers and takers. Has the Foreign Secretary not simply proved that he gave and they took?
Mr Lammy
Really? That was quite bad.
The leader and the Foreign Minister of the United States have had eight engagements with China, France has had six, Germany has had four, Japan has had three, and Canada has had two. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) went once. And the hon. Lady asks me what I have achieved! I will go again and again to get outcomes in the UK’s national interest. The hon. Lady would expect nothing less.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the various global challenges we face, I fully appreciate that strategic dialogue with China is in our national interest. In the light of the persecution and diabolical treatment of Uyghur Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Falun Gong followers and pro-democracy Hongkongers, to name but a few, it is, however, important that human rights concerns are raised. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he raised those human rights concerns forthrightly with his Chinese counterparts?
Mr Lammy
I assure my hon. Friend that I raised those issues robustly. There was disagreement across the table on what the Chinese Government maintain that they are doing, particularly in Xinjiang and in relation to minorities—Mr Wang Yi suggested that I was “confused” in my account of the treatment of minorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will, however, continue to raise these issues robustly and to hold the Chinese Government to account.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We remain deeply concerned by Beijing’s abuse of human rights and disregard for international law. Too often, the previous Government pursued trade links instead of acting on these concerns. Will this Government now do the right thing and recognise that the crimes perpetrated against the Uyghurs amount to the crime of genocide?
China is not listening to the UK on Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai remains in prison, and the police have offered bounties in relation to pro-democracy activists. Will the Foreign Secretary now put actions on the table, including reviewing our position on Hong Kong’s autonomy and whether it should continue to receive preferential customs status? Can he assure the House that Hongkongers who have sought refuge in the UK are receiving proper protection?
Finally, given that Taiwan is a democratic ally, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that his Department played no part in preventing Parliament from hosting former President Tsai?
Mr Lammy
I do not recognise what was suggested in relation to Taiwan.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government and will remain so. We continue to press for consular access to Jimmy Lai and for his release. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong attended his court proceedings on a regular basis, to keep abreast of what is taking place.
On Taiwan, our position remains the same. In all our engagements with the Chinese Government, we will continue to challenge them robustly on all these issues. He suggests that the last Government put trade first. We will not be putting trade first, but there are clearly areas where we can and should co-operate with China, as well as areas where we will challenge China, as we must.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am honoured to have met Sebastien Lai and his legal team, who are fighting for the release of his father, Jimmy Lai. Jimmy is 76 and a diabetic, and there are serious concerns about his ill health in solitary confinement. Jimmy is a man of faith. He is a Roman Catholic who is being denied Holy Communion—how very cruel that is at his stage of life and in his condition. His crime is standing up for freedom and democracy. Sebastien has been doing all he can, but he needs assistance and respectfully requests that senior figures in Government get his father, a British citizen, released. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to meeting Jimmy Lai’s family and will he ask the Chancellor to do the same, ahead of her visit to China next year?
Mr Lammy
Of course I will commit to meeting Sebastien and his family. When I raised the issue of Jimmy Lai, I pointed to his age and the fact that it would be an abomination if he died in prison. I assure my hon. Friend that that issue was raised.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Mr Speaker, as one of the parliamentarians who has been sanctioned by the Chinese regime, I thank you for your ongoing advocacy on our behalf. Let us never forget that the Chinese regime were literally spying on us as Members of this House. In Opposition, the Labour party said there was “clear and compelling evidence” of a genocide in Xinjiang. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is the Foreign Secretary, is he prepared to repeat that statement? Does he still believe there is “clear and compelling evidence” of a genocide in Xinjiang or has he changed his mind?
Mr Lammy
I remain hugely concerned about the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it must always rightfully be a matter for the International Criminal Court and others to make a determination of “genocide”, not for national government.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Following his recent visit to China, the Foreign Secretary also met with our partners in South Korea. Does he share my concern about reports of North Korean troops taking part in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and did he raise that?
Mr Lammy
I went up to the demilitarised zone to see for myself some of the harassment that South Korea receives on a daily basis from North Korea, and of course I raised the issue in China and with the South Korean President himself. There is huge concern about this development, which is escalatory in nature and must command a response in the coming days.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
Given the unprecedented threat that China poses to UK national security, and indeed global security, and the “clear and compelling evidence”, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), of genocide in Xinjiang, which the Foreign Secretary is strangely shy about condemning these days, why have the Government delayed the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme, a vital transparency measure that the Conservative party introduced when in government?
Mr Lammy
That scheme is important. It is hugely important that countries of concern do not have undue influence, in relation to our national security, on business and industry. We will come forward with our plans in due course.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Much like Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, British-Egyptian writer and pro-democracy activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah remains unlawfully detained in Egypt, and still has not been granted access to British consular officials, despite the British Government raising the case at the highest levels. His mother Laila is now on hunger strike against his continued imprisonment. In November 2022, the Foreign Secretary called on the then British Government to take more direct action to bring Alaa home, recognising the UK Government’s responsibility to protect citizens from arbitrary detention and human rights abuses abroad. Since coming to office, what have the Foreign Secretary and the Government done to follow through on what he once promised and to bring Alaa home?
Mr Speaker
Order. The urgent question was purely about Hong Kong. I know that there is a slight connection.
Mr Speaker
Yes, but I judge the similarity, not your good self. If the Foreign Secretary wishes to take it, fine. If he does not, I understand.
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Lady that I met with Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family just a few weeks ago, and I raised the issue once again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in a subsequent call.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like every Member, in my constituency I receive hundreds of representations from Hongkongers in this country who are concerned about their own safety—I have experience of it myself: I was filmed by a drone while speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh—but they are also concerned about their families at home. What assurances can the Foreign Secretary give us about the safety of Hongkongers in this country, and more importantly about plugging the gaps in the British national overseas scheme?
Mr Lammy
The national security law is of great concern, which is why I raised it with the Foreign Minister. Of course Hong Kong nationals should be assured of their safety in this country. Our police and security services keep these things under close scrutiny.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that on his recent visit to the Indo-Pacific he raised the UK’s continued commitment to AUKUS and to general engagement on security in the region?
Mr Lammy
Absolutely. We are 100% committed to AUKUS, and the development of pillar 2 particularly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As I believe the Foreign Secretary is an honest man, I am perfectly prepared to accept that he raised these matters of human rights as forcefully as he says he did, so there must be something wrong with the Foreign Office’s reporting, because that forcefulness does not find its way into its account of the visit. Is one reason why his officials are reluctant to relay what really happened the fact that we are overdependent on China, and has he made an assessment of what would happen in terms of our dependence on China were, heaven forbid, a conflict to break out over Taiwan?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise dependency. One thing that the China audit will look at is that very issue, and the assessment that he refers to is being made not just by us, but by our closest allies.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the sanctions imposed on democratically elected Members of this House are wholly unacceptable, and what discussions did he have with Chinese counterparts to that effect?
Mr Lammy
I told Wang Yi, the Foreign Minister, that it was not just unacceptable but counterproductive and that it needed to end. Those were my exact words.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Of course we were all pleased to hear both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister describe the release of Jimmy Lai as a priority. In the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart, what priority was given to the release of Jimmy Lai, and given its priority status when does the Foreign Secretary expect us to see measurable progress being made on Jimmy Lai’s release, and what will that progress look like?
Mr Lammy
“Progress” is Jimmy Lai’s release; that is the position of the UK Government. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that will be, because we are not holding him; the Chinese are holding him. We continue to say that he should be released—that is our position.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is a travesty that Jimmy Lai remains detained, and that he should be released immediately to return to his family?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for actually coming to the House on this occasion, but does that not underline the fact that he should have volunteered a statement, rather than being forced to the Dispatch Box by an urgent question? Having listened to these exchanges, are Members of the House not still entitled to ask what exactly the Government’s overall strategic policy is towards China—given, for example, the huge build-up of nuclear weapons that China is funding, developing and building? Will he bring to the House a proper and full statement, or even a White Paper, that sets out that strategy once and for all? Let me just reassure him that I am one of the many Conservative colleagues who were open-mouthed in astonishment when we announced that we were going to have a golden era with that communist dictatorship, and I never had anything to do with it.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right: we must have a consistent, sustained position on China. That is why we are undertaking a China audit, and I will of course update the House when it is complete.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his update, his constructive tone and his defence of human rights in the region. Is the audit Government-wide, and will it only consider the situation now or look into future scenarios as well?
Mr Lammy
It was important, when we came into government, given the bouncing around that we saw in the last Government’s policy towards China, that we did a complete audit, right across Whitehall, of our interests and the opportunities, as well as of the challenges and security concerns, so that we could maintain a consistent position. Before that audit is complete, we are being guided, as I have said, by the three Cs: there are areas in which we co-operate, areas in which we compete, and there must be areas, as has come up this afternoon, in which we challenge.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
In the Foreign Secretary’s self-declaredly “robust” conversations with the Chinese Government, did he give a time limit for lifting sanctions on British politicians, including Members of this House, and did he outline the consequences if that were not met? Or were his talks just chat, and not robust?
Mr Lammy
I did not give a timeline. I simply said that the sanctions should be lifted, and explained why it was just wrong and counterproductive to sanction Members of a democratic Chamber like this. That was my position, and I defend it; I think that was the right thing to say. I raised the issue with Mr Speaker before leaving, just to be absolutely clear on the current status. Although one cannot be entirely sure that what one is conveying is going in and is properly understood, I did detect that Wang Yi recognised that this was a big issue between our two countries.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the Foreign Secretary coming here to make much clearer our views on China, and particularly human rights abuses there. People from Hong Kong living in Milton Keynes are still fearful of intimidation and concerned about China’s influence on some of our universities. What assessment has he made of that, and how will he proceed with the Chinese Government to ensure that those influences stop?
Mr Lammy
Coercion and threats are unacceptable; we have made that clear to the Chinese Government, and I made it clear again. My hon. Friend’s constituents should be reassured that the police and security services monitor these issues very closely, but I hope that in time, I might be able to meet some of her constituents to fully understand their concerns.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Over the last few weeks, I have met a number of Hong Kong advocacy groups, who have outlined how withholding BNO visa holders’ access to mandatory provident fund accounts and the launch of a volunteer recruitment scheme by the Chinese embassy are spreading fear of creeping Chinese influence on our streets. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Chinese Government on ending transnational repression of Hongkongers in my constituency and across the country?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, I raised the issue of the national security law and our long-standing concerns about Hong Kong—concerns that will not go away, because of the UK’s unique relationship with that part of the world and many businesses and communities there. That was the way in which I raised those issues, and I think our concerns were understood.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that he will meet the family of Jimmy Lai, but does he agree that as China is the world’s largest emitter, we need to engage with China pragmatically as we work to tackle the climate crisis?
Mr Lammy
Yes. There is no way to reduce global temperatures without working with China to achieve that, so that was a big topic of discussion between our two countries in our meeting. As I said, I will go back, because it is important that we engage with China, just as our allies do. We cannot influence China if we step back and do not go there at all; that makes no sense.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Another topic that did not seem to make it into the Foreign Office read-out on the Foreign Secretary’s meeting is Taiwan, but I think he confirmed in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that that topic was discussed. Could he specify a little more clearly what he said, and was he clearer about the UK’s red lines on Taiwan?
Mr Lammy
I specifically discussed the aggression that we are seeing in the Taiwan straits, and I maintained our long-standing position on Taiwan. We are very concerned about an escalatory pattern of behaviour, and of course I raised those concerns in a robust manner.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
York Outer has a vibrant community of Hongkongers who want to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will raise the issue of Jimmy Lai every single time he meets Chinese officials, until he is safely released?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that that is the case. He can sense the strength of feeling on the issue in the Chamber; so many Members from across the House have spoken of Jimmy Lai today. That is why every UK Minister who engages with China will raise Jimmy Lai’s case.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic about giving trillions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money in reparations for slavery that occurred hundreds of years ago. However, when it comes to modern-day slavery in China, despite what he states was said privately, all we get publicly is a mealy-mouthed press release—a read-out from the Foreign Office that does not even mention the issue specifically. Why is that? Is it because the Government realise that we are now dependent on China for many things, including the delivery of the net zero policy? China controls 70% of the rare earth metals that we will need to deliver renewable energy. We have left ourselves open to that kind of blackmail, and now we cannot speak up against human rights abuses.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has a point. This Government have been in power for three months, and we have a lot to clear up, given the mess that was left to us—he is right about that. That work begins with the China audit.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that when it comes to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is vital to co-ordinate rules globally, including with China, to protect British people and our technological infrastructure?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The obstruction of the supply of Taiwanese semiconductors poses an existential threat to the UK economy and our whole way of life. Did the Foreign Secretary come away from his visit reassured that our supply chains are likely to be safe for the foreseeable future? If not, what will he do to mitigate that threat by growing our indigenous capacity?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that Members should look at me when they are asking questions, not at the Foreign Secretary, as tempting as that is? I want questions to be done in the third person, to keep things calm.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. That point is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is engaged on an industrial policy as we speak, and why the debate must go on about friendshoring and how we work with partners—to make sure that we have access to not just semiconductors, but rare earth minerals, and can work on issues that are critical to our security. We must do far more than was achieved under the last Government.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Foreign Secretary for making it clear that Jimmy Lai’s release is a priority, and I join hon. Members in saying that the issue is urgent, not just because of his failing health, but because once the trial restarts on 20 November, it will be more difficult to bring the situation to a positive conclusion. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the need for a consistent strategy towards China—consistent not just from him, but from the whole of Government. China reacts to naked economic self-interest, so can he make sure that the matter is raised across Government—by the Business Secretary on issues of trade, by the Net Zero Secretary on issues of green energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) mentioned, and by the Education Secretary when it comes to education, so that we appeal to that self-interest?
Mr Lammy
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—there has to be a cross-Government approach. It is not just for the Foreign Secretary to engage; other Ministers have to engage with their counterparts, mindful of the three Cs: there will be many areas in which we will co-operate, but there are areas where we compete and areas where we have to challenge. We can do that only if we go there and engage, which is why the United States, France, Australia, Japan, Italy and Canada have made so many more visits than us.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary gave a comprehensive list of the matters that he raised, and he hinted at the reaction when he raised them, but he has not told us that anything will change as a result of the discussions. I will give him a chance to do that: what will happen to the plight of the Uyghur Muslims as a result of his visit?
Mr Lammy
The Uyghur Muslims were being horrendously treated, persecuted and pursued during the 14 years of the last Government, so it is crass to suggest that after three months, we could simply achieve a different result. Diplomacy is about constantly engaging to bring about a result, and that is what I will continue to do.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
In May, the director of GCHQ said:
“We want to engage with China where it’s mutually beneficial”,
but that
“China poses a genuine and increasing”
risk to the UK’s cyber-security. Does the Foreign Secretary think that GCHQ has the resources it needs to protect us from Chinese cyber-attacks?
Mr Lammy
One of the most impressive parts of Government that I have seen in my three months in this job is the work of GCHQ. A fiscal event is about to happen, so I hesitate to talk about the finances available to GCHQ, but my hon. Friend can be absolutely sure that I have made the case for it, because it deserves the funds and does a great job to keep us all safe.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Ambiguity can sometimes be helpful in diplomacy, but it is less helpful when answering a direct question about the actions of the Government here at home. The Foreign Secretary has been somewhat evasive in answering some of the questions today, so let me ask just one of them again. Did any of his officials play any part in the decision to stop the visit by President Tsai, the former President of Taiwan—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
I do not recognise the caricature being put about on this at all. I really do not.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I have met many Ukrainian refugees who are being generously housed in my constituency, and they are extremely concerned about countries such as Iran and North Korea providing matériel support to Putin’s war machine. Can the Foreign Secretary agree with me that China and Chinese companies should not provide any support to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I can. This was a very serious issue that I put to the Foreign Minister. We have evidence that Chinese parts with dual use capability are turning up in Russia, and they are taking lives in Ukraine, which is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that the Chinese denied this, but we have the evidence and we put it on the table.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK will not seek to resume the economic and financial dialogue that was paused after the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, given that more than 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine come from China?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member again raises this serious issue in the House. It is entirely unacceptable and we will continue to engage on it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned how he raised with the Government in Beijing the Russian human rights abuses in Ukraine carried out during Russia’s aggression. A Chinese delegation was absent from the peace conference in Switzerland, yet President Xi was present in Russia at the BRICS summit last week. When the Foreign Secretary raised with Chinese counterparts these Russian human rights abuses, what was the response?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that the Chinese denied it, but we were able to supply some evidence to back up our claims for them to reflect on, and we will re-engage to see what conclusions they come to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can I emphasise to the Secretary of State how important it is to have the right answers to these questions? As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I have raised the issue of human rights abuses repeatedly in this House, including at business questions every Thursday, with the former Government, so I welcome this new Government and, with them, a new approach to our international obligations. How will the Secretary of State use any and every weapon in our arsenal to secure help for the Uyghur Muslims, for Jimmy Lai—he is a practising Roman Catholic, and he is being denied the eucharist, but it is his right to have his own religious belief —and for the Christians, Falun Gong and other ethnic groups in China, and when will this begin in earnest?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to combine those issues, and also to encourage me to mention not just our bilateral engagement with China, but our co-ordinated work with our allies to engage with China. It is the case, I think, particularly with our G7 allies, that there is more we can do.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, I would just say that we did have a meeting—he is absolutely correct—about the situation facing some Members of this House. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sanctions are lifted, and that was part of the conversation.
Middle East
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. After over a year of horrifying violence, civilian suffering has increased, the conflict has widened, the risks of a yet wider regional war have risen. Today, I want to address three elements of this crisis and outline the urgent steps that the Government are taking in response.
I will first consider events over the weekend. Targeted Israeli strikes hit military sites inside Iran, including a missile manufacturer and an air defence base. This was in response to Iran’s escalatory ballistic missile attacks on Israel, which have been condemned across the House. These attacks were the latest in a long history of malign Iranian activity, including its nuclear programme, with its total enriched uranium stockpile now reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be 30 times the joint comprehensive plan of action limit, and political, financial and military support for militias, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Let me be clear: the Government unequivocally condemn Iranian attacks on Israel. This Government have imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and organisations responsible for malign activity, most recently on 14 October, and we have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian attacks and attacks by Iranian-backed terrorists, whose goal is the complete eradication of the Israeli state. We do not mourn the deaths of the heads of proscribed terrorist organisations.
The priority now is immediate de-escalation. Iran should not respond. All sides must exercise restraint. We do not wish to see the cycle of violence intensifying, dragging the whole region into a war with severe consequences. Escalation is in no one’s interest, as it risks spreading the regional conflict further. We and our partners have been passing this message clearly and consistently. Yesterday, I spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and Israeli Foreign Minister Katz and urged both countries to show restraint and avoid further regional escalation.
Let me turn to the devastating situation in northern Gaza, where the United Nations estimates that over 400,000 Palestinian civilians remain. Access to essential services worsens by the day, yet still very little aid is being allowed in. Israel’s evacuation order in the north has displaced tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, driven from destruction, disease, and despair to destruction, disease and despair. Nine in 10 Gazans have been displaced since the war began. Some have had to flee more than 10 times in the past year. What must parents say to their children? How can they explain this living nightmare? How can they reassure that it will end?
There is no excuse for the Israeli Government’s ongoing restrictions on humanitarian assistance; they must let more aid in now. Aid is backed up at Gaza’s borders, in many cases funded by the UK and our partners but now stuck out of reach of those who need it so desperately. These restrictions fly in the face of Israel’s public commitments. They risk violating international humanit-arian law. They are a rebuke to every friend of Israel, who month after month have demanded action to address the catastrophic conditions facing Palestinian civilians. So let me be clear once again: this Government condemn these restrictions in the strongest terms.
Since our first day in office, the Government have led efforts to bring this nightmare to an end. We have announced funding for UK-Med’s efforts to provide medical treatment in Gaza, for UNICEF’s work to support vulnerable families in Gaza, and for Egyptian health facilities treating medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. We are matching donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal. Together with France and Algeria, we called an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address the dire situation. We have sanctioned extremist settlers, making it clear that their actions do not serve the real interests of either Israel or the region.
We have moved quickly to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, over- turning the position of the last Government. We did that to support UNRWA’s indispensable role in assisting Palestinians, and to enable it to implement the recommendations of the independent Colonna report. All over the world, in every war zone, in every refugee camp, the United Nations is a beacon of hope, so it is a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. The allegations against UNRWA staff earlier this year were fully investigated and offer no jurisdiction for cutting off ties with UNRWA. This weekend, we therefore joined partners in expressing concern at the Knesset’s legislation and urging Israel to ensure that UNRWA’s lifesaving work continues. We call on UNRWA to continue its path to reform, demonstrating its commitment to the principle of neutrality.
Finally, I will cover the conflict in Lebanon, a country that has endured so much in my lifetime and now sees fighting escalate once again, killing many civilians and forcing hundreds of thousands from their homes, while in northern Israel, communities live in fear of Hezbollah attacks and are unable to return home. Here, too, the Government have led efforts to respond. Our swift call for an immediate ceasefire was taken up by our partners in the United Nations Security Council. The Defence Secretary and I have visited Lebanon, where Britain’s ongoing support for the Lebanese armed forces is widely recognised as an investment in a sovereign and effective Lebanese state. At the start of October, I announced £10 million for the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. Last week, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced further funding for the most vulnerable among those fleeing from Lebanon into Syria, while the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), joined the Lebanon support conference in Paris. Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet Prime Minister Mikati to reassure him of our support.
Across the region, our priorities are clear: de-escalation, humanitarian assistance, immediate ceasefires, upholding international law, and political solutions. This is how we save lives, how we liberate hostages, such as British national Emily Damari, and how we pull the region back from the brink. The Government have stepped up our diplomatic engagement to that end. The Prime Minister has spoken directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to President Pezeshkian, while I have made five visits to the region in just four months and held around 50 calls and meetings with Ministers and leaders in the region. I spoke this weekend to US Secretary Blinken, just back from the region.
It is a source of deep frustration that those efforts have not yet succeeded. We have no illusions about the deep-seated divisions in this region—a region scarred by fighting and false dawns in the past—but it is never too late for peace, and never too late for hope. This Government will not give up on the people of the region. We will keep playing our part in achieving a lasting solution, so that one day they might all live side-by-side in peace and security. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and may I also thank the Foreign Office for its significant help with my visit to Ukraine at the end of last week?
Israel’s response to the attack launched by Iran earlier this month has rightly been described as proportionate. Israel has the right to defend itself, and it has done so in a precise and targeted way. The statement by the Israel Defence Forces that it was “mission accomplished” offers hope that the operation might mark the end of the latest trading of hostilities. Whether and how the Iranians respond remains to be seen, but the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that the
“bitter consequences will be unimaginable”
for Israel.
The situation remains dangerously uncertain. We join the Government in urging restraint. The onus must surely now be on Iran to desist from any retaliatory action that will pull the region further up the ladder of escalation. Above all, we must now use Britain’s undoubted international connections, experience, responsibility and clout to lift people’s eyes to the day after, in the hope that we can build on the Abraham accords and move towards the two-state solution that Palestinians and Israelis deserve. That must be the immutable end of these appalling circumstances and events.
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his other counterparts in the region to encourage cool heads to prevail? That also applies to Lebanon. Iran’s direct missile attacks on Israel are but one front in its campaign against the Jewish state, which we know it is intent on wiping off the face of the earth. Iran’s continuing funding for and support of its Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon and Hamas proxies in Gaza show what a scourge the IRGC is and how far its tentacles have spread. Hezbollah and Hamas are a cancer in the areas where they operate. Israel has every right to defend itself against evil terrorists, who are not interested in compromise or in political solutions and who use the legitimate plight of Palestinians to justify barbarism.
In the face of such murderous assaults as the incessant rocket bombardment of northern Israel by Hezbollah, no country in the world—not a single one—would be expected to sit quietly. It is for that reason that, in respect of Lebanon, in particular, calls for a ceasefire are most unlikely to be heeded. Not only is Hezbollah violating every international law by lobbing rockets and missiles at Israeli towns and displacing tens of thousands of Israeli civilians; it is doing so in flagrant breach of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which clearly called for the withdrawal of Hezbollah and other forces from Lebanon south of the Litani, and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the retreat and dismantling of Hezbollah, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1701, must be a necessary precondition to end the war? What discussions has he had with our partners in the UN to achieve that?
Turning to Gaza, some 100 hostages remain in captivity, with the prospect of their release diminishing with every day that passes. The civilians in Gaza continue to pay a heavy price as a result of Hamas’s using them as human shields and total disregard for the safety and security of the civilian population. Over the weekend, in Kamal Adwan hospital in Jabalia, northern Gaza, Israel found stashes of weapons and money. A Gazan ambulance driver has confirmed that Hamas operatives embed themselves among civilians and even use ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons. In other words, Hamas use the infrastructure that is supposed to help civilians to advance the group’s terrorist agenda, leaving innocent people neglected and dangerously exposed.
We support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and hope that shortly we will see a similar appeal launched for Sudan, where people are in desperate danger of starvation this winter.
Surely it is time to face facts. Hamas must lay down their arms. Hamas must release the hostages. Once this happens, the war will end, aid can flood into Gaza unfettered, the Palestinian people can begin the long and difficult path to recovery, and we can start to lift the eyes of Israelis and Palestinians to the possibilities of political horizons, of two states, of peace.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of his remarks and for the cross-party support he gives to the Government in urging restraint and de-escalation in the region. I reassure him that I spoke with Secretary Blinken just two days ago about the context of the day after, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it; about the necessary security guarantees that Israel would rightly expect; and about how we work with Arab partners—Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others—to ensure that this ceasefire can hold and that the security guarantees and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza can properly begin.
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly talks about the DEC appeal for Gaza, which is now up, and I support what he said about Sudan, which must not be overlooked at this time.
I spoke to Foreign Minister Katz about the situation in Lebanon yesterday. He sought to reassure me that the targeted operation by the Israelis that is under way would come to an end shortly, as he put it. I confirmed, as I know the right hon. Gentleman would have, that we understand that it is important that Israelis who cannot be in their homes in northern Israel are able to move back. That can be the case only when Hezbollah has moved back beyond the Litani river, and resolution 1701 is properly implemented. We want to see that happen, and it is for that reason that we continue to support the Lebanese armed forces and the work of UNIFIL. We were very concerned to see UNIFIL workers attacked in the way that they were a few days ago. I also raised that with Foreign Minister Katz.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but thousands of my constituents in Battersea want an end to this violence and to Israel’s siege in northern Gaza, not to mention the violence in the west bank. Tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, no aid is getting in and hospitals are being targeted. Is it not time to move away from condemning and to take stronger action: suspend any trade negotiations with Israel, implement a complete arms sale ban and ensure that goods produced in settlements in the west bank are also banned? Israel is ignoring all the condemnation by this Government. We need strong action.
Mr Lammy
I understand the strength of feeling that my dear friend expresses in relation to this matter, and the way that she has championed these issues on behalf of her constituents. The humanitarian situation is dire. As we head to the winter, the prospect of it getting worse is hard to fathom. But I do not agree with her on a full arms embargo, and the reason was exemplified by the attacks from Iran that Israel suffered on 1 October. It would be quite wrong for us not to be prepared to support Israel in theatres of conflict beyond Gaza, notwithstanding our concerns on international humanitarian law. I am afraid I cannot agree with her on that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He has our full support in his efforts to engage with Iran and Israel to urge an end to the cycle of retaliatory violence. We continue to urge him to proscribe the IRGC. Can he confirm whether UK military assets and personnel played any part in Israel’s attack on Iran on Friday night?
The relationship between Israel and Palestine remains the key to reducing tensions and creating the conditions for peace. We support the Government’s stance on UNRWA, but as the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza continues to deteriorate and the level of violence in the west bank worsens, the Liberal Democrats hope that the Foreign Secretary might go further, offering more than words of condemnation. Following the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion this summer that the occupation is illegal, does he agree that introducing legislation to cease UK trade with illegal Israeli settlements is a practical way of upholding that judgment? Can he update the House on whether the letter to the Israeli Government, co-signed by the Chancellor, has resulted in a commitment to maintain financial correspondence between Israeli and Palestinian banks?
To signal commitment to a two-state solution, will the Government support the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) (No. 3) Bill tabled last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what recent update he has had from the Israeli Government on the prospect of the return of the hostages? They have been held in captivity by Hamas for more than a year. I know the whole House will agree that their return remains a priority.
Mr Lammy
No UK troops were involved in the action by Israel a few nights ago. The hon. Gentleman raises the IRGC. I reassure him that the Home Secretary is conducting a state threats review at this time and that the IRGC is kept in mind in relation to those concerns.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have sanctioned settlers since coming into office. I was on the west bank. I remain hugely concerned at the loss of life this year, the scale of the violence and the scale of the expansion, of which there has been more in this last year than we have seen in the last 20.
I am not able to support the Bill on recognition, but the hon. Gentleman will know that recognition was in the Labour manifesto and we are committed to it at the right time. I do not think that during the conflict is the right time, but we must work with partners to achieve it. It is not the end in itself. The end we want to see is a two-state solution. That is what we must all hold out for.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Members from across the House condemned and mourned the deaths of more than 1,200 Israelis as a result of the 7 October attacks, and we all demand the immediate release of all—almost 100—hostages still in Gaza. However, over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Tragically, that includes well over 10,000 children. Thousands more are feared dead under the rubble, given that more than 60% of Gazan structures have been bombed to rubble. How is that in any way proportionate? I appreciate that the incoming Labour Government have stopped the sale of all offensive weapons that could be used in the Gaza conflict. However, what further tangible steps can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government take to publicly condemn and call out the Netanyahu regime, and help bring these horrors to an end?
Mr Lammy
There is a lot that we are doing and trying to do to alleviate the humanitarian suffering. We provided additional funding for UK-Med, which I did within the first weeks in office. We match funded the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—that is £10 million to date. We are supporting Jordan, which wants to do airdrops, with its planning. We are doing everything we can to alleviate the suffering, but as my hon. Friend knows, the trucks are backed up. There is food sitting on the border that comes from the British taxpayer. It is that that is unacceptable. It is that that I raised again with Foreign Minister Katz and that we will continue to press on. The aid needs to get in now. He reassured me this weekend that it will. That was his reassurance. As we head into winter and the Knesset voting today on UNRWA, the urgency of the debate we are having in this House could not be more necessary.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office share my view that none of this dreadful cycle, which began on 7 October, would have happened but for Iran’s determination to derail the prospect of peace and recognition between Saudi Arabia and Israel? What assessment has the Department made of the possibility that one day the Iranian people will be able to free themselves of the terrible regime under which they suffer?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right: this story began on 7 October, and it is important for us to keep it in mind that Hamas is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, that Hezbollah is a proxy funded and supported by Iran, and that the Houthis, who are currently causing huge disruption in the Red sea, are also funded and supported by Iran. We should also keep it in mind that Iran is a regime that perpetrates all sort of atrocities on its own people. It suppresses freedom of speech, it suppresses women—the list goes on. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to place Iran at the centre, as the major threat to the region.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
On Saturday, the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator said:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
She also said:
“ What Israeli forces are doing in besieged North Gaza cannot be allowed to continue.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and what representations has he made to the Israeli Government to that effect?
Mr Lammy
I reminded the Israeli Government that 42,000 people have now been killed; that more than 90% of the population have been displaced, many of them repeatedly since 2023; that as we head towards winter we have been unable to ensure effective and safe distribution of aid across Gaza; that we need to increase the volumes of the types of goods that are reaching Gaza, and we must stop restricting the aid flows; and that there is a responsibility under international humanitarian law to protect a civilian population, to minimise harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, and to ensure that aid workers can go about their business free and unfettered.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the specific issue of Iran? We used to agree with each other on this matter a great deal when he was in opposition, so, if he does not mind, I will probe him a bit further.
Back in 2023, the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition rightly called for Iran not just to be sanctioned but to be ruled out legally when it came to any actions at all, with all actions and involvement with Iran made illegal: proscribed. I supported him at that time, and was not supportive of my own Government. Given all the billions that Iran has spent that could have gone towards health, building and quality of life but instead went towards tunnels, missiles and violence all over the region, is it not time, in the right hon. Gentleman’s mind, to follow through and, along with our allies, proscribe Iran completely, and to say that this must never happen again?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a serious issue. This is why the Home Secretary and I are looking far more closely at what it means to bear down on a state that is causing the activity that he has described, rather than a terrorist cell that is causing it. Most often when we are discussing these issues in the Chamber, we are talking about Hamas, Hezbollah or some terrorist cell, but in this instance we are talking about a state, which means that more complex issues come to bear, including, of course, our own presence in that state, and for those reasons we engaging in a more thorough examination.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will no doubt agree that third states, such as the UK, are obliged not to assist Israel in its annihilation of the Gazan people. Israel continues to target the cynically named “safe zones”—schools and hospitals—in its war of extermination. Although the UK has suspended 30 of 90 licences for the export of arms to the Israeli military, our continued participation in the F-35 global supply chain means that devastating 2,000-lb bombs continue to destroy human beings. The Foreign Secretary rightly asks what must parents say to their children, and how do they explain this living nightmare. Are they not right also to ask where were the international community when they needed them and why were all the levers available not used—to ban arms sales, to use the leverage of recognition of Palestine and to impose sanctions to concentrate minds?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will understand that we sell relatively few arms to Israel—I think they represent 1% of the total amount—and that much of what we send is defensive in nature. It is not what we describe routinely as arms, because the licensing regime is about controlled equipment, which is not always arms. However, we have suspended arms that could be used in Israel in contravention of humanitarian law. I made that decision, and I think it was the right decision. As I have said, we continue to do all we can to support the people of Gaza, and I am deeply sad that I and my predecessors have not been able to bring this crisis and war to an end. It saddens me greatly. My hon. Friend evokes my conscience; I believe that I am doing all I can, according to my conscience.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
If, as everybody expects, the Israeli Government ignore the pleadings of the Foreign Secretary and our allies, and proceed with the dismantling of UNRWA, making its job impossible, what will he do next? Will there be any consequence whatsoever for the Israeli Government?
Mr Lammy
When I raised this issue with Foreign Minister Katz yesterday, he was at pains to explain that, although the Knesset could pass its Bill today, that does not mean that it has to be implemented. We must hope that the Israeli Government do not implement this legislation, because it is not in their interests. It cannot be in their interests to prevent the only aid organisation in the region from working, because UNRWA provides not just healthcare but schools for young people, and it works not just in Gaza but in the occupied territories. It simply cannot be in the Israeli Government’s interests to do that, because they would then have to provide help themselves.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, and I strongly support the Government’s efforts to achieve a ceasefire, secure the release of the remaining hostages, and restart the negotiations for a two-state solution. I also welcome the Government’s decision several weeks ago to suspend a number of arms export licences to Israel where there was a risk that they would be used to violate international law. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is working hard to persuade our allies, particularly the United States, to adopt our position on arms exports to Israel, to ensure that no weapons are being exported from any country where there is a risk that they could be used to commit war crimes in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
We have one of the most robust export licensing regimes in the world. It is our legislation, so it is not the case that I have been proselytising to other countries to do what we have done. I did it because I believed that there was a clear risk that international humanitarian law was being breached in relation to our legislation. That is why I made the decision. It must be for others to reflect on their own laws and rules.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
After a weekend of relentless Israeli attacks on a besieged population in northern Gaza, the United Nations has demanded that
“such blatant disregard for basic humanity and for the laws of war must stop”,
adding that the “entire population” of northern Gaza is “at risk of dying”. Unless the Foreign Secretary believes that the UN is lying, exaggerating or embellishing the situation in northern Gaza, there can be no basis whatsoever for the UK to continue arms sales to Israel. Is the UN lying, exaggerating or embellishing the truth of what is going on in northern Gaza right now?
Mr Lammy
The UN is absolutely not embellishing what is, very sadly, going on in Gaza right now, and that is why the United Kingdom has suspended arms sales for use in Gaza.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Despite all the pleading, the Israeli Government ignore requests to allow aid into Gaza, ignore requests to stop the destruction of Gaza and ignore requests to stop settler violence in the west bank? I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the sanctions against the settlers and settler organisations engaged in that violence. Will he now extend the sanctions to members of the Israeli Government who have been promoting violence in the west bank? Also, does he agree that, if the Israeli Government carry out their restrictions on UNRWA in a formalised way, members of that Government who agree to that should be sanctioned for it? Otherwise, are we not just issuing empty threats and empty words that the Israelis ignore?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that I have condemned in no uncertain terms, both as shadow Foreign Secretary and as Foreign Secretary, some of the vile language that has been used by extremist elements within the Israeli Government. I heard the former Foreign Secretary on the radio talking about sanctions which could have been implemented that he chose not to implement. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am keeping those sanctions under review.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It has been a held belief across all Governments that a two-state solution is the only way to break the cycle of violence, but of course after Israel withdrew from Gaza, that pretty much led to what happened on 7 October. Can the Foreign Secretary use his office and the UK Government to lead discussions proactively, as a friend to Israel and a key member of the United Nations, on what security can be put in place in a two-state solution, using allies around, to ensure that Israel can have the confidence such a development will not be used as an attack platform to murder so many people once more?
Mr Lammy
We continue to hold out for that two-state solution, and it is definitely the case that Arab partners want to see that two-state solution. Among them, at this stage, Saudi Arabia is very important. I know that Israel would like to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is unlikely unless there is a road map to two states. We continue to work with all partners to keep two states alive, and of course, on the security concerns that Israel would need to be satisfied to bring that about.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The current situation in northern Gaza is dreadful. I welcome the leading role the Government have played in providing essential humanitarian relief to Gaza, including through support packages for UNRWA, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and others. Following discussions I had last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israeli restrictions on the flow of essential aid are completely unacceptable and should be lifted immediately?
Mr Lammy
Yes, 100%, and I made that point to Foreign Minister Katz yesterday. They are unacceptable and I condemn them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Over the past year, Israeli occupying forces have destroyed every facet of Palestinian life, targeting lives, homes, schools, universities, hospitals, mosques and even churches—in fact, enacting the exact words of Israel’s Defence Secretary’s to “eliminate everything”. Will the Foreign Secretary now look beyond his conscience and immediately cease the provision of military support to Israel, suspend all export licences and impose a two-way arms embargo so that no more children die?
Mr Lammy
I really accept the heartfelt way in which the hon. Gentleman put his question, but we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza in the way he described. That is what we have done. I stand by that decision.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The situation in northern Gaza is beyond desperate, with many reports of actions that have every appearance of aiming to empty the territory of its entire population. The UN humanitarian chief, Joyce Msuya, has warned that the entire population is at risk of dying. The strategy of the Israeli Government is intolerable, and has failed on its own terms, because the hostages have not been released, as we all want to see. Can the Foreign Secretary say what happens next? What further meaningful action are the Government planning to take to safeguard lives in northern Gaza and secure an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend evokes the hostages, which allows me to put on record our desire to see the UK hostage, Emily Damari, freed. I reassure my hon. Friend that last week at the UN Security Council we convened a meeting on humanitarian access. We issued a statement only yesterday with some colleagues from the G7, including Japan, Germany and South Korea, urging Israel to step back on the UNRWA decision.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is important to acknowledge that Israel is often first on the scene when there is a humanitarian crisis internationally, and is generous, even in countries that do not recognise it. However, it must do more to ensure that aid gets into Gaza. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is not good enough for a country such as ours simply to be generous, which it is? It must also ensure that its generosity is not diverted into the hands of proxies, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah?
Mr Lammy
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right about that. We make every effort to ensure that that is not the case. In this circumstance, for a war that has gone on for a year, for the human suffering that is visible in Gaza, for the many children who are out of school and walking around in squalor, it has always been the case that military effort alone would not bring this to an end—only politics can do that. I worry greatly about those young people growing up in the years ahead with vengeance in their heart and, very sadly, a repetition of what we have seen.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The United Nations acting Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator has released a statement in which she says:
“Hospitals have been hit and health workers have been detained. Shelters have been emptied and burned down. First responders have been prevented from saving people from under the rubble.”
Tens of thousands of people have been killed. That is a shocking and terrifying statement. Her statement goes on to say:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will use its role as chair of the UN Security Council in November to push for urgent progress on humanitarian access, the protection of civilians, freeing the hostages, and bringing to an end this terrible conflict?
Mr Lammy
I wish it were the case that this war would come to an end and that we would have a ceasefire before we chair the UN Security Council next month, but I fear that that may not be the case. I reassure my hon. Friend that I will go to New York myself to press the issues as she puts them.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Yair Golan is an Israeli politician who, only last month, attended the Labour party conference and had meetings with MPs, including photo opportunities with the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer).
Yair Golan is the same Israeli politician who, late last year, said in the Israeli press that starving people to death is “completely legitimate.” Given that the entire population of northern Gaza is on the brink of dying from famine, as repeatedly described both by Members here today and by the under-secretary-general of the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary sanction Yair Golan, in addition to his already stated aim of considering sanctions against Bezalel Smotrich for justifying the use of starvation against Palestinians as a weapon of war?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point effectively, and those issues are being kept under review.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Given that the Government have suspended only 30 of the 350 arms export licences, including for components critical to offensive F-35 fighter jets, without which Israel would be unable to conduct its genocidal assaults in Gaza and Lebanon, can the Foreign Secretary tell me how this exemption of offensive weaponry is consistent with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, including under the arms trade treaty? Have the Government engaged in discussions with the United States Government, Lockheed Martin and other F-35 partner countries on implementing the tracking and tracing of UK- manufactured F-35 components or spare parts that are destined for Israel but licensed for export to third countries?
Mr Lammy
I stand by our carve-out for F-35s, because there are other important theatres of conflict around the world that this House has discussed and will continue to discuss at length. I am not prepared to ground planes that are saving lives in other theatres, which is why we made this decision, and I stand by it. It was the right decision.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Today, as on other recent occasions, we have heard Labour Members suggest that Israel is somehow conducting a war of annihilation, extermination and genocide. Although we all accept that there is obviously much suffering in Gaza, this terminology is completely inappropriate and inaccurate, and it is repeated by the protesters and lawbreakers who are intimidating British Jews, as we saw again this weekend. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to say that there is not a genocide occurring in the middle east?
Mr Lammy
These are legal terms, and they must be determined by international courts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those terms were largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war. The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is very welcome. Given how we expect the Knesset to vote today to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for UNRWA to operate, with the consequence that humanitarian aid will not get into Gaza, is that not the point at which we have to consider serious sanctions against the proponents of such action?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks a very serious question. As I said earlier, Foreign Minister Katz was at pains to tell me that the Knesset enacting this decision does not necessarily mean that it will be implemented by the Israeli Government. Yes, the truth is that UNRWA being brought to its knees would be a very serious event indeed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Emily Damari was shot, abducted and is still in captivity. She is the last British hostage held in Gaza—she is literally on her own. I am sure the Foreign Secretary will join me in commending Mandy and her family for all their efforts to get Emily released. One positive move we could make would be during the visit by the high-level Qatari delegation that is due to arrive in a few weeks’ time. When we have such delegations, normally things are arranged in advance, so will the Foreign Secretary prevail on Qatari officials to do all they can to get Hamas to release the last British hostage and all the hostages who are held in captivity in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising Mandy and Emily Damari, who I keep in the front of my mind in everything I do in this arena to bring about a ceasefire. Mandy is an amazing woman. I am meeting with the Qataris again tomorrow, and of course I will raise the issue.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House. We have been calling for a ceasefire for some time, but innocent civilians continue to die and to be maimed in Gaza. The situation has got worse, not better. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that now is the time for us to do more and go further?
Mr Lammy
We continue to do more. The best way to do that is by working with our major allies. That is why we put out a statement just yesterday with our allies on the humanitarian situation, and on UNRWA particularly. When we chair the UN Security Council next month, I will continue to do as much as I can.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Naturally, the Foreign Secretary says that we need to prevent escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran but, as he says, that conflict is being driven by Iran, using a network of proxies in the Arab world. I have a genuine question for the Foreign Secretary: does he understand why Israel is increasingly thinking that it needs to go after the head of the octopus, rather than defending itself against the tentacles, or does he think that Israel should never take steps to deter Iran directly?
Mr Lammy
I say, with all seriousness, that I am pleased to have urged restraint on Israel in the last few weeks, and to have seen its measured response to Iran. On the scale of attacks it could have made on Iran, it rightly stuck to stockpiles and military sites, and did not progress to oil, gas and nuclear sites, which I believe would have been escalatory in nature.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
More than 400,000 people, over half of whom are women and children, are estimated by the UN to have been displaced from Lebanon into Syria since September, the majority of those having initially been displaced by the Syrian civil war. In 2013, I witnessed the dignified resilience of civilians fleeing the Syrian conflict in the Domiz refugee camp in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I recall that they were assisted by aid from the British Government and British NGOs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is providing additional support to women and girls fleeing the conflict in Lebanon, who are, as ever, paying the price of war?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that we are supporting those fleeing Lebanon into Syria at this time, and we recognise the fragile position that Syria is in, let alone what is now happening in Lebanon. My hon. Friend can definitely have that reassurance.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Earlier, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) quoted Joyce Msuya, the humanitarian chief of the UN, who says:
“The entire population of North Gaza is at risk of dying.”
This is on top of the 1,000 who died last week, on top of all those living in the most desperate situation in southern Gaza, and on top of the occupation of southern Lebanon, the bombing of southern Beirut, and now the dangers of a hot war between Iran and Israel. Is it not time that, instead of expressing concern about the humanitarian catastrophe in the region, we stop supplying Israel with the weapons that caused the humanitarian catastrophe in the first place, and suspend arms supplies in total to Israel in order to bring about a ceasefire and a cessation of this, frankly, murder of an innocent civilian population?
Mr Lammy
I know the strength of feeling that my neighbour in north London has on these issues, and his long-standing campaigning on them. I assure him that we are not just wringing our hands. The work of UK-Med in hospitals is hugely important, and I was very pleased to make further funds available to UK-Med upon coming into office. The work of the Disasters Emergency Committee in raising further funds, and the way in which the Government have match-funded that to the tune of £10 million, is hugely important. It was great to be in Jordan a few weeks ago, discussing with King Abdullah his airlifts into Jordan and the planning that he is getting from UK armed forces in organising those airlifts, and the air bridge that he has been keen to take forward.
These are actions—real things that we are doing, not just wringing of hands. When the right hon. Member describes the situation in Gaza, he largely describes much that I said in my statement. As I have said before, and will say again, we have suspended arms that could be used in contravention of international humanitarian law, where there is a clear risk according to our export licensing regime. He should be reassured that we have done that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Words are simply not enough to describe the devastation of Gaza, and the words of my right hon. Friend are not enough to open the borders to allow humanitarian aid to flow, or enough to stop the Israeli Government acting with impunity across Gaza. We think particularly of the north at this time, and the struggles that we hear about there. What is he doing to expedite the work of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and ensure that they have all the resources needed to speed up their work to call these criminals, who are exercising such devastation over Gaza, to account?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that I met with the chief prosecutor a few weeks ago. We continue to support the ICC. As she knows, we have been very clear on our support for the rule of law, and international humanitarian law particularly. Both the ICC and the ICJ should be able to go about their work unfettered by political intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and his tone, which should be admired. He rightly stated the precarious situation that the middle east teeters upon. While Iran has seemingly dialled back the rhetoric for now, how will he encourage the Iranians and, importantly, the IRGC to dial back on their actions, not simply against Israel but against their own people, who are on their knees, subject to brutal human rights abuses and persecution? In the face of this horrific regime, how can we help ordinary Iranians, and Israelis, to live a life free from war?
Mr Lammy
I have emphasised my conversation with the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday, but I should also emphasise my conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday. I talked to him about restraint, and our concerns in relation to the support for proxies, and I raised the nuclear question, and the snapback clause that comes into play next year if we are not able to progress, with E3 partners, our further conversations with Iran.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary knows, this is a critical time for the middle east. I think the House speaks as one with a message of ending the violence, releasing the hostages and getting aid in. The humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinian people will only be made worse if the Israeli Government carry out their threat to effectively shut down UNRWA. Although I welcome the Government’s utter condemnation and rejection of those plans, what reassurances can he give my constituents and the House that the Government will not only talk tough in the region but take action to protect lives if the Israeli Government persist with those plans?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise UNRWA. That is why the Government restored funding to UNRWA, it is why we gave it a further £21 million, and it is why £1 million of that funding was used to help it to implement Madame Colonna’s reforms. It would be a catastrophe to see the end of UNRWA—and it would be wholly counterproductive for Israel, by the way. The situation in the occupied territories is fragile as it is. To take away UNRWA would be catastrophic. For all those reasons, I have urged the Israeli Government to step back and not implement what has passed through the Knesset.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
A year ago, despite the undoubted challenges, there were early signs of improved relations between Israel, the Gulf states and others that were pressing Israel to move towards the two-state solution that we in this House would all like to see. The Iranian regime, however, through its own actions and those of its proxies, has succeeded in engulfing the region in chaos and conflict, causing many of the disasters we have heard about this afternoon. What is being done, in partnership with our Gulf state allies, to counter that activity and bring stability and the prospect of regional peace back to the area?
Mr Lammy
I was in Jordan a few weeks ago speaking with King Abdullah and my Jordanian counterpart about their air bridge proposal and the planning we have helped them with to ensure they can at least drop aid into Gaza. On the efforts to bring about a hostage and ceasefire deal, I have been speaking to the Qataris and the Egyptians, particularly given their relations with —or routes into—Hamas. We continue to speak to the Saudis and others in the region to try to bring about that peace. I have no doubt that Arab partners want to play a role in that peace, but they will be able to do so only if there is a proper path towards a two-state solution.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing concern, including among organisations such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and Action For Humanity, that Israel may attempt to illegally annex northern Gaza. Have the UK Government raised those concerns with the Israeli Government, and what action will the UK Government take should those concerns become reality?
Mr Lammy
I have raised those concerns. Such action would be illegal and wrong, and the UK Government would view it with the seriousness that it deserves.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents who are increasingly distressed about the scenes in Gaza, and there is growing concern about the rapidly deteriorating and utterly appalling situation in the north of Gaza. I urge the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the Government are using every measure available, including work with our international partners, to get a resolution to the situation and prioritise getting humanitarian aid and medical relief into Gaza, particularly the north?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of our international partners, which is so important. That is why a few weeks ago, I joined the Canadian Foreign Minister, Mélanie Joly, in speaking to the Israelis, and it is also why I went to Israel with my French colleague to speak to the Israelis. Time and again, working in a co-ordinated way with allies produces a greater effect.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Iran’s monstrous state sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis is a fundamental driver of the conflict we see in Gaza, Lebanon and the Red sea respectively. Can my right hon. Friend confirm what steps the Government are taking to undermine Iran’s financial, military and logistical support for those terrorist proxies?
Mr Lammy
I can assure my hon. Friend that since coming into office, we have introduced three batches of sanctions against Iran. Over 450 nationals are now under UK sanctions.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic, so can he please update the House on the work that the Government are doing to provide more aid and to ensure that it gets to those who need it?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: the humanitarian situation is dire. That is why I was at pains to emphasise what we are doing. It was important that we led the way on getting the pause so that children could be vaccinated against polio. I was very distressed to see that pause broken just a few days ago, and we are urging for it to be resumed once more so that those children can get their second vaccination dose. That is why the work of UK-Med is very important; it is why the current DEC appeal is also very important; and it is why we will continue to support people who are sick and injured to be evacuated from the area.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The suffering of the people of Palestine and northern Gaza is truly horrific. Every day, children are not just being bombed: they are being starved. That is not the kind of treatment we would expect for our children, let alone any other country’s children, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is time Israel ceased using food, hunger and siege as weapons of war—all contrary to international law—and for it to be given that message loud and clear by this House?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that when I suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza, the criterion under our regime was a clear risk that there could be a breach of international humanitarian law. When I was looking at the assessments, I kept coming back to humanitarian access as the clear risk, so my hon. Friend is right: we have tremendous concerns about the inability to get aid in, the restrictions that Israel is putting in place, and the man-made starvation that is now coming about as a result.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings that statement to an end. We will take a few moments while the Front Benchers swap over.
I remind Members that if they wish to contribute during a statement or urgent question, they need to be in the Chamber for the opening statement.
Fiscal Rules
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House about the action the Chancellor will take this week to fix the foundations and rebuild Britain.
Economic growth and modern public services can only be built on strong foundations. That is why this Government have brought political and economic stability back to Britain. After years of chaos from the Conservative party—chaos that cost families, businesses and public services dear—the British people are now rightly looking to this new Labour Government to clear up the mess from the last Government, fix the foundations and rebuild Britain. That is the change that my party promised the country, and it is the change that we will deliver.
To deliver that change, the fiscal rules that the Chancellor will set out this week will establish the basis for stable fiscal policy, meaning careful management of day-to-day spending and responsible long-term plans to invest and grow the economy.
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The budget was last in surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position. The second is our investment rule, which will get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. It will ensure that we can secure the investment that our economy needs to grow, and to generate jobs and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while maintaining a strong fiscal anchor and ensuring that our debt burden falls over time.
The plans that we inherited from the last Government would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in more than 10 years. The path of declining investment is the path of a declining nation, and we refuse to follow it. Instead, we will seize the huge opportunities of the future to support the enterprise and talent that this country creates.
The Government recognise that sustained public investment is a crucial driver of long-term economic growth, giving the private sector the confidence to invest too, but our ambitions for public sector investment must be balanced against the need to maintain debt on a sustainable trajectory and ensure that we invest every pound of taxpayers’ money responsibly. That is why I will deliver a 10-year national infrastructure strategy next spring, working with colleagues across Government, the nations and regions, and with our mayors and the private sector, to set out a robust long-term strategy for sound investment. That is also why our new approach to overlapping multi-year spending reviews will improve the way that we allocate and spend capital, and why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I will lead the new national infrastructure and service transformation authority, which will drive better delivery of major projects and infrastructure across the country. In addition, there will be the work of the new office for value for money and the National Audit Office. Those robust guardrails will ensure that our capital spending is value for money, and that our financial investments deliver a positive return for the Exchequer.
Finally, the Chancellor has been listening to the views of institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, and to expert economists. As she has set out, that is why the Treasury has been reviewing the right measure of debt to target in the fiscal rules ahead of the upcoming Budget. The details of that policy will be announced to the House in the Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. In the usual way, the fiscal rules will be published in a draft charter for budget responsibility, on which Members will vote in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I wondered whether the Chancellor’s announcement of changes to the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it.
Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor announced change last week, she did not provide any details about what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in. The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that were never listed in Labour’s manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor explicitly said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget.
That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right now, people ain’t buying it.
We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor,
“Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so little.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 941.]
The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates? Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that the change will mean
“more debt, more debt interest”,
and that it is “no free lunch”?
Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but unwilling to explain.
Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last week, so why should we?
Darren Jones
I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but he has some brass neck to stand up in this House and tell this Government how to behave after his party’s maladministration over the last 14 years. May I politely point out that he might be getting slightly ahead of himself? The Chancellor has not set out the detail of the fiscal rules in advance of the Budget; she will do it in this House, in the Budget on Wednesday, and I encourage him to wait for that information. He painted a picture of the country performing so well under his party’s leadership, but he may want to reflect on why he lost the last election so badly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As Chair of the Treasury Committee, which has responsibility for scrutinising the Budget, I find the timing of this statement a bit frustrating, as we will have questions that presumably cannot be answered until Wednesday. Will the Chief Secretary explain how the guardrails will work? There is the national infrastructure and service transformation authority, the office for value for money and the National Audit Office. What role will each play in reassuring the markets, so that an autumn “sniffle”—that is PSNFL, or public sector net financial liabilities—does not become a winter cold?
Darren Jones
I know that the Chancellor looks forward to giving evidence to the Treasury Committee following the Budget in the normal way. To answer the question, the national infrastructure strategy will, for the first time, bring together all the infrastructure and major project asks of Whitehall Departments into one place alongside the economic infrastructure assessments. This will inform the multi-year spending reviews, which will now overlap, so that when an election comes up, we do not again end up with a Government making no spending plans whatsoever, or announcing a load of projects when there is no money to pay for them. We are confident that this better approach to allocating capital will mean that investment under this Government will improve the productivity of our public services and the growth of our economy, and mean a better return for British taxpayers across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Under the Conservatives, the fiscal rules changed five times in seven years, so a change to fiscal rules is not that unusual in and of itself. However, does the Minister agree that what would be completely unforgivable is a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget, in which they tried to pursue £40 billion of unfunded tax cuts, and which left a long shadow on our public finances? Will he assure us that any additional borrowing that the Government seek will only be for productive investment that will generate growth and fix our crumbling hospitals and schools?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and share her continued anger about the behaviour of the last Conservative Government, because as she and the whole House will know, our constituents are still paying the price of that Government’s chaos and failure. That is why the first Act of this Labour Government— the first Act that I took through this House—was the Budget Responsibility Act 2024, which locked in the power of the Office for Budget Responsibility to hold this Government and future Governments to account. If we ever again ended up in a position where Conservative Ministers decided to ignore independent checks and balances, the OBR would be able to report its view to this House independently, so that Parliament could hold that future Government to account. I end by pointing to our first fiscal rule, which is that we will pay for day-to-day spending with receipts. Again, that means that we will not end up in the situation that we were in under the last Government, when month after month, borrowing just paid the bills for which they did not put money aside.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Fiscal rules are a tool for responsibility, and we should all welcome rules that help us to act responsibly and invest responsibly. The rules and the accounting definitions that underlie them are not matters of faith, preordained by the Almighty and passed to us on stone tablets; they are there to help us make responsible decisions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and with the former chief economist of the Bank of England, the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and George Osborne’s former Treasury Minister, that we should welcome changes to the fiscal rules that promote investment?
Darren Jones
I will avoid the suggestion that we might go back to putting things on stone tablets if I may, but I will accept the invitation in my hon. Friend’s question, and say that after 14 years, we have seen the failure of the approach taken by the last Government. I noted in my statement that public sector investment would now have been at its lowest in 10 years, under the plans of the now Opposition. That has been a failure for the economy and for the British people, and this Government will rectify it.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not change the measure of debt in order to borrow more, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, she said that she would not increase national insurance, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, Labour steered people away from the idea that the Government would cut the winter fuel payment, but they have already done exactly that. They said, before the election, that they would not increase taxes on working people, but now they are planning to do exactly that. Does the Minister understand why so many of my constituents feel that they were misled?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member’s constituents will note at the Budget on Wednesday that this party honours its promises—the promises, set out in its manifesto, to protect working people. He might want to reflect on the way that his party failed his constituents at the last election before trying to lecture this Government.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome measures that allow for more long-term investment to improve our economic performance and public services, but I would like my right hon. Friend to address two issues. Is housing one of the areas where more investment might be allowed, to help us achieve our target of 1.5 million more homes in this Parliament? Secondly, will he ensure that where there is public investment, we try to make that investment produce orders for UK companies, rather than many of the orders going abroad? That is the way to create real growth in our economy.
Darren Jones
We made a commitment to delivering 1.5 million homes, and we will do just that. On the second part of the question, the whole purpose of the national infrastructure strategy and the overlapping multi-year spending reviews is to give investors and suppliers confidence that when the Government say something will be delivered, it will, so they can invest and plan on that basis, to help improve the British economy. Frankly, they are starting from a position of complete dismay because of the failed promises of the last Government; we will rectify that.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
If we could stick with the here and now, what the Chancellor announced caused the bond markets to move almost immediately by almost 0.5%. That means that interest rates will stay higher for longer. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will cause hardship to today’s mortgage payers and tomorrow’s generation of taxpayers, because they will have to repay this extra debt?
Darren Jones
What I can confirm is that what affected interest rates and mortgage payments so severely was the chaotic behaviour of the hon. Gentleman’s party in government before the last election. That is why we have had to legislate to make sure that if they ever returned to Government, they could not behave in similar ways. We are taking a responsible approach to public spending, as I have set out today, and we will never return to the activities of his party in government.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
There appears to be some confusion among those on the Opposition Benches when talking about their track record and about the records they have broken on the relationship between the nominal and the real. On the point about being realistic, does the Minister agree that in our reform of the fiscal rules, we must, unlike the last Government, provide that realism and stability and ensure that wild unfunded commitments, such as the abolition of national insurance, do not occur?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend points rightly to the £22 billion black hole that we are having to clear up after the Tory party. In the Budget on Wednesday, the Chancellor will set out how we are resetting public finances and fixing the foundations, so that we can get on and deliver our manifesto.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
In outline terms, we welcome what the Government are seeking to do. It is important to raise the ability to generate capital infrastructure investment. Scotland invests 42% more than the UK average, and the UK average is 50% lower than the OECD average. That issue is a priority, but the Government’s move will fall on stony ground if on Wednesday the Chancellor continues with her priority to not lift people out of poverty and to go by exception after small businesses that take an income from that business by raising the cost of employment. With the four signal capital investment projects all being in England, I am moved to ask: what’s in this for Scotland?
Darren Jones
I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he welcomes the positive change that this Labour Government in Westminster are delivering to the Scottish people. I agree with him. On early announcements, I can point to GB Energy and the huge commitments we have made on energy infrastructure, which we know will be important to the Scottish people. We absolutely recognise that the Scottish economy has a huge contribution to make to the whole economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we look forward to working with the Scottish people to make that a reality.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his work on stability and investment. Would he like to say a little more about the challenging inheritance he has received from the previous Government, and just how dreadful that has actually been?
Darren Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members find it uncomfortable, but it is a matter of fact that we will return to time and time again, because the sheer truth of it is that the last Government made promise after promise to the British people, knowing that they did not have the money to pay the bills. It is shameful, and the sooner they come to the House and apologise for their behaviour, the better it might be for them in the long run.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
If the Minister is so confident in his fiscal rules, will he take this opportunity to commit to the House that the 10-year gilt yield in this Parliament will not exceed the maximum it was over the past 10 years?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, but he is inviting me to speculate on the Budget. He will have to wait until Wednesday.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that sustainable growth cannot come from short-termism and that the falls in public sector investment planned under the last Government would have exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the economic chaos they got us into?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. We have a choice at this Budget either to continue with the failed policies of the previous Government or to change them. The British people will not be surprised that our decision is to change them, reflecting on the fact that the cut in investment under the previous Government has led to poor productivity in public services and a lack of growth in the economy. That serves nobody.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This statement speaks of giving the private sector the confidence to invest. Can the Minister explain to the small businesses in my constituency how it will give them confidence if the first act of this Government is to soak them with further national insurance increases? Will that not dent confidence, rather than increase it, along with sustained high interest rates? When he speaks about multi-year spending reviews, does that mean that he now expects the devolved Governments to produce multi-year budgets, which is something that the Stormont Government have been reluctant to do?
Darren Jones
I obviously cannot speculate on the Budget, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to come back to the House on Wednesday for the answer to the first part of his question. On the second part, he might know that I lead for the Government on our relationship with the devolved Governments. I have met Finance Ministers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, most recently in Belfast, where we had a productive meeting. They were all very clear that the reset in the relationship between them and the Westminster Government was positive, given the failed relationships of the past. We made some progress in that meeting, and we will make further such progress in the Budget.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is it not clear that the ruling economic orthodoxy has let this country down over many years? How else can we explain the fact that in 24 of the last 30 years, the UK spent less on investment than any other G7 country? In particular, in post-industrial areas like mine, the investment simply did not come. I encourage the Minister to break with the prevailing orthodoxy and ensure that we achieve the appropriate investment levels and direct that investment particularly to the north, the midlands and elsewhere.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend has invited me to answer the question, “Why wasn’t there investment over the last decade or so?” Quite frankly, it is because of the choices of the Conservative party. This Labour party in government is taking a different set of decisions and we will set out the detail on Wednesday.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
First, I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who is a shareholder in a health company. As Lord Darzi said, the Conservatives have failed to provide proper capital funding for our NHS. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Secondary Care for their engagement with me and other MPs on the review of the new hospital programme. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury guarantee that the changes to the fiscal rules will mean that my constituents can see new and immediate funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member asks me so politely, but he will know that I cannot guarantee anything in advance of the Budget. However, it sounds as though he has already experienced the positive way in which this Government are approaching how we will repair the NHS and get it back on its feet, both by getting junior doctors off the strike line and back into wards and by investing in hospitals for the future. I know that he will look forward to the announcements in the Budget on Wednesday.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Before I became an MP, I led services for very vulnerable people and, unfortunately, came into close contact with gaslighting. As a new MP, I am afraid that my contact with gaslighting is not diminishing, and I slightly despair at what I am seeing from Opposition Members. While I was out canvassing over the weekend and talking with residents on Ken Road in Southbourne, I met a constituent who said, “We knew it wasn’t going to be pretty and you were going to inherit a mess, and we knew that it would be a long haul to get things right. But we were sick and tired of politicians who weren’t taking the big decisions and investing in the long term.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should listen to more of our constituents, like the person I just mentioned, who happened to vote Labour on 4 July for the first time in her life?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank his constituent for putting her trust in this Labour Government. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government will “run towards” the problems, as opposed to running away from them, as the Conservative party did. That will mean difficult decisions at the Budget on Wednesday to deal with the mess that we inherited, to reset public finances and to be able to start to deliver our manifesto. But this Government will take those decisions and we will announce the detail on Wednesday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask what the legacy of this will be. Will he further outline how the change to the fiscal rules to allow for more efficient borrowing will not simply pass more debt on to, for example, my six lovely grandchildren and everybody else’s grandchildren, who already face a scaled-back welfare system and increased costs of living before they even earn their first pay cheque? How will the Minister’s so-called guardrails not simply be barriers to future generations owning their own homes and making ends meet? I am thinking of the ones who come after.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He and his constituents will know, as much as mine do, that the problem for this country before the election was that the last Government had to borrow each month to pay for bills that they did not have the money to pay for, and that they made a whole list of promises across the country that they knew they could not pay for. That is why we have the £22 billion black hole, and why our first fiscal rule is that day-to-day spending will be paid for from tax receipts by the Exchequer. We will put the public budget back into surplus so that we are not in a doom loop of borrowing and borrowing just to keep ahead of ourselves each month. Where the Government do borrow, we will do so for productive investment to modernise our public services and to get growth back into our economy.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
New research published this month by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that reversing the two-child benefit cap would lift 540,000 children above the absolute poverty line. There are no fiscal rules, only fiscal choices. While taskforces meet, more and more children in Coventry South and across the country are consigned to avoidable poverty. Will the Government acknowledge that, prioritise ending child poverty and finally scrap the pernicious two-child benefit cap?
Darren Jones
I share my hon. Friend’s commitment to wanting to tackle child poverty in this country—this party had a proud record on that when we were in government previously. That is why we have set up the child poverty taskforce, which reported last week, and our ambition is to reduce child poverty over the course of this Parliament. We will set out further measures in the Budget on Wednesday on how we intend to deliver that.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Residents and businesses in my constituency absolutely share our ambition to get the country back on track, and acknowledge that the mission-led focus of the Government and the fiscal rules are at the core of that. They contrast that with 14 years of drift under the Conservatives, punctuated only by 49 days of utter chaos. However, residents and businesses in my area want to be reassured that they can be confident about our level of ambition, so will the Minister update us on how investors are responding to our focus and the maturity that we bring to the debate around the economy?
Darren Jones
I point my hon. Friend to our very successful international investment summit only a couple of weeks ago, when it was very clear from investors that bringing stability back to our politics and our economy has been long wanted. That is why we were able to commit to £63 billion of investment in the country at the summit, followed by another £10 billion of investment announced only a few days after. We intend to raise much more to invest in this country and to bring growth back to the economy.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Constituents in Milton Keynes voted for change because they see the consequences of the Conservative economic policy. They are suffering from the cost of living crisis and have seen this in their crumbling schools, the lack of GP appointments and the use of food banks just to make ends meet. Will the Chief Secretary reassure me and my constituents that we will end the Conservative use of payday loans just to keep the lights on and instead invest in new schools, new hospitals and new infrastructure, alongside making work pay, so that my constituents see their lives improve?
Darren Jones
With my hon. Friend’s reference to payday loans, she points to the behaviour of the previous Government. As I have told the House this afternoon, this Government, with their first fiscal rule, will take us to a place where we are not borrowing to pay the bills each month, as had happened for years under the Conservatives. Anyone managing their family finances at home knows that that is the right thing to do, and they will welcome the fact that this Government are bringing that sense of discipline back to the national economy, too.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as part of their fiscal strategy and within the fiscal rules, the Government will utilise the national wealth fund to lever in private investment, along with public investment from the taxpayer, for key areas of growth in our economy, including, for example, renewables infrastructure, which is of such importance in Scotland?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that the test of a good Government is whether they can secure private sector investment to come alongside them—something that declined under the last Government. That is why the national wealth fund, which the Chancellor has announced, will secure billions of pounds of private sector investment, alongside public sector investment, in the industries of the future.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the previous Government’s failure to invest not only damaged economic growth, but led to damage to our public services, with a broken NHS, special educational needs in crisis and local government on the brink?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know, from speaking to his constituents during his campaign to be elected and since, that people’s experience of public services across the country shows the fact of the matter: after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives, our public services are on their knees. That is why they need a Government who will bring stability back to our economy, invest in public services and improve outcomes for people who rely on them and work in them.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Following the disastrous mini-Budget, the Bank of England was forced to undertake emergency liquidity operations to reduce volatility in markets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the investment summit’s record £63 billion shows that this Government are creating stable conditions for long-term investment, after years of political chaos from the Conservative party?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, and I agree that £63 billion invested in this country was a sign of confidence, because investors around the world know that Britain is back after years of chaos.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
It is good to hear about changes to address the big problem with our macroeconomic framework—the bias against new investment spending. May I draw the Chief Secretary’s attention to the other problem with the system, which acts as an incentive for Ministers not to manage well the assets that they already hold? I refer him to the 2017 sale of £3.5 billion-worth of student loans for just £1.7 billion. Will he reassure the House that the changes that he is making will ensure that we get value for money for the existing financial assets that we hold?
Darren Jones
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I point to the Office for Value for Money, which will work for us to ensure that we improve on behaviours of the past. I also point more broadly to the way that we manage our current assets. People have only to look at the state of our prisons, hospitals and schools, with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and roofs falling in, to know that after 14 years of cuts to investment, we cannot carry on like that. That is why people voted for change at the last election, and why we will deliver it.
International Engagement
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
With permission, I will make a statement on the latest action that we are taking to reconnect Britain to the world, for our security and prosperity.
Following official visits that have spanned the globe, from South Sudan to Indonesia and the UN General Assembly in New York, in a speech at Chatham House last week I set out my vision for modernising international development, underlining to our partners at home and around the world that Britain is back, and that we are guided by that same realistic approach to achieving truly progressive ends that inspired both Ernest Bevin and Robin Cook, in today’s very different world.
First and foremost, we are committed to working with others in a spirit of genuine partnership and respect. That will include working with others to reform the global multilateral system so that it innovates, works for everyone and is fit for the future. We will also work with others to ensure that the UK’s formidable expertise and ideas are at the heart of reliable development partnerships. We will be confident about championing the power of international development so that we make progress wherever we can in everyone’s best interests, not least the British people.
I took that approach to Washington DC last week for the annual meetings of the World Bank, where I announced UK support for the bank’s umbrella facility for gender equality both at home and internationally, boosting women’s economic empowerment and economic growth. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor joined the meetings of the International Monetary Fund—the first time that two female governors have represented the UK at the World Bank and the IMF. As I announced that here at home the Government will match up to £10 million of public donations to a new Disasters Emergency Committee middle east humanitarian appeal, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary engaged in Samoa with Heads of Government and counterparts from across the Commonwealth.
This year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was truly historic, not just because it was the first such meeting since His Majesty the King became head of the Commonwealth, following Her late Majesty the Queen’s life of service, but because it was the first such meeting to take place on a Pacific island state. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary set out that we see the Commonwealth as a unique platform: an organisation that connects the global north and the global south; a network that, by 2027, is expected to include six of the world’s 10 fastest growing economies, with a combined GDP exceeding $19 trillion; and a family that brings together 2.5 billion people, 60% of whom are under 30 years old.
Samoa’s theme for this year’s meeting was “one resilient common future”. That aligns with the new Government’s own priorities for our engagement with the Commonwealth: boosting economic growth, tackling the climate and nature crisis and creating opportunities for future generations. In support of those priorities, the Prime Minister announced a new UK Trade Centre of Expertise, which will operate out of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to drive export-led growth across the Commonwealth.
The Foreign Secretary unveiled a plan of action to boost investment opportunities across all members, especially smaller and more vulnerable states that are bearing the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis. In support of the plan, the Foreign Secretary committed seed funding for a new Commonwealth investment network to identify opportunities across the Commonwealth that public-private partnerships could unlock. In Samoa, he launched two new trade hubs to help female entrepreneurs access global markets, following my announcement at the World Bank. He announced measures to support Commonwealth partners to create a better environment for growth by supporting democratic governance, human rights and the rule of law. That is really important, because without targeted support, we run the risk of some within the Commonwealth missing out on economic development, at a time when we need everyone to be part of global growth.
The Prime Minster and the Foreign Secretary raised the ambition to protect the ocean and sea species. We have increased technical assistance to small states to help them unlock access to climate finance, and we were proud to agree the first Commonwealth ocean declaration. Of the 56 Commonwealth members, 49 have a coastline, and our members are home to around half all global coral reefs. We were delighted that the whole Commonwealth came together to back global efforts to protect at least 30% of the planet’s ocean by 2030, urged rapid ratification of the agreement on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and called for an ambitious global plastic pollution treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics—all that as the Foreign Secretary supported a beach clean-up with young Samoans, as part of a relay right across the Commonwealth that will pick up a million pieces of plastic by the 2026 Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary confirmed that we will continue funding for Commonwealth and Chevening scholars. These young people are part of the next generation of leaders from across the global south, who have vital roles to play in building the peaceful, prosperous world that people everywhere want to see.
We are taking our message to the world that, in a time of global volatility, the UK is an outward-looking, reliable, respectful partner that is committed to growing our economy, bringing opportunity to people across our country and helping other countries to do similarly. Working together in partnership is part and parcel of how we overcome the forces that are hell bent on setting us against one another. We will make sure that all of us around the globe who care about our shared future are able to work towards it together. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I have had a chance to read the Minister’s statement while I have been in the Chamber, and I declare an interest as an executive committee member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly UK.
This statement really should have been delivered by the Prime Minister. It was he, along with the Foreign Secretary, who travelled to Samoa and can tell us at first hand about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the negotiations for its communiqué. Instead, he has chosen to ignore Parliament today and deliver another of his gloomy speeches talking down our economy.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is an opportunity to reinvigorate the Commonwealth —a partnership of 56 independent and equal sovereign states with a combined population of 2.7 billion. With our King as the new head of the Commonwealth, and a new secretary-general-elect, we have fresh energy to create the thriving, resilient Commonwealth of the future. I thank Samoa for hosting. The meeting shows that a Pacific small island state has equity of membership with all Commonwealth nations. I also thank Baroness Scotland for her indefatigable work for the Commonwealth.
With reinvigoration comes reflection. As the head of the Commonwealth, His Majesty the King said that the UK must acknowledge the painful aspects of Britain’s past. At the same time, it must also be accepted that the past cannot be changed. There comes a moment to stop looking back, never forgetting history but using the lessons learned to forge a brighter future path. I congratulate the new secretary-general elect Shirley Botchwey on her unanimous election. She recently asserted that the debate
“had moved from financial reparations now to justice in terms of what do we get for climate? What do we get in terms of the development cooperation framework?”
She is right. Let us look at the international work the UK has been doing through the international development budget, co-chairing the green climate fund, and funding countless Commonwealth programmes focusing on health, education and private sector engagement. British international investment alone has created employment for hundreds of thousands of people in Commonwealth nations. The UK also provides expertise in financial services and pandemic research, as well as Commonwealth and Chevening scholarships. Will the Minister confirm that those will continue on the same scale after Wednesday’s Budget?
Turning to the communiqué, the wording in paragraph 22 implies that the UK’s openness to reparatory justice in relation to the abhorrent slave trade is not as off-limits as the Prime Minister has previously stated. What is the Government’s actual red line on reparations, given the Foreign Secretary’s well-known past views on the topic? Or is this another example of saying one thing in opposition but another in government? On paragraph 16, what is the Government’s position on UN Security Council reform? Will the Minister rule out giving away our permanent seat? On paragraph 43, what steps are the UK Government taking as penholder on Myanmar to bring about the measures outlined in the communiqué?
Turning to the International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, will the Minister confirm that she has delayed a £707 million disbursement to the World Bank International Development Association budget that benefits numerous Commonwealth countries?
To conclude, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting focused mainly on the future. In the Commonwealth, that means moving on together. It means being honest with our partners about our intentions, and it means being clear and consistent with our international partners with that message, from the Prime Minister down.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks and, above all, for her work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Indeed, I commend all Members across the House who are engaged with that very important organisation, which brings parliamentarians together.
The Prime Minister’s resolution to support the Commonwealth could not be clearer. He is the first sitting UK Prime Minister to visit a Pacific island country. That is something we should all celebrate, rather than criticise. That commitment is very clear indeed. I had the absolute privilege of meeting the Prime Minister of Samoa when I was in New York for the UN General Assembly. I was very excited then to hear her talk about how the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was likely to run. It was a very successful meeting. We commend her and the whole Commonwealth family on it. I know the Prime Minister is very much of the same mind.
I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks in thanking Baroness Scotland for her leadership, and in commending the wise words of His Majesty, which are always imbued with wisdom. That approach is the one the new UK Government are taking. We believe it is important to focus on the future. That is why, as I said a few moments ago, we prioritised focusing on economic development, young people’s employment, women’s economic empowerment, which is so often the key to growth, and action on the climate and nature crisis. That is what our Commonwealth friends are saying that they want to see in the future. We will stand with them on that, because it is to the mutual benefit of us all.
The hon. Lady asked about the Budget. The UK Government’s position is very clear: we do not want a return to the kind of turbulence that we saw over the past 14 years. Very sadly, we saw in-donor refugee costs in particular rising in a way that was completely uncontrolled, with programmes cut in half. That is not the current UK Government’s approach. We will ensure we have a properly planned approach to international development, because failing to do that is to let down our international partners.
The hon. Lady asked about our position on the UN Security Council. We have been very clear that we need to ensure there is better representation of global south partners, but we will always take our leadership responsibilities on the UNSC very, very seriously indeed. We have been doing that since coming into government.
The hon. Lady asked about Myanmar and abuses of human rights. Again, we have been very clear on the need for action to be taken. We have communicated that many times. We are very concerned about the position of those who have been impacted.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about language in the communiqué that was agreed at the conference about reparative justice. Just to be crystal clear, I am sure everyone in the House would agree that the slave trade was abhorrent. We condemn it, just as previous Labour Governments have done. As the Prime Minister made clear in Samoa, it is important that we start from there, but it is also important that we are just as clear that there has been no change in our policy on reparations. The UK does not pay reparations—I really could not say that more emphatically—and I know she is aware that that is the position of the UK Government.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about IDA. I will finish on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The previous Government were not clear about their approach to IDA replenishment. The new Government have been clear. The Prime Minister said at the UN General Assembly that the UK will increase its contribution and we urge other countries to do the same.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. She touched on IDA. IDA needs a minimum of $27 billion from donor countries to help countries at higher risk of debt distress. Can she further elaborate on the discussions she had with international counterparts on IDA replenishment, ahead of IDA21 in early December this year?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. IDA is a critical part of the World Bank’s architecture. It is the fund that is focused on the very poorest countries that are most in need of support, but also those which can grow very quickly when they receive that support economically. It is extremely good value: every $1 invested in it results in $3 to $4 for those in the poorest countries. The UK has been clear, as I mentioned, that we will increase our contribution. We are urging others to do the same. Denmark and Spain said that they would do just that, which I think is a vote of confidence in IDA.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. As I set out during the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill last week, the Commonwealth is a vitally important multilateral organisation and we support work to strengthen it.
The Minister references the new Government’s approach on international development. It is on this particular issue that I hope she will set out further detail. We welcomed the reference to the sustainable development goals in her speech at Chatham House last week. Regrettably, the Labour manifesto did not mention the SDGs. Will the Minister affirm that the SDGs are at the heart of the UK’s development vision?
On development, it is vital that we honour our international commitments and, to that end, restore the 0.7% of GNI target for international development spending. That cause is championed in particular by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as it was the Liberal Democrats who enshrined the 0.7% in law. This is the means to reset Britain’s place in the world. We were an international development superpower. We have been missed on the world stage, and into the space we have vacated other foreign actors have moved in who are often at odds with British interests.
The Minister references the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal. She will be aware that the British public have already raised £20 million and that the UK Government will match only up to £10 million. That is a direct consequence of the cut to the development budget. The UK Government are no longer able to match the generosity of the British people. We now hear reports that, at a moment when millions of civilians across the world are caught in conflict, UK ODA is to be cut even further, from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI. Such a move would be deeply disappointing and ensure that the UK’s hands are further tied when it comes to responding to humanitarian disasters. Will the Minister rule that out?
Anneliese Dodds
I suspect that the hon. Lady has many things to do with her time, and the Labour manifesto for the general election may not be her first priority as bedtime reading, but let me gently encourage her to look at it, because she would see that it does refer to the sustainable development goals. I certainly agree with her that we have not seen the progress that we need to see—I believe we have seen about 17% of the progress that we need to see with the goals to which a target is attached—but the Government are determined to play our part in ensuring that we make faster progress. I have discussed the matter with Amina Mohammed, the deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, on a number of occasions, including last week in Washington. We are determined to work with others to play our part.
The hon. Lady asked about the policy of devoting 0.7% of GNI to overseas development assistance. As she will see, that too is in the Labour manifesto; it is our policy when fiscal circumstances allow, and rightly so. She said that in the past the UK had been viewed as an international development superpower, but perhaps it was not today. I have to say that wherever I have been in the world, British people have been engaged in ensuring that we are playing our part as a nation in supporting others. We need to harness that expertise and provide leadership again, and that is exactly what this new Government have been doing.
As for the DEC, let me say very briefly that according to my understanding, none of the last few appeals have been fully matched—they have always been pegged at a certain level. I think that is commensurate with how previous DEC appeals have worked, but it may be worth checking that out.
I hope that I have covered most of the hon. Lady’s points, for which I am grateful.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Next year will mark 20 years since the Gleneagles summit, when G8 leaders agreed to an ambitious debt cancellation deal under the previous Labour Government. At present, however, the unfair debt burden is holding back many developing countries, including some in the Commonwealth. What discussions has the Minister had on this important issue, and what are our plans?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this area, as do many Members among the new intake, as well as those who were here before. It is important for the UK to exercise leadership on these issues, just as we did under past Labour Governments. My hon. Friend should be aware that we are working very hard to make sure that we do all we can to support countries to deal with this issue. Members of the Paris Club and the G20, for instance, are seeking to cement and accelerate those efforts, because overall the debt levels are having a very negative impact on countries’ ability to provide health and education services.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I ask the Minister about another of the Foreign Secretary’s recent visits, to the Republic of Korea? Does she agree that the agreement to strengthen the defence and security dialogue with South Korea is very welcome, as is the condemnation of the support from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—both with weapons and, now, with troops—for Russia in its illegal invasion of Ukraine? Does she also agree that now is the time when South Korea should step up its support for Ukraine, and drop its previous reluctance to supply it with weapons?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful for that important question, and I am pleased to report that relations between the UK and the Republic of Korea are at their closest ever at the moment. The Downing Street accord between the UK and the Republic of Korea elevates our relationship to a global strategic partnership, placing the UK as second only to the US in terms of the strength of our bilateral partnership. The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the need to condemn the DPRK’s engagement in Ukraine, and indeed the UK Government have taken the same approach. I should add that decisions about South Korea’s activities relating to its military are of course for South Korea itself, but we are determined to work closely with it on this and many other issues.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I declare an interest, in that before being elected to represent the people of Hemel Hempstead I worked for the Fairtrade Foundation. The Minister will be aware, through her own support for fair trade, of the vital role that the foundation plays in supporting smallholder farmers, but of course there are millions of smallholder farmers around the world. I should be grateful if she could update the House on the ways in which the Government, through the World Bank, are supporting smallholder farmers and sustainable agriculture.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He is right: it is an issue of which not only UK farmers and agriculture experts in our universities but the British public are deeply supportive, and the Government are determined to do what we can to support sustainable agriculture. We see, for example, very little climate finance going into that arena. More of it should be going there, which is why the UK is working with the US and, indeed, announced support for joint initiatives last week at the World Bank annual meeting.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When one group of people have done something terrible to another group of people, it is understandable that resentment about it can pass down to the next generation and possibly the generation after that, but does the Minister agree that to suggest that that process can continue over two centuries, and thus require guilt to be expiated in the form of reparations, is to make a nonsense of the concept of individual responsibility?
Anneliese Dodds
The Government’s view is that we have to focus on the future, and that is the approach that we took at the CHOGM meeting. We think it is important to listen carefully to our Commonwealth partners, and we have heard their calls for more action to deliver the jobs that are needed, particularly for young people, and for more action on climate and nature, given the crises in both those areas. We will continue to work with our Commonwealth friends on these issues.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister's repeated references to tackling both the climate and the nature crises. In the context of the Prime Minister’s recent attendance at CHOGM, we know that many Commonwealth countries are among those most exposed to climate change, and that that has a particular impact on small island states such as Samoa. Will the Minister outline in more detail the work that the Government are doing to put climate at the heart of our foreign and development policy?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. There are indeed many small island developing states among the Commonwealth states, and for them the climate crisis is an existential issue. We have seen severe impacts on a number of small island developing states, with extreme weather and erosion having a huge effect on people’s security and their livelihoods. Under the new Government, the UK is determined to exercise leadership on this issue, and that has included a range of measures. I will not go through them now, but one critical element is ensuring that there is support for adaptation as well as for mitigation. These small states really need to be helped to adapt to the new weather systems that we are seeing, and the UK Government are doing all that they can to ensure that that happens.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister comment further on paragraph 22 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government statement to which the Prime Minister put his name? It states that the Heads of Government,
“noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice…agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
“Based on equity” is the language normally used by those seeking compensation. Can the Minister explain what it means in plain English? Does it mean parting with taxpayers’ money, and if not, what does this statement mean?
Anneliese Dodds
I did state earlier, but will restate for the hon. Member’s benefit, that we have been very clear about the fact that UK does not pay reparations. He referred to a specific element in the communiqué about reparatory justice. It does two things: as he mentioned, it notes calls for discussion, and it agrees that this is the time for conversation. As the Prime Minister has made clear—in Samoa, for instance—none of the UK Government’s discussions have been about money. Our position, as I have said, is very clear: we do not pay reparations. I really do not know how many times I have to say that.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement this afternoon. Does she agree that the best path to global growth and prosperity is one that includes women and girls? Will she set out how the Government and the World Bank intend to achieve that?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important subject. Globally, an enormous amount of growth could be unlocked by increasing women’s economic opportunities. The World Bank has estimated that about 20% could be added to global GDP if women were able to work more and their pay was more reflective of men’s pay. The UK Government have been working closely on this issue with many partners, including the World Bank. We are very pleased to be seeing progress, particularly around supporting women entrepreneurs and ensuring that women’s economic empowerment is viewed as the ticket to progress and prosperity that it so often can be.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I want to raise a couple of points. First, it is only a few years ago that the Foreign Secretary said:
“We don’t just want an apology, we want reparations and compensation.”
Last week, however, the Prime Minister could not even bring himself to make a formal apology, so I hope the Minister can bring herself to do so today.
Secondly, the Minister said that
“at home and around the world…Britain is back”.
There are two reasons for that: first, there was a reduction in ODA spend to 0.5% of GNI; and, secondly, there was the merger of the Department for International Development, which is in East Kilbride in Scotland. Will there be a return to a separate Department, and how soon does she predict that we will return to spending 0.7% of GNI?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, and I will try to cover them as quickly as I can. The new Government are very clear that the slave trade was abhorrent. We condemn it, just as previous Labour Governments did. It is important that we start from there, but it is also important that we are just as clear that there has been no change in our policy on reparations. The UK does not pay reparations—we have been very clear about that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about other countries’ confidence in the UK’s leadership on international development. We have to renew that confidence, which is about ensuring that we make a number of changes, as I set out at Chatham House the week before last. That includes ensuring that we work even more closely with Brits who are leading development in different countries around the world, but also that we have genuine partnerships with other countries.
I cannot end my response to the hon. Gentleman without thanking the terrific staff in East Kilbride, who do a wonderful job on international development and on foreign policy more broadly. I take my hat off to them. As a new Minister, I have been very impressed by all those working on these issues for the UK Government.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The pandemic, rising interest rates, and rising wheat and energy prices after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine have led to a debt crisis in low-income nations. Some 32 African nations spend more on servicing their debt than they do on healthcare. I used to work in one of the world’s poorest nations, Somaliland. I have seen what grinding poverty can do. The horrors of climate change are leading to drought, hunger and death. Will the Minister consider repeating one of the proudest actions of the last Labour Government by acting to end the debt crisis and, by doing so, help to end extreme poverty once and for all?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his passion in doing so. He is absolutely right: many countries have to pay substantial amounts on servicing debt at the same time as having to deal with repeated crises—not least the nature and climate crisis, but also crises deriving from conflict—so we need to show leadership on these issues. That is why we are working with the rest of the G20 on their framework. It needs to be faster and stronger, and it needs to work better. We will play our part in trying to ensure that, and we will work with the Paris Club on this agenda too.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On reparations, will the Minister accept that there is a clear difference between the Prime Minister’s commendably robust language before he left for Samoa and the language that he eventually signed up to in paragraph 22 of the communiqué? Will she accept that Heads of Government who are watching this process are perfectly entitled to deduce that the UK is now on a journey that will lead to reparations? Will she further accept that there is a clear difference between providing compensation to people who have been harmed by the state, from tainted-blood victims to sub-postmasters, and paying reparations in respect of events that happened 200 years ago?
Anneliese Dodds
I have to say that I find the right hon. Gentleman’s question rather surprising. I do not believe that Heads of Government are in any doubt about the new UK Government’s approach to these questions. Indeed, the new Government, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the ministerial team have had more engagement with Heads of Government and our friends in the Commonwealth than we have seen for a very long time. That engagement is clear, and our message is very clear indeed. As I said, the Prime Minister himself has articulated that, including in Samoa. He made it clear that none of the UK Government discussions had been about money, and our position is very clear: we do not pay reparations. As I explained during my statement, the focus of conversations at CHOGM was the fact that we need to act together on the climate crisis, and to drive growth and prosperity for the whole Commonwealth.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in welcoming Glasgow’s role as host of the Commonwealth games 2026? Will she confirm that discussions will take place with the Scottish Government to ensure that the benefits of the games are felt not just in Glasgow, but across the whole of Scotland, including in constituencies such as mine?
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely will confirm that. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. I think that people up and down the whole country are delighted that we will see the return of the Commonwealth games to Glasgow in 2026. I know that my right hon. Friend the Scotland Secretary is very pleased to be engaging on this matter with the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We need to ensure that the games have a lasting, positive legacy on health and on engagement in fitness and sports, and this new UK Government are determined to achieve that.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for the update on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Next Sunday, volunteers will head to the beach when Sidmouth Plastic Warriors meet to prevent litter from ending up in the oceans. When they do so, they will want to be sure that their Government are encouraging other Governments to take action on ocean plastics. How likely does the Minister think it is that negotiations will be concluded on a UN global plastics treaty by the end of the year?
Anneliese Dodds
When the hon. Gentleman’s constituents take part in that activity, they are joining a global movement in which the Foreign Secretary himself was engaged with young people in Samoa. It is about ensuring that we all play our part in removing plastic pollution. The hon. Gentleman asks about the prospects for a global agreement. We all want to see that happen through the UN, but the fact that the Commonwealth came together in Samoa to agree on it is very exciting. It shows that there is a strong prospect of making headway on this very important issue.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement; I can only respect the breadth of it. I am pleased to hear about the focus on using international development to reduce violence against women and girls, which we all fully support. At a reception last week, we heard personal testimony from people who have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Does the Minister feel that the overseas development budget can also be used to reduce violence against religious minorities?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, which is of much concern to many Members across the House. Unfortunately, the freedom of religion and belief is a value that is being challenged across the world, and we are seeing too many countries slipping backwards. The new UK Government are determined to do what we can to exercise leadership in international development, which includes supporting those who are subject to persecution and playing our part in ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
Will the right hon. Lady update the House, following the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, on whether the Government have considered a Commonwealth free trade deal and if not, why not?
Anneliese Dodds
There are already many strong economic relationships between Commonwealth states. The new Government are very proud of that, and we want to ensure that even faster progress is made. A number of countries within the Commonwealth are currently subject to trade deals with the UK or have trade deals under discussion. We want to cement those economic ties, and that is a priority for the new Government.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
New International Rescue Committee analysis finds that just 16 climate-vulnerable and conflict-affected countries, including Sudan, Myanmar and Syria, represent 43% of all people living in extreme poverty and 79% of all people in humanitarian need. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we address the underlying causes of fragility and get aid into those 16 countries with the highest needs?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, in which she has considerable experience. Globally, by 2030, 60% of people in extreme poverty will live in fragile and conflict-affected states. We need to see much more action: less than 5% of climate finance, for example, goes into adaptation, with only a tiny fragment going into fragile and conflict-affected states. The UK is determined to exercise leadership, and the new Government have been pressing multilateral institutions to do more. Last week, at the World Bank, we saw some important moves, which I am pleased to say were pushed by the new Government.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Can the Minister assure us that the Government’s commitment to ODA will not be further reduced to 0.3% of GNI? Is there a timeline to restore it to 0.7%?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important question. I have stated this before, but I will state it again. He may not wish to spend a huge amount of time reading the Labour manifesto from the last general election, but if he did so, he would see that the new Government are committed to returning to 0.7% of GNI being spent on overseas development assistance, as fiscal circumstances allow. That is something we are focused on doing. Under the previous Government, we saw many years of huge turbulence around these issues, but we are determined to have a strategic, planned approach without that turbulence in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her positive statement to the House today. Will she further outline what engagements she intends to undertake to secure the rights of women throughout the world, beginning with the rights to choose their life partner, to choose education, to choose employment and to choose a future with hope rather than the drudgery faced by too many women throughout this world? How can the House advocate for this change in a reasoned manner that brings about not snappy soundbites but a real change in those countries in which we retain an influence?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important question and the considered way in which he articulated it. I have been disturbed, as I know the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who speaks for the Opposition, will have been, to see that we are not making as speedy progress on many of these issues as we should be globally. When I was in Jordan, for example, speaking with Syrian refugees, and when I was in South Sudan, speaking with refugees there, I saw that child marriage was, unfortunately, still very common. It becomes more common when there is severe economic dislocation, when the impact on girls is truly appalling and very disturbing. We are determined to exercise leadership, which we can do in the strongest way by setting out the evidence of the economic impact, which shows clearly that not having those protections is bad for all of society and for whole communities. That is often the most effective way to deal with these issues.
Remembrance and Veterans
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered remembrance and the contribution of veterans.
This is the first time in four years that the House has held a general debate on remembrance. Back then, I responded for the Opposition. It is a huge honour for me to open this debate as Secretary of State for Defence and, in that role, to be the voice of veterans in the Cabinet. I am proud to have my ministerial team here with me, particularly the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who will wind up this debate.
Given the number of colleagues from all parts of the House who have put in to speak in this debate, I wish to keep my remarks brief, so that we can hear from others. It is striking how many colleagues on the call list, of all parties, have served in our UK armed forces; many were elected for the first time in July, and I welcome them all to this debate. That underlines the deep affinity between the House and our nation’s armed forces. Whether or not we have served, we in this House have the interests of our armed forces at heart; but we may debate, forcefully at times, the state of our armed forces and how best to use them. That matters to those who put on the uniform and accept a duty to give unlimited service to our nation, ready to do anything, at any time, anywhere, if this House and His Majesty’s Government will it.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
During the troubles in Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of British servicemen served on Operation Banner. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed by both republican and loyalist bombs. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, but how can his Government repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and throw many of those veterans to the wolves in order to pander to Sinn Féin? What is noble about that?
John Healey
The legacy Act is without supporters in the communities in Northern Ireland, on any side. That is one of the reasons why it should be repealed. In the process of repeal, we will take fully into account the concerns and position of veterans, who have given such service, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, and their families.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for giving way; he is always very courteous. When I was on a previous iteration of the Defence Committee, we produced an in-depth report on the best way forward after the troubles, called “Drawing a line: Protecting veterans by a Statute of Limitations”. It recommended ending prosecutions and substituting a truth recovery process. People from, shall we say, some of the Northern Irish parties felt compelled to condemn it on the Floor of the House, but quietly came up to me afterwards and admitted that it was the only way forward. Just because there is this performative condemnation by different communities, he should not be diverted from the fact that what was good enough for Nelson Mandela in South Africa should be good enough for us.
John Healey
For me, one of the great strengths of the House and Parliament is the work of the all-party Select Committees. The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee, during that time, did the House and the wider cause of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland a service. We will take those points into account. I do not think that anybody could point their finger at the current Northern Ireland Secretary and say that he is not a serious figure, or that he could remotely be accused of performative politics. He will take very seriously his duty to lead the repeal of the legacy Act and find a way forward that takes everybody with us.
Remembrance Sunday is a moment when the nation comes together to honour those who have served, those who have fought and, above all, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice of their life to defend our country, preserve our freedoms and protect our way of life. To all those who serve and have served, on behalf of the country, I offer a profound thank you.
This will be the first time many new Members have the privilege of representing their constituency at remembrance parades, ceremonies and services. I encourage all to play their fullest part, and to go into their schools to join in the lessons and projects that will take place in the run-up to Remembrance Day, because remembrance is not just an opportunity to show our gratitude and pride; it is an opportunity to learn, and to teach the next generation about the service and sacrifice of those who came before. Given that the number of veterans in this country will fall by a third in this decade, it is clear that we need to do more at all levels to reinforce the country’s understanding of and commitment to our armed forces. That has never been more important than in the year in which we mark the 80th anniversary of D-day and many of the major battles that led to the end of the second world war. At the weekend, we marked a decade since the conclusion of UK combat operations in Afghanistan, and during this Remembrance we honour the 457 British service personnel who lost their life, the thousands who were wounded, and their families, who bore such a burden.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his contribution. He is an honest and honourable person. This is on the subject of justice for those who served in uniform. I declare an interest, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years and in the Royal Artillery for 11 and a half years; that is 14 and a half years in total. My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. No one was ever made accountable for his murder. The IRA men who killed him ran across the border to the Republic of Ireland, to sanctuary and safety. No one was made accountable for the murder of four UDR men at Ballydugan on 9 April 1990. It grieves me greatly on their behalf to know that there are people still walking about who have never been made accountable in this world for what they have done. I want to see justice. Does the Minister want to see justice for those people as well?
John Healey
I had moved on to Afghanistan, but the hon. Gentleman, in his forceful way, makes his point, which is on the record.
I want to move on and use this remembrance period and this debate to pay tribute to the very special service charities that we have in the UK. They work, week in, week out, all year round, to raise funds, promote awareness and provide services to our armed forces and veterans.
John Healey
I will give way one more time, and then conclude my speech, so that the House can hear from the many Members who wish to speak.
Ian Roome
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning the good work of charities. My base in North Devon, Royal Marines Base Chivenor, and garrison commander Lieutenant Colonel Simpson are supportive of service charities, including the Royal Marines Association. Will the Secretary of State wish the Royal Marine Corps a happy birthday, as they celebrate their 360th birthday today?
John Healey
I am so glad that I gave way. I was going to leave that to my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People, who I am sure will have something to say about that. To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s invitation, on behalf of the whole House, I say: what a remarkable service, and what a remarkable feat—360 years proud today. We honour those in that service, we wish them well in future, and say a big happy birthday.
At this time of year, we see the particular contribution of the Royal British Legion and the importance of its poppy appeal. Let us recognise the commitment of the hundreds of volunteers across the country who recruit the poppy sellers, organise the shifts, check the stock, account for the donations and encourage the public to give, and to wear poppies at this time of year with such pride. On behalf of us all, thank you.
These are serious times—war in Europe, conflict in the middle east, growing Russian aggression and increasing threats elsewhere. As the world becomes more dangerous, we will rely more heavily on the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. It is against that backdrop that the Government are committed to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. We have already been able to announce the largest pay increase for our forces for over 20 years, and I am the first Defence Secretary who can stand in the House and say that everyone in uniform in the UK armed forces will be paid at least the national living wage. That is why we announced, in our first King’s Speech, legislation to introduce an independent armed forces commissioner to improve service life for service personnel and their families.
John Healey
I will, because the hon. Gentleman is particularly persistent. Despite his youthful looks, he has been in the House for some time.
Tim Farron
True enough, and I am sure I should know better.
Recruiting and retaining good people who will serve our country is made a little easier if they know that they will be cared for in the years after they leave active service. Will the Secretary of State say something about the importance of investing in mental health support for veterans, and in particular congratulate One Vision, the charity in my constituency that provides counselling support for the armed forces and all those in uniform, and does work to make sure that we value those people in the years after they have actively served us?
John Healey
I will indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. On support services for veterans who need them, there is not just what the Government can help provide—including, on mental health, through Op Courage—but what is provided by a network of first-class local charities. If One Vision plays a part in that in his area of Cumbria, I certainly pay tribute to it.
There is a more profound reason for our concern to provide support for our veterans. We need to recognise that those on deployment in the armed forces must have the confidence to act decisively on behalf of the nation, and they can be motivated and have their confidence reinforced by how they see the nation supporting veterans back home. That is why we pledged in our manifesto in July to improve access to support for our veterans, including on mental health, employment and housing. It is why we have committed to putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. It is why, within three months of taking office, we have delivered on the commitment to make the veteran’s identity card an accepted form of voter ID, and why the Prime Minister, in his first conference speech, announced that veterans would be exempt from rules requiring a connection to the area from those seeking to access housing there.
At the heart of our national security will always be the men and women who serve this country. As we consider this debate, we have an opportunity to reflect on what we mean by remembrance and to recognise the immense contribution made to this country by our veterans, by serving members of the armed forces and by the families who support them.
Hundreds of thousands have answered the nation’s call and given their lives in doing so. We honour them, and we will remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our brilliant Royal Marines on their 360th anniversary.
This timely and important debate coincides with Mr Speaker’s official opening of the constituency garden of remembrance earlier today. It marks the point where, as a House, we pay tribute to all those who serve and have served our country, particularly those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
As we approach Remembrance Day, I thank the Royal British Legion and charities across the UK that ensure that our collective memory of the fallen never fades, while providing invaluable services and support to today’s veterans. I am also proud of the previous Government’s record on veterans, which my colleague, the shadow Veterans Minister, will cover in his closing speech. The focus of my speech is primarily on the remembrance part of this debate.
I believe that politicians best honour the fallen by never forgetting the lessons of the wars in which they fought. This means never being complacent about the threats we face and doing everything possible to strengthen our deterrence, so that this country is never again embroiled in the senseless slaughter of existential war. It must be obvious to all of us that the threat of such a war looms larger over our continent than it has for many years. To that end, and I say this with respect to the Secretary of State, it was profoundly ill-judged of him to suggest, at a time when deterrence is of paramount importance, that Britain is not ready to fight a war. I reassure the British public, millions of whom will soon wear their poppies with pride, that our armed forces remain among the best in the world. After all, it would be wholly unrealistic to expect this nation to fight Russia single-handedly. The challenge is to be ready to fight and deter as part of NATO, and no one should be in any doubt of the outsized scale of our contribution to the alliance.
First and foremost, we unambiguously and unflinchingly offer our 24/7 nuclear deterrent for the defence of all European NATO allies, and we are incredibly proud to have delivered a continuous at-sea deterrent every day since 1969. Moreover, during NATO’s Steadfast Defender exercise earlier this year—its largest such exercise since the end of the cold war—we led the way with 20,000 service personnel, eight warships and submarines and an aircraft carrier, plus tanks, artillery, helicopters and Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft. That is not the contribution of a nation unable to fight.
As we prepare to look back and remember past conflicts, the most important example of our readiness is not an exercise but a real-world war that is happening on our continent today. When it comes to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the UK, under the previous Government, played a singular leadership role, which started before the Russian tanks rolled in. Since 2014, we have trained thousands of Ukrainians to fight and we provided crucial anti-tank weaponry before the invasion commenced. That helped the Ukrainians to defy expectations and stay in the fight. Surely we can all see that, had Ukraine fallen early, the world would have been an even more dangerous place, with our adversaries emboldened and with NATO’s borders potentially threatened.
As the previous Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, revealed, President Zelensky has said that the UK, more than any other nation, has been responsible for helping to ensure that the majority of Ukraine remains free, more than two years after Russia’s main attack. Far from talking down our armed forces, we should be extremely proud of the role we have played in supporting Ukraine’s fight for freedom.
That said, of course we have our challenges. First and foremost is the need to replenish munitions, not least after gifting so many to Ukraine. That is why, in April, we set out a fully funded plan to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, paid for by reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size and prioritising £10 billion of additional funding for replenishment.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Does the shadow Minister think that the Conservative party is missing the point of this debate by seeking to score political points?
James Cartlidge
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman misses the point of my speech. As I said at the beginning, I am here to talk about remembrance, and I sincerely believe that the best way to honour the fallen is by learning the lessons of the past. That means always standing up for our country and ensuring that we have the strongest possible deterrent. That is why, with a Budget on Wednesday, it really matters that we talk about defence spending in this debate. This is a matter of supreme national interest.
As we prepare to remember all those lives lost serving in our Navy and merchant fleet, this replenishment would have addressed key emerging threats to our naval ships that have been exposed in the Red sea, such as by funding DragonFire laser procurement to tackle drones and upgrading our Sea Viper system to combat ballistic missiles. People may think that that is not relevant, but after all the tragedy we saw when we lost those ships in the Falklands we should be doing everything possible urgently to procure systems that can help to defend our ships against these emerging threats.
Another key challenge is retention. We know that we need to do everything possible to support those who serve in our armed forces today. Two days from the Budget, I hope that the Secretary of State has read today’s warning in The Times online that hundreds may leave the armed forces because of the Government’s education tax. The article quotes the many service personnel who have emailed me with their concerns, such as the wife of an Army major who writes:
“The extra 20% will make things extremely difficult, and we fear we will have to choose between my husband’s career or our daughter’s education.”
Labour should not be forcing thousands of military families to make so stark a choice when we cannot afford to lose such experienced personnel, and when it costs almost £48,000 a head to train just one much less experienced replacement.
Finally, there is the key issue of accommodation. I am proud of the additional £400 million that the Conservative Government injected to help address damp, mould and the many other problems that routinely affect our military homes. However, as someone with a background in housing before entering Parliament, it was clear to me from day one as the Minister responsible for the defence estate that we had to do something far more radical, given the inherent structural problems with so much of our service accommodation.
That is why I built on my predecessor Jeremy Quin’s work to put the wheels in motion so that, subject to negotiation, we could buy back the defence estate from Annington Homes. If we really want homes fit for heroes, as I am sure we all do, I strongly believe that we need a complete rebuild of the defence estate, rather than year-to-year sticking plaster solutions. It could be one of the country’s most exciting regeneration projects, but it requires ownership to be fully restored, and that means Annington. Of course, Annington is an area of considerable legal and commercial sensitivity, so I do not expect a direct answer, but I hope the Government will continue to build on my considerable work in that area.
If we are truly to honour the fallen, we must do everything to avoid future conflict by having the strongest possible deterrence. I have huge respect for the Secretary of State, but I believe it was a mistake to say that we are not ready to fight. We now need to see whether he is ready to fight for our armed forces. We need two things in Wednesday’s Budget: a VAT exemption on school fees for forces families, and a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence so that we can urgently replenish our munition stocks to war-fighting levels. Those who serve our country deserve no less.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I rise today, in common with many other hon. Members, to express my immense gratitude and admiration for all our veterans of today and yesteryear. I also rise to speak from a different angle. I represent Slough, one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies, and I was the first turbaned Sikh to be elected to Parliament. I believe I have a specific duty to speak out for those who have often been relegated to the footnotes of history, but whose sacrifices must not be sidelined. It is more important than ever, particularly having seen our streets recently filled with far-right hatred, that remembrance is not exclusive. The contribution of all those who have sacrificed their lives must be remembered.
In particular, it cannot be ignored that both world wars could not have been won by British-born troops alone, without the contribution of soldiers born beyond our own borders. In world war one, approximately 2 million brave soldiers from Commonwealth countries laid down their lives to protect ours. Some 166 African servicemen were decorated in recognition of their valour. Troops from the British West Indies Regiment were awarded 81 medals and received 51 mentions in dispatches. More than 1.5 million people from what is modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh contributed to the war effort, forming a largely voluntary army of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and many other faiths. Indeed, today over 11% of our current forces are from ethnic minorities. If we fail properly to commemorate and celebrate the contribution of our armed forces whose roots lie in countries across the globe, we do our own history a huge disservice.
Coming from a strong military background myself— my great-grandfather lost a leg fighting in the first world war; my grandmother’s brother and other family members fought in the second world war—I feel immense pride in that shared history. It is staggering that despite making up just 2% of pre-partition British India, Sikhs formed 20% of the Indian Army. I am immensely proud of those who fought so valiantly and believe that such a contribution should be properly commemorated. That is why I serve as president of the National Sikh War Memorial Trust and have passionately campaigned for several years for a fitting memorial in central London to those Sikh soldiers, so that we may remember the tens of thousands of turbaned Sikhs who sacrificed their lives, and the more than 100,000 who were injured during both world wars. We must ensure that remembrance serves as a reminder to all that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard fought for by forces as diverse as modern-day Britain.
We cannot airbrush the past, despite the efforts of some right-wing commentators to do just that. In 2020, Kevin Maguire from The Mirror and I had to educate Laurence Fox on Sikh sacrifices during world war one, following his bigoted comments that the film “1917” was somehow “woke” or “racist” for its inclusion of Sikh soldiers. To his credit, Laurence Fox later apologised, after he had been hit with some hard facts, but that ignorance has rooted in much of the culture of remembrance and must be challenged.
Even today, forces who stood shoulder to shoulder with British troops struggle to get the recognition they deserve, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will rectify that. For example, Gurkha pensions are falling short of the Army standard; it took a fight to get certain visa fees scrapped for non-UK service personnel; and recent errors in the Afghan relocations and assistance policy have left Triples forces out in the cold. Pervasive racism caused a failure to treat 54,000 world war one casualties from India, west Africa, east Africa, Egypt and Somalia equally. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary campaigned effectively on that important matter, but there should not be another battle simply to get parity.
Those who served alongside British troops should be a beacon of hope for a collective pride that goes beyond borders, colour or background. Their commitment to our country meant they were willing to sacrifice everything for it. Those contributions should be celebrated, not sidelined. Their commitment in the darkest of times ensured our safety. Fundamentally, without the sacrifices and contributions of the millions of personnel across the globe, we would simply not have the privilege of sitting here today. They have ensured our collective freedom. We must never take for granted the hard-won freedoms to operate under a democracy, to live in a pluralist society and to be safe. It is simply not enough to be thankful. We must celebrate their service, honour their duty and always remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We will remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today, we gather to honour the sacrifices and contributions of our veterans—brave men and women who have selflessly put their lives on the line for our country. Each one of them embodies the courage, resilience and dedication that define the spirit of service. We should not just recognise their service on the battlefield, but understand the challenges they continue to face once they return home.
I start with a bit of my own story. I served in the British Army as part of the Royal Military Police. I did not come from a military family. My journey began with a desire to lead, travel and make a difference. I studied languages at university, and was drawn to the British Army’s role in international aid and disaster relief. I thought it would eventually lead me into humanitarian work. Training at Sandhurst was gruelling, especially with equipment that was not designed for women, but I came out of that experience with friendships that have lasted a lifetime with people who saw me through my highest and lowest points.
After Sandhurst, I was deployed to Bosnia, where my platoon was already stationed as part of the stabilisation force—SFOR—a NATO peacekeeping force. Working alongside American, British, Canadian, Czech and Dutch troops, I witnessed at first hand the disparities in resources and funding. The contrast was stark. Our American counterparts had advanced equipment, with all the bells and whistles, while we operated with much less. That showed me not only the resilience of our troops, but the challenges we face due to limited resources.
Shortly after that, I was sent to Iraq on Operation Telic IV with the 1st Battalion Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, tasked with retraining the Iraqi police force and supporting policing efforts to train over 1,200 of the Iraqi police service in Maysan province, a volatile and dangerous area. We trained the police outside our camp and in old air bases, with unexploded ordnance next to us, and visit police stations supporting the IPS with their work. We distributed cars, equipment, weapons and money to the IPS, and gathered intelligence on Iranian weapon smuggling.
Just a year before my arrival, six of my RMP colleagues were killed in Majar al-Kabir. I vividly remember the fear of my first night, aged just 26, travelling in a blacked-out bus after landing in Maysan, en route to Camp Abu Naji, really unsure of what lay ahead—a fear I imagine many soldiers face today: the fear of the unknown, the fear of what is to come, especially those on the frontline in places such as Ukraine. Iraq was not easy. We came under fire regularly, and some of my fellow soldiers did not make it home. Tensions escalated when photos were published falsely showing British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees. For several days, our base was surrounded by angry armed locals. There was a lot of tension but we got through it together.
On the base, there were over 1,000 soldiers, but only three female officers and a handful of female non-commissioned officers. The one positive thing about that was that at least I could get to the toilet and the shower without a queue. Despite the challenges, I was grateful for the brave interpreters, local police and all the other locals who worked with us on camp and out on the ground. We must remember the sacrifices local people on operations make to support our armed forces abroad.
After returning to the UK, we started a family, and I had to make a choice between family and career. With no military support to help balance these responsibilities, I eventually left the Army earlier than I had planned. That is too common a story. As the Haythornthwaite review highlighted, the most common reason service members leave the armed forces is the impact on family and personal life. There were no options for me as a mother. I would have been sent to Afghanistan next, and there were no nurseries on the frontline. There was no flexible career path for me, and I am not alone. Many service members face pressures that extend beyond the battlefield, and we simply need to do more to support them.
I am immensely proud of my constituency’s connection to the armed forces. We have Langley Vale, where more than 8,000 soldiers trained during the first world war. It was where Lord Kitchener famously inspected the troops, and it now serves as a place of reflection, with beautiful sculptures honouring our military past. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, recently celebrated their 75th anniversary this year, proudly marching with bayonets fixed, exercising their freedom of Epsom and Ewell. These are powerful reminders of the sacrifices made by generations of service members.
Honouring our veterans goes beyond remembrance: it is about action. There are pressing issues that we must address to ensure that veterans and their families are supported after their service. Housing is one such issue. It is unacceptable that more than 2,000 households with a veteran were assessed as homeless last year. High-quality, affordable accommodation for veterans should be accessible across the country. No one who served our nation should face homelessness. The winter fuel allowance is another concern. Many veterans struggle financially, and recent cuts to the allowance will hit some of them hard. It is a lifeline, especially in colder months, and veterans should be able to rely on this support.
Military compensation also needs reform. The current system often counts military compensation towards means-tested benefits. In 2022, about 150,000 veterans received compensation for injuries sustained during service, but many councils count it as income, penalising veterans who desperately need support. That practice goes against the armed forces covenant, and it is time that we changed those rules.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should give serious thought to excluding military compensation when calculating pension credit?
Helen Maguire
I agree with my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, we also need to improve mental health support for veterans. More than half of veterans have faced mental health challenges, yet 60% hesitate to seek support due to stigma. To reduce stigma, and encourage more veterans to seek the support that they need, we need regular mental health check-ups for veterans, along with better tracking of both physical and mental health outcomes.
Female veterans face additional challenges, including higher unemployment rates and a greater risk of harassment. The Atherton report found that nearly two thirds of female veterans experienced bullying or harassment during service. That is unacceptable, and we must implement recommendations to protect and support women who serve. Finally, our LGBT+ veterans deserve justice. Those dismissed because of their sexuality are being offered compensation of £12,500, which is wholly insufficient and fails to reflect the harm that they endured. The Government must reassess the scheme to ensure these veterans receive fair compensation.
We thank all charities who support our armed forces, and we remember those who have fallen, but as we remember the contributions of those who have served, let us honour their sacrifices with action. We need a system that truly supports our service personnel, veterans and their families. That means addressing issues ranging from housing and pay to diversity and equality. Our veterans deserve not just our respect but our commitment to making a real difference in their lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will now impose an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches and six minutes for maiden speeches. I call Jodie Gosling to make her maiden speech.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important remembrance and commemoration debate. It is a great privilege to have been chosen by the people of Nuneaton, my home, to represent them in this Chamber. I understand the weight of the responsibility that I now have, and I will work hard to bring about the change that we need to thrive.
My journey to this place was indirect, and many individuals supported and inspired me along the way, from the excellent campaign support so willingly given by local members to the kindness, good will and advice of my constituents. I need to give credit to my family too. As the sixth of seven siblings, I will not try to do so individually, but I need to reflect on my mum’s incredible work ethic and compassion and my dad’s sense of fun and drive to ensure that education was at the heart of our family. Similarly, my children are my greatest source of inspiration. Our legacy will be their future. I thank them and my partner for joining us here today, and for their enduring understanding, patience and unwavering support.
Nuneaton is a beautiful town, and I am proud to call it home. It is steeped in a rich history that stretches back to the Domesday Book. Originally simply referred to as Eaton, meaning “the town by the river”, recognising the significance of our River Anker, with the 12th-century addition of a nunnery it simply became Nuneaton Priory, and there the name was formed. Soon after, Henry II gave us our market charter, and the market town that we know and love today began to develop. It is the largest town in Warwickshire, nestled in beautiful rolling hills and stunning countryside. Our coal industry was the economic bedrock from the 19th century until the closure of Daw Mill in 2013, which called an abrupt end to that era.
Nuneaton’s sense of pride and duty is never clearer than in its service record. Nuneaton is home to many members of the armed forces and veterans. This year, we welcomed our first Nepalese councillor, Bhim Saru, to Nuneaton and Bedworth council, and congratulated Om Gurung on being the first Gurkha to become a freeman of our town. His work is truly inspirational. A Gurkha monument in Riversley Park is the first memorial of its kind dedicated to the brave Nepalese and Indian soldiers who lost their lives in the service of the British forces.
Those who visit Riversley Park will also find Louis’s playground, where Louis Carter played as a child. Louis, a son of Nuneaton, was a well-respected cadet who, following the completion of his training, joined the Royal Fusiliers and was deployed to Helmand Province where he was known as a friendly, loyal and kind member of his platoon. His platoon leader was caught in an improvised explosive device blast while out on patrol. Fusilier Louis Carter acted to aid his comrade, but fell victim to a secondary device. He was just 18 years of age. His companionship, insurmountable courage and sense of service continue to live on as we remember him.
The people of Nuneaton are proud of Louis and all our fallen sons and daughters. Our local Royal British Legion works tirelessly to support their families and commemorate their lives. Special credit needs to be given to Laurie Payne, Nuneaton’s last surviving Korean war veteran, who will celebrate his 96th birthday on Remembrance Sunday this year, and reportedly still outsells all other members in poppy sales.
I also pay credit and give thanks to my predecessor, Marcus Jones, who represented Nuneaton in this House for 14 years. In common with the residents of treacle town, he believed in common sense and hard work, and was respected on both sides of the House for his civility.
Any account of Nuneaton today needs to recognise the challenges facing a town whose traditional industries can no longer support the large numbers of residents they once did. The willingness of those impacted to retrain, diversify and reinvent themselves as work moves into engineering, digital and scientific areas shows the admirable skills needed to embrace the opportunities of an evolving industrial landscape. Nuneaton’s central location and connectivity provide logistical opportunities, just as the canals once did for our textiles. Despite the many challenges that Nuneaton has faced, its resilience shines through. It is a town of opportunity and hope.
I congratulate Nuneaton Signs on its recent King’s award for inclusion. Not only is it one of the leading road sign manufacturers in the country but it boasts an inclusion record of over 66% of its staff identifying as having a disability. It is a truly brilliant company that represents our communities. We also celebrate the town’s diverse culture, with its thriving art community, the Abbey theatre and its hugely generous spirit, which can be seen in our various charities and dazzling annual carnival.
As the first female MP for Nuneaton, I must give credit to one of the trailblazers who went before me, opening up opportunities. Mary Ann Evans, more commonly known for her writing as George Eliot, was born just down the road from me. She wrote under a male name in an attempt to free herself from the discrimination of readers and publishers. Her books opened up public discussion on areas such as domestic violence, the status of women, poverty, political reform, addiction and education—issues that are still as relevant two centuries later.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
For me, remembrance is a deeply humbling time of the year and an opportunity to reflect upon the freedoms and privileges that we often take for granted in this country. Freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy are values for which our forefathers fought bravely. Each generation must make sacrifices to ensure that their children can live in freedom. We see that most clearly today in eastern Europe, where Ukraine fights to defend itself from the barbaric assault on its democracy by Putin’s Russia.
My South Northamptonshire constituency is filled with monuments to the heroes of the past, and I look forward this year to marking their sacrifice by attending the Towcester remembrance service at St Lawrence Church, the Brackley service at Winchester House school and the act of remembrance in Bozeat cemetery. I will also join the local branch of the Royal British Legion to sell poppies.
Since my election to this place, I have joined the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and have had the opportunity to see at first hand how crucial it is that we support our serving men and women properly. In a world where threats are rising, we should be investing more, not less, in our armed forces. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and I am disappointed that the Labour Government cannot make the same outright commitment. Our veterans are the very best of us and should be given the right support to transition out of active duty and into civilian life.
The previous Government put a Veterans Minister around the Cabinet table for the first time, tackled veteran homelessness through Operation Fortitude, created a dedicated veterans’ mental health pathway in Operation Courage, and introduced the veterans’ railcard.
If we are to honour the sacrifice of those who came before us, if we are to keep our promise to make the UK the best place to be a veteran, and if we are to ensure that the cause of freedom is defended around the world, we must fund our armed forces properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dan Tomlinson to make his maiden speech.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for her fantastic maiden speech? Like other Labour Members, I have Nuneaton seared into my memory because of its role in the 2015 general election. It is nice now to be able to think of such a fantastic speech when I think of Nuneaton.
I pay tribute to my predecessor as the MP for Chipping Barnet, Theresa Villiers, who served with much hard work and diligence over her 19 years of service. She was a hard-working Member of Parliament, and I hope to follow in her footsteps in that regard.
Just yesterday, I was with members of the East Barnet branch of the Royal British Legion, and I thought then, as we think now, of all those who have given their lives and livelihoods to service to keep our country safe.
Chipping Barnet is not, as some may assume, in the Cotswolds, which is home to Chipping Norton and Jeremy Clarkson’s farm—although we do have 14 farms in the constituency. We are, in fact, a suburb of London—part of the London borough of Barnet—and it is the suburbs that I would like to speak about today, for it is my contention that when a political party understands the suburbs, it is able then, and only then, to speak on behalf of, and govern for, the country as a whole.
Let me give the House a little history of Chipping Barnet. Back in the 1700s, a weary traveller trying to make their way northwards out of London, on the great north road, would find that the natural resting point for their first night’s stay would be Chipping Barnet, where no fewer than 25 public houses could put them up for the night. I will ensure that I continue supporting and patronising the pubs in Chipping Barnet during my time in office.
If we roll forward 200 years, we get to the extension of the Northern line to the constituency, joining us up with the city of London proper. With a relatively liberal planning system pre-1947, that connectivity enabled a surge of housebuilding, which Labour Members will think about, I am sure, when we seek to build and invest for the future. Chipping Barnet is home, as I said, to wonderful farms and green spaces, and many of us moved to Barnet because we value a house with a garden, room to raise the kids, and maybe even space to park the car out front—the aspirations of suburban life.
Let me say to people of faith in my constituency just how grateful I am for the warmth with which I have been received in churches, synagogues and mosques. In particular, I say to Jewish and Muslim residents that I will always stand with them against the antisemitism and Islamophobia that I know has been on the rise in recent months and over the past year.
It is important to do good work locally as a Member of Parliament, but it is my firm belief that we must raise our game in this House and nationally if we are to truly make a difference for our constituents. The need for change is great. Gone are the days when a child could grow up in a low-income family and on free school meals, just as I did, but with the security of a social security system that was there for them and genuinely affordable social housing. Representing the suburbs is just as much about standing up for the people who cannot afford to or do not commute into town as it is about representing those who do.
People’s aspiration for a better life for their families and communities is still there, but it is not being met. I am talking about the deal of suburban life: people who put in so much—spending their time stuck in traffic or on the Northern line, raising their kids to know right from wrong, and serving in their communities and working hard—expect in return that the Government will just get some things right by providing public services that are there when needed and ensuring that the economy is strong and growing. I saw that deal fall apart somewhat during my time as an economist before entering this House. I worked at the Treasury for a time, and then at the Resolution Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I saw that deal fall apart in charts and in numbers on spreadsheets, but since becoming a parliamentary candidate and then a Member of Parliament, I have heard at first hand from constituents in the suburbs about how that deal has fallen apart. I think of young people who cannot afford to move out of their parents’ homes and own or rent in the suburbs. I think of many residents who want to buy a new car but are scared that if they do, it will be stolen and the police will not follow up. Those everyday aspirations are not being met any more.
My work in this place—our work on the Labour Benches—will be to rebuild that deal of suburbia and ensure that those who put in so much get it back again. I say to residents of Chipping Barnet, whether they live in Brunswick Park, Whetstone, Totteridge, Mill Hill East, Arkley, Edgwarebury, Underhill or one of the many Barnets—High Barnet, East Barnet, New Barnet or Barnet Vale—that it is the honour of my life to serve and represent them. I will do all I can for our communities during my time in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Rebecca Paul to make her maiden speech.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate about remembering the valiant actions of those who have fought to keep this country safe.
It is a privilege to rise as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Reigate, a constituency that I am proud to represent and serve. I am deeply grateful to the people of Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages for placing their trust in me.
Before I turn to an issue of great importance to my constituents, I must acknowledge my predecessor, Crispin Blunt, who is himself a veteran. I have not rushed to deliver my maiden speech, not least out of a desire to give careful thought to the words I choose. Ironically, it seems that Crispin faced a similar conundrum in 1997. In fact, I do not think I can do better than to quote from his own maiden speech:
“It must be admitted that Sir George Gardiner did not end his Conservative party career in a blaze of glory…Sir George was a resolute battler for the causes he believed in, and although many of us questioned his judgment at the end, no one could question the resolve with which he steered his chosen course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 857.]
My sincere hope is that when my successor rises to deliver their maiden speech, they are not inclined to give those words a third airing in this House.
That said, I would like to recognise Crispin Blunt’s 27 years of public service, and also pay tribute to his team. No MP achieves anything without a great team supporting them, and Crispin’s team served our communities with diligence and grace during many challenging times. I take this opportunity to thank them, especially Teresa Craig, who has gone above and beyond in the past 15 years to help many thousands of constituents. I also pay tribute to Lord Grayling, the former MP for Epsom and Ewell: thanks to recent boundary changes, I have welcomed the wards of Nork and Tattenham Corner and Preston into the Reigate constituency. Chris was an exceptional local MP, and I thank him for all his support.
Let me now turn to a subject close to my heart: my wonderful home. Reigate is a constituency that encapsulates the very best of both town and country—a trinity of towns in the most beautiful part of Surrey, each with its own unique character and identity. We have the historic town of Reigate, with its winding streets, independent shops and proud heritage. It is a place of immense charm and community spirit, and notably is the location of the first road tunnel built in England; it is the birthplace of Margot Fonteyn, one of the greatest classical ballerinas of all time, and is also the place where both our current Prime Minister and Fatboy Slim were educated. Just north of the town stands Reigate fort, a Victorian structure intended to serve as a last line of defence in the event that the south had fallen and defeat seemed certain—a role not unlike that which Reigate played in the recent general election.
Then there is Redhill, a railway town that pulses with energy and ambition—a transport hub and a centre for business, commerce and the arts. It is home to an inspirational Lioness and some Lobsters. As the place where the existence of solar flares was first confirmed, Redhill shines bright as a vivacious younger sister to Reigate. Finally, we have Banstead, which offers a quieter appeal with its village feel and beautiful commons. Its bustling high street is adorned with gorgeous flowers that are lovingly tended by local residents. It is a community whose respectful patriotism is keenly felt, especially at this time of year. I must take this opportunity to recognise and thank the Banstead and District Royal British Legion branch, whose members do an outstanding job paying tribute to, and raising money for, our armed forces and veterans.
Beyond our towns, we are blessed with many picturesque villages, each with its own charm. Disappointingly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not enough time for me to tell you about all of them, so I will tell you about just one: Walton-on-the-Hill. With its serene pond, world-class golf and history of feisty suffragettes, it is the place I chose to settle and raise my family. Like a thief, Walton stole my heart, and I must thank the Prime Minister for giving it early release.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear that the green belt is one of the reasons why the towns and villages of my constituency are so unique. We are incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful countryside, from the rolling hills of the north downs to the open green spaces of Banstead commons. This country needs more homes, so there now comes pressure to build on the green belt because it is easy, but that is the lazy solution. The new Government talk about developing brownfield first, which I very much support, but just saying the words is not enough. For building on those sites to become a reality, we need tangible action to make brownfield development economically viable. We also need to have an honest conversation about the impact of reducing housing targets in London while nearly doubling them in Reigate and Banstead. Even if by some miracle my local council could deliver on those targets, they would simply be building homes for people from London to move into, not meeting the local need and certainly not bringing down house prices. If we are to break the cycle, we must densify in cities, where essential infrastructure is already in place.
I hope this Labour Government will consider tackling the issue of housing with the same spirit shown by the Labour Government elected in the final months of the second world war. Then as now, the country was in desperate need of more homes; Clement Attlee delivered 1 million of them, while insisting both on densification and ensuring that development was concentrated in cities and towns. Mr Attlee set out to build his new Jerusalem primarily as a fitting tribute to a generation of servicemen who fought, endured and suffered to keep this country safe from fascist tyranny. That heroic generation included Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock from Redhill, who flew ultra-high-risk missions for the Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron at RAF Benson. Tragically, though, Douglas never came home: on 11 August 1944, his aircraft failed to return from one of those missions. Some days later, his body washed up on the shore in Belgium, where he is buried today.
A generation earlier, Lieutenant Rupert Hallowes, another Redhill man, answered the call to serve his country. He would go on to earn the Victoria Cross in the first world war; he died fighting at Hooge in 1915. Those are accounts of just two men, but memorials across my constituency bear the names of many hundreds more who left home to fight for their country and did not return. Ultimately, the debt we owe to the fallen can never be repaid, but we honour them, keeping the promise to never forget.
I will end on that note, but just before I do, I want to thank my parents, Bev and Steve, without whom I would not be here today. Today is a proud day for our family—one that we will remember.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Amanda Hack to make her maiden speech.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on remembrance and veterans. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), on their excellent contributions.
It was an honour to attend the festival of remembrance organised just over a week ago by the Leicester and Leicestershire British Legion at De Montfort hall. That festival was an outstanding tribute to those who have served in the military and those who are currently serving. It paid thanks to our armed forces with some outstanding performances from local musicians and contemporary dancers. However, it is the harrowing accounts of those who experienced the D-day landings that will stay with me. It will be a privilege to be involved in the many remembrance events across the constituency.
It is the honour of my life to have been elected to serve as the MP for North West Leicestershire. In that role, I am following Andrew Bridgen, who served the community proudly for 14 years. While we do not share much in terms of our politics, I know that he worked hard for his constituents. While I am referencing former MPs, I have to go back further to our former Labour MP, the late David Taylor, who sadly died in office in 2009. It will be no surprise to those who knew David that he is fondly remembered today in the constituency.
North West Leicestershire is in the heart of the national forest. It is a fast-growing area, with the highest housing growth in Leicestershire and an equally impressive growth in employment opportunities. None of this is surprising, considering our transport links: we have an international airport, East Midlands airport, which includes one of the largest freight operations in the country. However, like so many other areas that have seen massive growth, we have been lagging behind in terms of infrastructure. Local people need to see delivery of our commitment to expand public services, rather than the scaling-back we saw for the past 14 years under the Conservatives.
I am proud to be the first female MP in the history of North West Leicestershire. Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the unveiling of the newly refurbished mother and child statue in Coalville. Stuart Warburton, a local historian, has kindly checked for me, and we think that it is the first statue of a lone woman to be installed in the whole of Leicestershire. That award-winning statue, first installed in 1963, depicts a woman proudly striding forward with her son while holding a shopping bag containing many items linked to the constituency, including a lump of coal, an oil tanker, a yarn bobbin and a dolly. It occurred to me that there is no better way of showcasing our constituency than by considering some of the items in her bag.
North West Leicestershire has a rich mining heritage. The coalmining industry has been so important to the development of North West Leicestershire that it is literally gives its name to the main urban centre, Coalville. The coalfields powered Britain, and Kegworth—also in my constituency—is just a stone’s throw away from the last coal-fired power station in the UK, which closed just a few weeks ago. As is customary in a maiden speech, I will briefly adopt the role of travel agent: I highly recommend that everyone does a tour arranged by the Snibston Heritage Trust in Coalville. Snibston has one of the last remaining examples of above-ground working of the coalmines. We also have many pit wheels dotted across the constituency, reminding us of what previously lay beneath our feet. While in Coalville, visitors can pop into the Belvoir centre to sample the famous Birds Bakery jam tarts. My constituency is home to another character who enjoys sweet things: just a few miles up the road, in the wonderful town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, we recently had installed a Paddington Bear on a bench. For the thrill seekers, we have Donington Park, home to MotoGP and motorbike racing, and for the heavy metal fans among us, it is also home to Download festival every June.
I turn to the oil tanker in the bag. As with our coal heritage, North West Leicestershire’s fingerprints are all over the rail industry. The oil tanker represents William Stableford’s wagon works, which delivered a large contract for English and foreign railways. It is perhaps ironic that my constituency has no passenger rail service at all, even though the manufacturer Siemens completed the signalling work for the Elizabeth line from its base in the constituency. One of my major goals in this House is to get the Ivanhoe line back running for passengers. This trainline was originally created in the 1830s by the great industrialist and father of the railways, George Stephenson. Reopening it has the potential to create a beautiful trainline travelling through the greenery of the national forest. The national forest line—now that sounds nice!
North West Leicestershire had other industries, too. It is no secret that Leicestershire has a long history with the British textile industry, hence the yarn bobbin in the bag. H Seal Elastics has been knitting in the constituency since 1898 and currently provides textiles for use in military personal protective equipment—key equipment for our service personnel today. North West Leicestershire was also the home of Palitoy, which produced the dolly in the bag and the action man figurine—a character that seized the day and got stuff done.
The contents of a North West Leicestershire shopping bag today would be similar to the contents of everyone’s shopping bags at home, as the constituency is now home to a selection of food and drink manufacturers. In that shopping bag, there would be a selection of key produce from local farmers, KP Nuts, McVitie’s biscuits, a Mars bar, Jacob’s cream crackers, Quality Street, and some of the Mr Freeze ice pops that I enjoyed with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade a few months ago after a tour of the Refresco beverages factory.
During my time in this House, I hope to be an action woman—someone who adds to our North West Leicestershire bag with cleaner waterways, better public services for all and, most importantly, an anytime day return ticket on the Ivanhoe line.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Huntingdon, one in nine households has a veteran in it. That astonishing figure illustrates the historical link between our armed forces and a constituency that still has RAF Wyton and two United States air force bases, RAF Alconbury and RAF Molesworth—legacy bases that can trace their history back to the second world war. I am hugely proud to represent such a vibrant veterans community.
My own service was as an infantry officer in the Royal Yorkshire Regiment. I served in the British Army during the most kinetic period of operations since the Korean war. Operation Herrick 11 in Afghanistan was a difficult tour. In Sangin, our battlegroup lost 30 soldiers; a further 170 were wounded. I remember being in the operations room when two new battle casualty replacements arrived on a resupply helicopter. I did not stop to have a brew, or help them settle in; my interaction with them both was fleeting—transactional. It was an everyday occurrence, and I thought little more about it.
A fortnight later, on Tuesday 15 December 2009, I was manning the operations room, and over the radio came an all-too-familiar message: “Contact IED. Wait. Out.” There follows a pause that lasts an eternity. You know somebody is now fighting for their life; they might already be dead. You know that you can do little other than stand up the quick reaction force and wait to find out how grave the situation is. A suicide bomber had ridden his motorbike into the checkpoint and detonated the bomb, instantly killing the two Afghan soldiers manning the checkpoint and fatally wounding two of our soldiers providing cover. I pressed our commander on the ground for an update. To my eternal regret, I was quite short with him, and continued to harry him for a sitrep. I did not know at the time that he was trying to give lifesaving first aid to one of those soldiers while under fire.
The medic that day tried valiantly to save both soldiers. Ignoring the bullets cutting the air around her, she calmly moved between each casualty, determined to do all she could to care for them. The weight of enemy fire increased. With flagrant disregard for her own safety, Bushbye nevertheless continued to move between the casualties, personally administering CPR to one of the soldiers. For her actions, Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye was awarded the Military Cross.
Rifleman James Brown was 18 years old. He had arrived on that helicopter. He had been in Sangin for less than two weeks. Age shall not weary him, nor the years condemn. I have always promised to remember him, and to give him the opportunity to live on that he sadly never had. We have a duty in this House to consider the ramifications of committing our soldiers to operations. I do not recount this story to dissuade, but to put a human face on the price it costs. They were the best of us, and the very least we can do is remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Tom Rutland to make his maiden speech.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this debate. I congratulate my colleagues on some brilliant maiden speeches today.
It is often said that it is a privilege to be in this place, and it is one that we owe to the bravery of those who fought for our country and for freedom in the two world wars. In my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham, British troops rallied in advance of D-day on Broadwater Green and embarked from Shoreham port to land in Normandy, paving the way for the allied victory over the Nazis. With freedom in Europe again under threat, I am sure it is not just my shoulders that feel the weight of responsibility as I rise to meet this moment and honour those brave sacrifices, which transcend our time in this place.
Like so many other new Members nervously preparing their first contribution in this awe-inspiring place, I had a good flick through my predecessors’ initial contributions, and enjoyed seeing how some things had remained the same and others had changed. The constituency is still nestled between the south downs and the sea, is still the most beautiful in the country, and still has the same name, much to the disappointment of my neighbours in Lancing, who feel that the name does not properly recognise the largest village in the country. But much has changed, and my sitting here as the first Labour Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham is perhaps one clear indicator of that.
In 1997, my immediate predecessor spoke of Worthing having the oldest population in the country. Today, it is very different, with many young people coming to start a family in our vibrant coastal community. While the political sea change in the splendid seaside settlements that I represent has been stark, my constituents do not have to get used to a wildly different name for their MP; it has gone from Tim to Tom. I hope that my predecessor Tim Loughton knows of the regard in which many residents hold him after his 27 years of public service. I also hope that, in time, fewer residents call me Tim, but after 32 years of my parents’ friends’ making the same mistake in their Christmas cards, that is perhaps wishful thinking.
Speaking of family, I thank mine for their love and support on my journey here, particularly my mum and dad. I think everyone in this place had that moment when they switched on to politics and realised the difference that it could make. For me, it was realising as a teenager that I was gay, and feeling as though I would not achieve everything I could or should because of who I was. It was the worst feeling in the world; I have never forgotten it. Life is thankfully very different now, in no small part thanks to the transformative work of the last Labour Government, and of brave, trailblazing MPs. I am very lucky to be able to thank my partner, my boyfriend Jack, for his support—words that I never thought I would have the courage to say when I was growing up, but can say with great pride today. That feeling I had is why I care about politics. I do not want any child to feel that way, whether because of the colour of their skin or their religion; because they are a boy, or a girl, or have a disability; or because of who they love or how much their parents earn. That drive is what has led me to spend my career campaigning, from standing up for consumers to fighting for working people as a trade union official.
It is an honour to serve as part of this new Labour Government, because there is so much that needs fixing. My constituents know all too well the struggle to get an appointment with their GP, to find a school place for their child, to swim in the sea without sewage, to afford a safe and secure home of their own, and to get a good job that does not just pay the bills but allows them to thrive. Fixing the foundations of this country will take time, but I have no doubt that the mission of this Government, driven by the aspirations and determination of my constituents, will succeed.
There is so much to be proud of locally. We do not sit in the shadow of Brighton and Hove next door. Shoreham port is not just a thriving commercial hub for cargo, leisure boats and fishing trawlers, but an eco-port generating renewable energy and enhancing marine biodiversity. Further inland, Ricardo builds on more than a century of engineering excellence and innovation. Having been home to great penicillin fermentation tanks in the ’60s, Worthing today remains a life sciences hub, with GSK continuing to manufacture lifesaving antibiotics locally. Or take Flare, which has evolved from building world-leading loudspeakers in Lancing business park to shipping earphones and products that defend against irritating noises—I dare say that hon. Members might find them useful in this Chamber from time to time. Thanks to Fitz in Worthing, we are able to toast these successes with local fizz.
We have the most incredible community organisations, led by ordinary people giving up extraordinary amounts of their time for the betterment of others. Whether it is Wendy organising litter picks and beach cleans to Keep Lancing Lovely, Dai providing food to those in need through the Shoreham and Adur community food bank, or David, Sara and Simon running 20 youth football teams at Southwick Rangers FC, ours is a community where we look after each other and love where we live.
When I think about the good hearts of those in my constituency who inspire me, I hope that we can bring about the change that people voted for at the election in a more gentle way, because politicians are humans too, and have all the strengths and flaws of those who send us here. That is why it can be a dangerous thing to have political idols—nobody is perfect. Many years ago I had the pleasure of working for, and more importantly learning from, two giants—Lord Adonis and the late, great Tessa Jowell. If I can summon half of Andrew’s intellect and just an ounce of the extraordinary compassion that Tessa exuded, I hope I shall do them and my constituents proud.
While we all have our own story and we have all walked our own path that has brought us here today, I think my ultimate aim for my time here is the same as everyone else’s: to leave things better than we found them. I know from personal experience that politics can improve people’s lives, and it must. So I say thank you to the people of East Worthing and Shoreham for sending me here. I know that true thanks comes not in the words of this speech today, but in the hard work I will put in for as long as they see fit to send me here and give me the great privilege of serving as their Member of Parliament.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a real honour to follow five cracking maiden speeches from the new hon. Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), who all did their constituents proud.
For so many of us in this Chamber this debate is personal. We have been lucky to hear from several Members about their own service. My connection to our armed forces is a family one: both my grandad and my uncle served in the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry, and their shared experiences remind me that behind every veteran is a story of sacrifice, resilience and courage, as well as the family and friends who support them and miss them while they are away. The loved ones of servicemen and women often bear the weight of anxiety and uncertainty, worrying for their safety and wellbeing. It is crucial that we honour their contributions, for they too endure hardships that are often overlooked.
I want to spend a moment to think about those whose names may not be etched into the stone of our war memorials, but whose legacies deserve to be remembered. One such figure is Romiley’s own Gertrude Powick. During the first world war, she dedicated herself to the war effort by volunteering with the Friends War Victims Relief Committee, working as a nurse on the frontlines in both France and Poland. Having travelled to Warsaw to treat a typhus outbreak, she contracted it herself and died in 1919. Gertrude was not just a care giver and a suffragist, but a trailblazer for women during wartime, and she is the only woman to be named on a war memorial in Stockport, on a plaque on the Heaton Moor memorial. Her work reminds us that heroism comes in many forms, and it is our duty to remember those like her who played a pivotal role in shaping our country’s history.
In my constituency of Hazel Grove, our community is taking many proactive steps to address the challenges faced by veterans. Nearly 3,000 veterans are estimated to be homeless in the UK at any given time, and a report from the Royal British Legion indicates that 42% of veterans are experiencing issues with their mental health—with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. We have brilliant groups in Hazel Grove such as the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Club, obviously the Hazel Grove branch of the Royal British Legion, and Project Recce, which trains veterans in construction skills. We are also looking to turn Woodbank hall, a 200-year-old building that is falling into disrepair in Woodbank Memorial park, into a veterans centre, and I welcome any and all support from Ministers on the Front Bench to that end.
As we remember those who have served, let us commit ourselves not only to honouring their past sacrifices, but actively to improving their present circumstances, because a brighter future for our veterans and their families is possible—one that ensures they receive the respect, care and support they so richly deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Leigh Ingham to make her maiden speech.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank those who have made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and my hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland). I heard moving stories not only about their constituencies, but about their own lives.
It is an honour to speak in this debate today. With family who have served or are serving in the merchant navy, the Army and the RAF, I am thankful for the incredible sacrifice members of the armed forces and their families make for this country. My constituency has strong armed forces connections, including the accommodation at MOD Stafford—known as Beacon barracks—the training camp at Swynnerton and a veteran community of more than 4,300. I will fully support them and their families to fight to ensure they have access to quality accommodation and local services.
I grew up in a working-class household, the daughter of a factory worker and a bricklayer, who I am so pleased are here today. I never imagined that I would be standing here today making my maiden speech as an MP. To be honest, Westminster can be a little intimidating, so I would like to give particular thanks to the wonderful House of Commons Doorkeepers and the Speaker’s team for making me feel so welcome, particularly Jamie, Joe, Lee and Andy; I do not know if I am allowed to say their names. [Laughter.]
I also want to pay tribute to my predecessors, Theo Clarke and Sir Bill Cash. Theo, the former MP for Stafford, campaigned passionately on women’s health, a cause I will continue to champion. Sir Bill Cash was the previous MP for Stone and a 40-year political veteran, having won 10 general elections. I cannot promise to share his politics, but I do promise to serve my constituents with as much vigour as he did. I would also like to thank Jeremy Lefroy and David Kidney, both still regarded as brilliant constituency MPs. For constituents to praise a Conservative MP and a Labour MP in the same breath shows how important it is that constituents feel seen, heard and represented in this place by the person, not just the party. The people of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages want a visible MP, who listens, who fights for them and who prioritises their collective interests over personal agendas—a politics that prioritises “we”, not “me”. That is the kind of politics that I wholeheartedly support.
For those who are unfamiliar with it, my constituency is both urban and rural, featuring over 50 towns and villages, which I will not be listing today. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I have only three minutes left. As the county town, Stafford is proud to be the largest town. Stafford town centre is quintessentially British, featuring—to name just a few—the Ancient High House, Victoria park, the famous Soup Kitchen which all hon. Members should visit, the beautiful churches of St Chad’s and St Mary’s, and of course the Gatehouse theatre, known for its Shakespeare festival. The historic castle just outside the town is a key feature of Stafford. We are also fortunate to have an outstanding-rated college in Stafford, which is shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), and we are soon to be opening a state-of-the-art institute of technology.
Eccleshall, another lovely town in my constituency, boasts a brilliant high street with seven pubs, and it has its own castle, bringing the constituency total to two. The 2024 boundary changes added rural areas including Loggerheads, Maer and Whitmore, and Gnosall to the Stafford constituency, enhancing our farming areas, and introducing new residents and lovely village pubs. Supporting our rural communities will be a key focus for me in the coming years.
One thing that always strikes me about my constituency is the caring nature and the strength of our community. Local libraries, charities and faith groups have stepped up during the past 14 years of Conservative austerity. A stand-out example is William Morris’s House of Bread, a brilliant charity that provides meals and support to those in need. One of my favourite stories about William is that, in the week he earned the Queen’s award for voluntary service, he was given an ASBO for the same work. It is a rare combination, but it demonstrates how far the people of Stafford will go to stand up for and support each other.
The change of Government means there is so much to celebrate. This Parliament’s cohort has a record proportion of state-educated and women MPs. Our Cabinet breaks records on the number of state-educated Ministers and Secretaries of State, and we have our first female Chancellor. While there is still work to be done on social mobility and equality, we are moving in the right direction. Thirty years ago when I was growing up I would not have thought someone like me could be in a place like this. So for the next five years I will continue to work closely with the people of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages to address their issues and get our public services working again, and to celebrate the positivity and joy that is in our area.
Finally, I hope the next bricklayer’s daughter in Highfields or the factory worker’s son in Doxey knows that when they grow up they are just as entitled to end up in the House of Commons as anyone else.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I start by joining others in wishing the Royal Marines a very happy 360th birthday today? It is a superb unit with a proud and distinguished history, albeit slightly shorter than my own regiment’s. They call us “Pongos” and we call them “Bootnecks” and it is an honour to share this House with so many distinguished Royal Marines—my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) among their number.
When I was 14 my English master, Mr Smale, gave us a poem to read and it annoyed me very much. It was written by Philip Larkin, and it ends like this:
“Crowds, colourless and careworn
Had made my taxi late,
Yet not till I was airborne
Did I recall the date—
The day when Queen and Minister
And Band of Guards and all
Still act their solemn-sinister
Wreath-rubbish in Whitehall.
It used to make me throw up,
These mawkish, nursery games:
O When will England grow up?
—But I out soar the Thames,
And dwindle off down Auster
To greet Professor Lal
(He once met Morgan Forster),
My contact and my pal.”
I think what got to me then was the soaring, sneering cynicism of the persona that the poet had created of the travelling academic looking down both metaphorically and literally on the Cenotaph service here in Westminster. I think it offended my sense of fairness. Soldiers by and large have little choice in what they are called to do. Equally, they have little choice in the way in which the nation subsequently remembers them. They just do what they are called to do.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This year marks 80 years since D-day and one of my constituents, Don Sheppard, who died aged 104 this year, was a veteran of both D-day and Arnhem. On the point my hon. Friend is making, Don’s quote was, “The lads that didn’t make it back, those are the other ones we need to remember.” Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree on that point?
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point and places on the record distinguished veterans and their contributions to national life, and I thank him for it.
As a former soldier who has lost men, let me get one thing straight: these men and women died for us all to be free—free to do whatever the laws of the land permit us to do; to wear a poppy; not to wear a poppy; to remember; not to remember. It is our freedom. It is our choice, and on days like Remembrance Sunday there is not a soldier, sailor, airman or Royal Marine for whom that question could matter less. They are in another place: they are seeing the faces of lost friends; they are feeling guilty for having survived when their friends have not; they are trying to hold it together long enough for opening time to come at the pub. If I may say, on their behalf: “Thank you. Thank you for being here in this debate today and at the constituency gardens of remembrance earlier. Thank you for the respect. Thank you for your thank you.”
The act of remembrance is a little like going to church: some people go to church once a year, some once a week. For remembrance, it could be two minutes’ silence once a year for some, or just finding two minutes’ peace in a day from the awfulness of the loss of a son or a daughter for another. Regardless, here today we will remember them and we will honour our fallen.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am a veteran, and it is great to be a veteran. I learned so much from my service in the military: I had so many great experiences, was proud to play my own small part in Afghanistan, and worked with some fantastic people. It is great to be a veteran. Serving is not all sunshine and roses, but I can recommend no better career for someone in their 20s than to join our military.
But with the joy of service can come sadness. My constituency has many diverse towns and villages—the ex-pit town of Clay Cross, Dronfield with its bustling heart, or Killamarsh with its proud Derbyshire spirit. But they all have one thing in common: at the heart of each of them is a war memorial with the names of those lost in conflicts over the previous 100 years. These names were all once living, breathing members of their community—much-loved brothers, sons, fathers, other relatives and friends—and it is them I think of when I wear the poppy.
There can be a lot of very clever discourse about the poppy, which is such a simple and humble flower. The fact is that the poppy appeal is a truly successful grassroots movement. The first poppy appeal saw over 9 million sold in its first year, all worn by ordinary men and women who came together because they had lost a loved one and wanted to remember them. Grainy black and white photographs from the 1920s show people standing in remembrance ceremonies in the cold and silent November air, their grief clear to see on their faces even in those more stoic times. The poppy truly spontaneously united millions of people in hope. Some may not bear to see that unity but it is something that still unites millions of people today.
I would like briefly to address a few points that have been raised. It is very important that we learn the lessons of the past 14 years, and that we understand who made the decisions regarding our armed forces and why those decisions were made. Who sold off our valuable military housing stock so cheaply to Annington? I believe it was the Conservatives. Who pulled our forces back from important bases in Germany even as Russia became active in Ukraine? Again, it was the Conservatives. Who wasted billions of pounds on procurement, and reduced the offer to serving personnel, leading to a haemorrhage in the numbers serving in our military? It was the Conservatives. Who oversaw the reduction of our military size to barely being able to field a brigade minus? It was the Conservatives. So, yes let us have accountability, but it starts with an iota of shame from the party opposite before they are allowed anywhere near our defence again. At least, however, some of them are here; I note that not every party has a representative present.
I would also like to add briefly in response that one tenet very close to my heart as a veteran is that the rule of law is of the highest importance—
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
In the time that I have I would like to raise a couple of matters particularly relevant to Wales and also say what a delight it is to hear all the maiden speeches this evening.
The post of Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales was established two years ago and is held by Colonel James Phillips but his appointment is due to come to an end on 31 December. Please will the Minister in his closing remarks update the House on approval to extend this role? Colonel Phillips’ second annual report was published last month and it makes clear why a commissioner is crucial for veterans in Wales so they are not failed by the jagged edge of devolved and reserved powers. Core state funding from both the Welsh and UK Governments is necessary to make sure veterans receive proper care in health and housing, which are devolved, as well as reserved matters such as welfare and justice.
Some 50% of the veteran population in Wales is over 65 years old and 20% is over 85. Alongside health, the cost of living is a significant challenge for older veterans, and of course military compensation should not be treated as income for the purposes of benefits and pensions. An income disregard should be introduced for the war pensions and armed forced compensation scheme. This is about not just the veterans themselves, but the third sector providers on which veteran support relies so heavily in Wales. Those providers have seen a steep increase in operational costs and reduced funding. Organisations such as Woody’s Lodge and VC Gallery have been particularly hard-hit. That is important. While initiatives such as Op Courage, Op Restore and Op Nova have received new money in England, in Wales they do not exist and we have not seen equivalent funding either, leaving many critical services funded hand to mouth from year to year through grants.
This evening, I am also proud to support the campaign for an official memorial to remember and honour the pilots and navigators of the RAF’s Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. That is being organised as we speak by the Spitfire AA810 project. The PRU flew highly dangerous, clandestine missions to take intelligence photos. Its stripped-down planes were unarmed, so as to carry as much fuel as possible. For that reason, the PRU included conscientious objectors among its crews. The death rate was horrific, with around 48% losing their lives. One PRU survivor was Edward Bacon of Y Felinheli near Caernarfon in my constituency. The project is keen to reach out to families to collect their stories, so that their loved ones will once again be more than just another name carved on a war memorial.
Talking of memorials, the project is also campaigning for a UK memorial here in Westminster. When that comes to fruition—and it will—wreckage from a PRU aircraft will be its centrepiece. That poignant reminder of the courage and horrendous risks faced by PRU airmen was retrieved just last month from a Mosquito aircraft that crashed on Aran Fawddwy in Meirionnydd 80 years ago—
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
As a nation, we are rightly proud of our armed forces personnel and veterans, and theirs is the ultimate public service. We owe them a debt of gratitude. All here today, as we have heard already, have been touched by stories of heroism and heartbreaking sacrifice in defence of our nation. I take this opportunity to honour those who have served and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms and protect our way of life.
Today, I want to focus on three brave soldiers from Warrington who lost their lives: Marine Steven Birdsall of 40 Commando Royal Marines, who died in 2010; Private Thomas Sephton of 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who died in 2010; and Private Daniel Wade from 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, who died in 2012. We will never forget the sacrifices they made.
We are all here today because we owe so much to those who came before. We are deeply proud of our veterans, serving personnel and the families who support them for the contribution they make to our country. I also pay tribute to the mother of Private Daniel Wade, Lisa Billing. In memory of her son, Lisa worked tirelessly alongside Warrington borough council and others to revitalise Marshall gardens in Warrington town centre. Marshall gardens, which sits opposite the town cenotaph on Bridgefoot, has been transformed into a haven of peace, reflection and remembrance. Lisa was instrumental in making that happen, pouring her heart and soul into the project.
In Warrington, the scale of support for our serving personnel, veterans and families is clear to see with the popularity of the annual Warrington Armed Forces Day festival. It is held each year at Crosfields rugby league club to raise money for armed forces charities in memory of Tom Sephton. It is here that the community has taken the opportunity to come together to enjoy a day of rugby league entertainment, with thousands of people showing their continuing and unwavering support to all our armed forces. They raise tens of thousands of pounds for armed forces, rugby league and local charities.
I also pay tribute to Warrington’s veterans hub. While based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), the support offered by the hub reaches far and wide. It is fair to say that while we are two constituencies, we are one town—one town with a shared sense of pride, respect and admiration for all serving and veteran military personnel, and a shared drive and passion to ensure they receive the help and support they need. While we have heard many warm words about the contribution of our armed forces over the years, too often that has not translated into action. However, I am proud that this Labour Government have committed to act—
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I join in the tributes to our gallant security forces who, through their sacrifice, have brought us all the liberty that we enjoy. When our soldiers fall in foreign fields, we feel it very deeply. When they fall on home ground, there is an added poignancy to it. As a Member for Northern Ireland, representing the constituency of North Antrim, tonight I want to place on record the appreciation of so many people in Northern Ireland for the willing sacrifice of our gallant security forces from across this United Kingdom who paid with their lives in defending Northern Ireland from the ravages of terrorism. That debt is much appreciated by many of us.
In thinking of that debt, and of our affirmation that “We will remember them”, I wanted just to give an illustration. Today is 28 October, so let me share with the House the number and names of the soldiers who died on 28 October in various years on home soil in the United Kingdom.
On 28 October 1972, Lance Sergeant Thomas McKay from Edinburgh, a married man with two children, was shot from behind in Londonderry. On 28 October 1973, Private Stephen Hall, 1st Light Infantry, from Bristol, was shot in Crossmaglen. In 1974, Private Michael Swanick and Private Alan Coughlan were both murdered by a bomb attack on the Sandes home where they stayed at Ballykinler camp. On 28 October 1976, off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment soldier—this reminds us that so many local soldiers also paid the price—Stanley Desmond Adams was shot doing his rounds as a postman. On 28 October 1979, Warrant Officer David Bellamy was shot in a Land Rover as he left a police station.
Those are reminders of names we have all forgotten, but names of those to whom we in Northern Ireland and elsewhere owe so much. I place on record our appreciation tonight. I say one final thing to the Government: we have a veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland, but it has never been put on a statutory basis. That needs to be done to give it lasting effect.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Leeds South West and Morley has a proud tradition of standing side-by-side with veterans in our community and remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice. In Morley, our serving mayor Simon Brown served with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. In 2006, Simon was shot by a sniper in Iraq while on a rescue mission to help his stranded vehicle’s six-person crew. He lost one eye completely, and he has only partial sight in the other. That has never held him back from serving the veterans in our community in Morley, and we are proud to have him as our mayor.
Simon’s deputy mayor, Carol Edwards, is also a veteran. Carol supports the organisation, Veterans in Need Together. VINT aims to help veterans to regain their sense of provide following their service. The lead facilitator, Adi Heptinstall, provides a space at Morley fire station every Wednesday at 7 pm for veterans to come together to talk and share. I also pay tribute to Christine Hirst, who runs the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association luncheon club in Morley on the first Sunday of every month. The meals are excellent, as is the entertainment.
Like every corner of the UK, we have also lost servicepeople in the line of duty. I want to pay tribute to Morley’s Lance Corporal David Kirkness, who lost his life in 2009 to a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, along with Rifleman James Brown. Senior officers in the military at the time said that they gave their lives to prevent a larger tragedy in a nearby marketplace, where casualties would have been much higher. We thank David for his service.
It is so important that we remember the sacrifice that our veterans have made for us. Every year, the Royal British Legion branches in Morley and East and West Ardsley do their part for the poppy appeal. I place on record my thanks to Gail Wood, our honorary poppy appeal organiser in Morley, and Paul Wood, her deputy, for their tireless efforts, along with every volunteer who supports the Royal British Legion.
Every part of my constituency will pay tribute on Remembrance Sunday. The people of Morley will show up in huge numbers, as we always do, at the service in Scatcherd Park. Terry Grayshon, the chairman of the Morley remembrance committee, does an outstanding job of helping to organise that. Rev. Chris Balding will lead services in Wortley and at Farnley cenotaph. There will be services in Drighlington, Gildersome, and Churwell—in every part of my constituency. In Tingley, there will be a service near the site where a RAF bomber crashed in 1944, where we will honour the seven servicemen who tragically lost their lives as a result.
Every corner of Leeds South West and Morley takes pride in paying their respects to those who have served. Our veterans have done their part for our country and we should never stop trying to do our part for them.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
As we approach remembrance, we often think of one person—perhaps a friend who has died in conflict, or if we have served, perhaps comrades, or perhaps a great-grandparent we never met but whose memory looms large in our family lore. We often remember one person, and this year as we remember, I will be thinking of Luke Tooke, a royal artilleryman from the 16th Regiment Royal Artillery.
Luke was the last Tunbridge Wellian to die in conflict. In 2018 in Kabul, Afghanistan, a suicide bomber, in a truck packed full of explosives, rammed the gates of a compound, following which, in a secondary attack, a bunch of insurgents stormed the compound, and Luke died in the resulting firefight. I never knew Luke but I had the honour of marching alongside his dad, Anthony, in the remembrance parade in Tunbridge Wells. After we had marched, Anthony and I spoke about Luke and about Jacqueline, who was Luke’s mum. I was struck by the quiet dignity and pride that they showed in their son in the face of what must be heart-searing pain. We have heard it said today that if, every day, they can find two minutes to escape that heart-searing pain, it must be a blessed release.
I am often asked whether deaths in conflict—British deaths in conflict, specifically—are worth it, and as a veteran of Afghanistan, I often think about that. There are two answers. One is the personal: each death is a tragedy. Luke died defending his comrades and his mates and it is a tragedy, but it has meaning because he died in service to his comrades and his friends. For the second answer, we have to look to ourselves—to Members of this House—for it is us who send them there, and we do that for our country. The greatest honour that we can pay to our veterans is to consider incredibly carefully the questions that come before us, because we will have to make decisions about peace and war in this Parliament. We will remember Luke.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I join the House in thanking our armed forces, including people from Central Ayrshire who have served our country and who continue to put their lives on the line in the defence of our country, and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. I also thank the Royal British Legion Irvine and Troon branches, as well as the Ayr and Prestwick branch of the Royal Air Forces Association and the Prestwick community council for the remembrance services they help to arrange in the towns of Irvine, Prestwick and Troon, and their important work year-round to support veterans and their families.
I also thank Veterans First Point in Irvine, which is staffed by veterans and is a one-stop shop for veterans and their families. I hope the House extends its congratulations to the Ayr and Prestwick branch of the Royal Air Forces Association, which received the President’s cup at this year’s national conference. It was recognised as the top branch in the RAFA for its excellent work with veterans and service personnel in the community, as well as facilitating remembrance services for Polish colleagues at the Polish war memorial. It happens to have the oldest veteran in the constituency, Flight Lieutenant (retired) Harry Richardson DFC, a 106-year-old world war two hero pilot.
I also recognise the work of the colleagues who help us remember around the world, particularly the Commonwealth war graves staff and the colleagues I used to work with in embassies and the British Council on remembrance events. My former colleague Dr Debanjan Chakrabarti visited a number of Commonwealth war graves in north-east India with me, including the cemetery in Kohima. As those of us who attended Mr Speaker’s remembrance event this morning will know, this year marks the 80th anniversary of the battle of Kohima in April 1944, which was a turning point in the war in Asia. Many believe that the assistance that the Naga people gave British and Indian troops as guides, porters and combatants was critical in our success of that campaign.
I well remember being welcomed to Kohima by the Naga people, visiting the Kohima cemetery high in the Naga hills and walking along row upon row of British and Indian graves. There, I read the Kohima epitaph:
“When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which is timely as we are approaching Remembrance Day, but it is always time to remember with gratitude those who have laid down their lives to protect the things that we hold dear—democracy and the right to live our lives and raise our children.
When I think of remembrance, I think of Winston Donnell, murdered on 9 August 1971. The IRA murdered him, but no one was ever made accountable for his murder. Today in the remembrance garden I took the opportunity to remember four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan on 9 April 1990: Lance Corporal Bradley, John Birch, who I grew up with at Ballywalter, Michael Adams and Steven Smart. I also took the opportunity to lay a cross in the remembrance garden to remember my cousin Kenneth Smyth, murdered by the IRA on 10 December 1971. Again, no one was ever made accountable. You can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I seek justice for all those people who were murdered. No one was ever made accountable.
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, in which I served for three years. I also served in the Royal Artillery for eleven and a half years as a part-time soldier. As a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I am proud of that institution that I served in.
I am thankful for the service of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—those men and women served in their communities knowing that they were a target. I am thankful for the spouses and children who went for days without seeing or hearing from their loved ones as they entered dangerous situations and tried to uphold the law and justice against those who terrorised them and threatened their families and their very lives. I am thankful for their sacrifice of family time and peace at home. I remember their sacrifice and the toll that their service had on their mental health—a price that too many honourable RUC officers still pay to this day—while also having that service distorted and torn apart to pacify a republican rewrite of history, to take a force synonymous with justice, duty and diligence and smear it with accusations of dishonour. I will not allow that to happen in this House. I remember the RUC with great honour, which they earned through blood, sweat and continued tears.
Today, I unapologetically stand on my feet to thank those who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment with the green berets—I still have mine—and the Greenfinches, who were the bravest of women. I stand on my feet to refute those accusations that would make the service of that force anything other than admirable. I thank those Greenfinch women, who worked all night to keep their children safe, and came home and sent their children to school. The lived a dual life for fear that their children would be put at risk if it were known that they were part of the British state. All of us who lived through the terrorism by evil people in both communities have much to be thankful for to those who served. To those veterans of the RUC, the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, and their families, who paid the price of service, I say a big thank you. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them all.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Remembrance in Portsmouth is not just one day a year; it is all year round. The Royal Navy, and those who serve, run through our city’s DNA. I, like so many in Portsmouth, am a very proud cousin, great niece, granddaughter and now mum of service personnel.
Since my election in July and before, it has been a pleasure to meet so many veterans and serving personnel, and those who support our troops at home and at sea, and to witness this year-round remembrance at first-hand. Recently, I attended the 100 years of the Commonwealth memorial on Southsea Common and met my constituent Clive, a standard bearer and Royal Navy veteran who, along with others, come rain or shine, is at every remembrance event in Portsmouth.
I had the privilege of spending the night on His Majesty’s Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to see her in operation and to listen to current service personnel. It has been brilliant to join the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Club for a cracking fry-up at one of their regular breakfast catch-ups, and to meet MOD housing to assess the situation facing our current service personnel.
It was an honour to host Royal Naval Association veterans in Parliament a few weeks ago to talk about life post-service, and an honour for my city to host D-Day 80. Being in the armed forces is like being in a large family, so it was great to visit the Whale Island nursery to see the work it is doing in keeping families together even when, in reality, they are miles apart.
I am proud to be taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am also proud to be part of a Government who recognise the service of all our veterans, the importance of quality housing and the need for more and better post service, and who respect the contributions of our veterans. The Government have listened and acted on policies that veterans charities have been calling for, for years: approving veteran cards as voter ID; committing to enacting the armed forces covenant law; and recognising the priority of housing. I look forward to selling poppies again this year with Terry and Denise, and the army of volunteers in my city.
Ahead of all the commemorations this weekend, and ahead of the official remembrance in Portsmouth Guildhall on Remembrance Sunday, I want to put on record my deepest gratitude to those who keep us safe every day and to those who have lost their lives defending our country, in particular those lost at sea. As the “Last Post” rings out across our country, I ask that we hold proudly those who have served and are serving, and their families, close in our hearts.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituent and resident of Burgess Hill, able seaman George Chandler, was due to lead the blind veterans at the remembrance parade on Remembrance Sunday the weekend after next. Sadly, George died earlier this month. He was 99 years old. I never had the privilege of meeting George, but I have been able to speak to his son Paul, who gave me a wonderful insight into his father. He was full of character and, in Paul’s words, an old rogue.
George was born to a working-class family off the Old Kent Road. When war was declared, aged 14 George stayed in London—he was not evacuated—and experienced the Blitz in all its horror. His father, Will, had been a soldier at the Somme, and George was determined that he would not be what he called one of the “poor bloody infantry”. He was not going to go into the Army. When he was still 17, he pestered and pestered the recruiters at the naval office to sign him up. Eventually, they took him on, even though he had not yet reached his 18th birthday.
George saw active service in the channel as a gunner on a boat, with close combat with the Germans occurring very frequently. On D-day, he provided cover for American troops landing on Omaha beach, watching the slaughter before his eyes. He returned from the D-day landings to Newhaven in East Sussex, and saw rows and rows of empty coffins waiting for the dead.
This year, George was one of a handful of remaining veterans who took part in the 80th anniversary commemorations. He went to No. 10 Downing Street, HMS Belfast and the trooping of the colour. This caused George’s family a certain amount of consternation, for George was not a Conservative. His family were terribly worried about what George might say when he met Government Ministers. They had a plan that if George let rip, they would whisk him away in his wheelchair before any embarrassment could be caused. I am pleased to say to Conservative Members that he met Gillian Keegan, Grant Shapps and the former Prime Minister’s wife, and no event occurred.
I asked Paul what George’s messages to the House would be, and the answer—what Paul thought his dad would have said—was characteristically robust. He was passionate about remembering his shipmates, those who gave their tomorrow for our today. He stayed in contact throughout his life with the daughter—
Alison Bennett
I will draw my comments to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker. George’s messages would be: “Don’t be stupid like my generation. Don’t do it again. Don’t listen to the stupid politicians. Most of all, we must have more compassion for each other.”
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and I am delighted that a fellow Scot has taken the role of Minister for Veterans and People. Scottish communities have played a vital role in the history of our military, and in my constituency more than 4,000 people have served in our armed forces.
The ceremonies of remembrance that we take part in are important for us all, but for thousands of people in my constituency and their families, they speak to their personal experience of service. One of the greatest privileges that I have had in my career was to work for a veterans charity, Sight Scotland Veterans. Among the veterans we supported, too many had experienced isolation and loneliness. One of the veterans I worked with was William Montgomerie, known to everyone as Monty, who had served in Germany, Cyprus and Northern Ireland before leaving the Army in 1977. While serving in the Territorial Army, Monty suffered a head injury that meant that he could not work. That in turn affected his mental health. He said:
“I had gone from working and having the camaraderie and companionship of the Territorial Army to being on my own…The reality is that you might only speak to your Alexa device for days at a time—wishing her a Merry Christmas and no-one else. It can make you feel suicidal.”
Monty is now an eloquent and effective campaigner on the need to provide better support for our veterans. That support is the debt that we owe them as a society, but as we have heard throughout this evening’s debate, too often we fall short. That is why this Government’s commitment to putting the armed forces covenant fully into law, and to creating an armed forces commissioner, are so important. In Scotland, the role of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner has been vital to the assessment of progress in Scotland on securing the aims of the covenant. In her most recent report as commissioner, Susie Hamilton found progress in a number of areas, but also noted:
“Disappointingly, progress towards the delivery of both the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Pathway and the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Pathway remains notably slow”.
I hope that the Scottish Government will take careful note of those points.
Too many veterans still face poor mental health, and do not have the housing support that they need. That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment that we will repay all those who served us and house all veterans who are in housing need is so important. Our armed forces champion in Fife, Councillor Derek Noble, served in the 105th Regiment Royal Artillery himself. The aims of the covenant are being taken forward through the council, and we are proud that it has achieved the covenant gold standard.
Our veterans have given so much for their country. We must not only mark that with gratitude and respect on Remembrance Day, but ensure that our nation meets all its responsibilities to all our veterans.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is an honour to pay tribute to our armed forces community this evening, and it is particularly special to be able to pay tribute to my late great-grandfather, Flight Lieutenant Thomas Gittins. He was a tool salesman who joined the RAF Reserves in the hopes of becoming a pilot. He was pretty small in stature, so he was never allowed to get near the cockpit. He fell at the first hurdle, despite being almost small enough to walk under it. He did, however, join 196 Squadron as a rear gunner in Wellington and Lancaster bombers, and between 1940 and 1945 he completed 51 missions, including towing gliders to transport soldiers to Normandy on D-Day. For his service he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, which was pretty rare for folk serving in his position.
Like so many war heroes, my great-grandfather was intensely humble about his grand achievements. He was too humble to say that his bravery contributed to the preservation of our democracy, and to accept that his service meant that Members of Parliament, including his great-grandson down the line, could stand up here for our country. As with many war heroes, the atrocity of war took its toll on his mental health as he transitioned back to civilian life. Today, we recognise those challenges as combat stress.
Thanks to so many volunteers across my wonderful constituency of Eastbourne—the sunniest in the UK—local veterans have access to more support than ever, including through our Royal British Legion branch, chaired by Alan Leith, who I recruited as my driving instructor. He is supported in chairing the RBL in Eastbourne by his fab secretary, Daphne Geninazza. I have also had the chance to meet inspirational veterans such as Eric Deach and Brian Perry, who is known as the formidable poppy salesman at the Tesco in the Admiral Way retail park in St Anthony’s. There is also local support in the form of the brilliant Eastbourne and District Veterans Association; I was proud to lead on its incorporation as a community interest company.
I pay tribute to the wonderful Barry and Petra Coase and their dog Bella, who are involved with the charity Combat Stress, which supports veterans locally, and to the Blue Van drop-in group. We all need to go even further to support our armed forces, and I am delighted to speak up for them today.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating everyone who has made their maiden speech this afternoon and evening? They did so under time pressure, which adds a layer of complexity that I am glad I did not have.
As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I grew up on an RAF base in Berlin. As Members might expect, remembrance is a huge part of my early memories. The services always included veterans of the world wars, but also of Korea, where my grandfather served, the Falklands, and the violence in Northern Ireland.
During the election campaign, I was not surprised by the scale of the veteran community in my constituency of Dunfermline and Dollar. The area has a strong naval tradition, and the rest of Fife has a strong presence throughout the RAF, the Army and other units. It struck me, however, how spread out veterans were. Many were unaware of the size of the veteran community in the area. We must do more locally to bring those communities together. It is clear that the level of support across Scotland and, I am sure, the rest of the UK is mixed, but I fear that in some areas, Scotland is falling behind on these priorities. It is sad that there are no Members from the Scottish National party in the Chamber this evening. We must do better to co-ordinate together.
I want to share the stories of a couple of veterans from my community and constituency. This weekend, I took my two daughters to the Carnegie library, which has a fantastic local history museum. It tells the story of Alexander Malcolm McNeill, who died on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme. The second story that I want to share is that of Norman Bonnar, who lived in the Garvock area of Dunfermline and served throughout the early part of the war as a Spitfire pilot with the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. On 4 July 1944, he was killed when the Wellington aircraft he was in crashed. He was buried in Dunfermline cemetery and posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Recently, I was pleased to meet some of the team behind the restoration of Spitfire AA810, which has been referred to. It was flown by Norman Bonnar . I hope that we can recognise such efforts by having a memorial to the sacrifices of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.
I echo what hon. Members have said about making sure that we recognise those veterans who are not always immediately in our thoughts. I am reading “The Lion Above the Door” by Onjali Rauf with my 10-year-old daughter Hannah. I am only halfway through the book, but it is focused on remembering those in India and the far east who served in world war two, and I would recommend it to anyone in this House. Telling the story of people such as Alexander and Norman is just a small sample of what we must do to remember. To return to the main point, we must always ensure that remembrance is translated into support for those currently serving, and those who will serve in the future.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My constituency has a deep historic connection with the UK armed forces. Today it is home to Army Training Centre Pirbright and a substantial part of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. This evening, though, I want to draw attention to two veterans I have had the privilege of meeting and getting to know in Surrey Heath over the past few years. Their stories speak of the unevenness of veterans’ experiences, and of those in communities in the wider armed forces family whose courage and sacrifice may be equal to others’, but who have had to fight for justice and recognition.
Carol Morgan wanted to be in the Army since she was a little girl. It was a commitment, a conviction and a vocation, yet when she was only 24, she was unceremoniously discharged from the Women’s Royal Army Corps solely because of who she loved. Although homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, those who were gay in the UK armed forces prior to the year 2000 had to keep their identity and feelings hidden. After being reported on by a colleague, Carol recalls relentless interrogations about the most intimate details of her life, and countless humiliations that left her feeling like a criminal. For LGBT veterans, being found to be gay meant being discharged and the loss of their career, livelihood, medals and pension. In some cases, it meant imprisonment. Tragically, the trauma of those experiences led many to take their own life, and thousands of LGBT veterans suffered long-term harm under this atrocious policy.
While I acknowledge that progress has undoubtedly been made—there has been an apology from the former Prime Minister, an LGBT veterans independent review and a £50-million compensation fund—true justice remains elusive. For the approximately 4,000 veterans whose lives were irreparably altered, £12,500 is a meagre offering. I hope that the Government will use this Budget and remembrance season to reconsider the scale of that scheme, and to give those veterans the recognition that they truly deserve. I also note the furore around the Royal British Legion’s poppy badge that has the LGBT flag alongside it. The outrage might be reserved to fringe television stations in the UK, but it is a reminder that the injustices endured by many LGBT veterans are still far from resolved or reconciled, even now in 2024.
I pay tribute to the Gurkha community, whose regimental headquarters are in Surrey Heath. For over two centuries, soldiers from Nepal have fought bravely for the British Army in the UK’s most pivotal conflicts, from both world wars to the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their loyalty, their courage and their sacrifice. I particularly want to honour Kaji Sherpa, who I met just a few months ago, a former Gurkha officer and the first serving Gurkha to be granted UK citizenship. As we approach another Remembrance Day, we should commit ourselves to remembering that, for some, the fight for justice continues.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The armed forces covenant is a critical document that has the capability to positively impact the lives of service personnel and veterans, and I am pleased that the Labour Government have committed to enshrining it in law and making it a legally binding commitment, so that nobody from the armed forces family is disadvantaged in any way by their military service to our nation. I am proud that West Notts college in my constituency of Mansfield was recently awarded a defence employer recognition scheme silver award for supporting the armed forces covenant. I congratulate the college, and look forward to seeing many other organisations in my constituency take this important step.
As the employer of a veteran in my parliamentary office, I can see the skills that are invested in service personnel in their training—skills that continue to be useful in my office. Speaking as a former CEO, it is clear to me that the armed forces ethos and work ethic provides advantages to business. The Minister for Veterans and People recounts an operation that he conducted in Afghanistan, and speaks of the commitment that those whom he commanded were able to give to their mission because of their certainty about the wraparound support they would receive, should they require it, on the frontline. It is time for society and the Government to deliver that in a post-service support package, in return for the commitment shown by our armed forces.
Finally, I recently hosted a parliamentary reception for Care after Combat, a charity that mentors veterans in the justice system. I thank the more than 100 parliamentarians who took the time to visit and understand the issues further. Veterans are the largest occupational group represented in the justice system, which is an uncomfortable statistic. Listening to accounts of the charity’s work and the veterans’ stories, it was clear that veterans have a lot to contribute to society, including those with experience of the justice system.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I would like to talk about an issue that affects a small number of British families and veterans: the nuclear test issue in relation to Christmas Island.
For Stephen Greenwood, a constituent of mine from Cullompton, the issue affects him personally. His late father served in the Royal Air Force and was one of many servicemen sent to Christmas Island in the late 1950s under Operation Grapple. Those tests, designed to develop the UK’s nuclear weapons capabilities, subjected military personnel to dangerous levels of radiation, with little recognition of, or concern for, the long-term consequences. Stephen’s father shared with him an abiding, vivid memory of seeing the bones of his fingers as he shielded his eyes from the nuclear detonations—the disbelief as the flash from the detonations illuminated those bones. Like so many, he later suffered from cancer.
The impact did not stop there. The children of deceased servicemen experienced stark health disparities. Stephen’s siblings who were born before their father was exposed to the detonation experienced good health, but those who were born afterwards experienced poor health. This is a pattern that Stephen has seen not just in his own family, but in the families of veterans he has since encountered.
In the run-up to the election, the previous Government went so far as to make sure that a medal was cast to recognise the servicepeople who were involved in Operation Grapple. In opposition, Labour suggested that they could go further. The veterans I have talked to—for example, those in the Sidmouth branch of the Royal British Legion—feel that the Government need to go further. They would like an annual remembrance event, such as the one I attended in Sidmouth on 31 August, to honour the service of the dwindling number of veterans who saw the nuclear detonations in the Pacific in the 1950s. Additionally, they are advocating for compensation for veterans who have suffered health issues due to exposure to radiation. The families of veterans such as Stephen’s late father have endured the legacy of Christmas Island and cannot afford to wait another decade. They are demanding action in this Parliament.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I want to share my deep gratitude for the people who make up the armed forces community in my constituency, including serving troops and service families, the cadets and reservists at the army reserve centre on Oxford Road and, of course, our veterans, of whom we have almost 3,000. Each and every one of them makes an immense contribution to our country.
In Aylesbury and the villages, remembrance is embedded in the community. In the heart of our town, the war memorial in Market Square commemorates 264 soldiers who died in the first world war and 106 soldiers who died in the second world war, as well as Simon J. Cockton, one of the crew of four in an Army helicopter that was shot down by friendly fire over the Falkland Islands in June 1982. Inscribed on the memorial are the prescient words, “Their memory lives for evermore”. Successive generations have lived up to those words and we will, too: we will never forget.
Helping to preserve the memory is the Aylesbury branch of the Royal British Legion. I thank everyone for their work, including Philip Turner, Lorna Muir and Brian Morris, who serve as president, chairman and vice-chairman respectively. I attended the Aylesbury branch’s launch of the poppy appeal at Friars Square shopping centre. We watched a moving performance by Aylesbury School of Dance and there was a powerful two-minute silence. It was great to see the poppy selling get under way so quickly.
I want to take a moment to recognise the contributions of Commonwealth and other personnel from across the world who have often been overlooked in commemorations, as others have said tonight, but who have played a vital role in protecting and defending the UK and deserve their rightful place in our national story. I welcome the fact that among the wreaths to be laid in Aylesbury on Remembrance Sunday will be a marigold wreath to remember the Indian troops who fought and died in the world wars.
Finally, we must remember not just through words, but through deeds. I am proud that our Government are backing our armed forces communities by putting the armed forces covenant fully into law and establishing an independent armed forces commissioner to improve service life. I am also proud of the measures this Government are taking to ensure that veterans have access to the employment, housing and mental health support that they so desperately need. We are forever indebted to those who serve—those who serve now, those who served in the past and those who lost their lives in doing so. Through our work to strengthen support for our armed forces communities and our veterans, we will honour them.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I also had the opportunity a few weeks ago to meet representatives of Spitfire AA810, to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) have already paid fine tribute.
It is appropriate to reiterate the incredible contribution of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, which took more than 26 million images of enemy operations and installations throughout the war. These images were used in the Cabinet war rooms—now the Churchill war rooms—located underneath the Treasury, and were instrumental in the planning of major operations throughout the war. Despite this incredible contribution, and with one of the lowest survival rates of the war—life expectancy in the PRU was around two and a half months—there is no national memorial to the unit. That troubling oversight is why the Spitfire AA810 project is leading the campaign to establish such a memorial to the pilots and navigators.
I take this opportunity to mark the contribution of four veteran pilots from my Sutton and Cheam constituency, three of whom gave their lives and all of whom would be commemorated by this memorial. Cyril Harley Sergeant Kirkus joined 241 Squadron and flew armed reconnaissance missions in Hurricane aircraft. He was killed on reconnaissance operations in Tunisia on 23 April 1943, aged just 27.
Donald Nevill Gallai-Hatchard, who lived with his wife Joyce in Cheam before the war, was a trained photographer. His experience in the PRU saw him posted to work with the American 97th Bomber Squadron operating in Tunisia. In April 1943, he was put on an American Boston aircraft to photograph the results of a raid on Tunis, but he was killed at the age of 31 when the aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft fire. He is buried in Tunisia.
Desmond Laurence Matthewman started the war in Bomber Command, flying with 51 Squadron. In February 1941, he brought home a bomber from a mission over Bremen whose tail flying controls had been damaged, making the aircraft almost impossible to control. Once over the UK, he and his crew jumped by parachute, an act which earned him his first Distinguished Flying Cross. On 8 August 1944, he and navigator William Stopford took off on a photographic mission to Munich but were met by the new German Me 262 jet fighter. Matthewman and Stopford were shot down over Ohlstadt in what has been recognised as the first jet aircraft combat kill in history.
Ronald Henry Smyth DFC lived in North Cheam and attended Sutton high school. He joined up in May 1939 and flew Bristol Blenheims with 25 Squadron.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting these names on the record, because it is essential that we have a memorial for these men who lost their lives so bravely.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree that the importance of this memorial cannot be overstated.
With the battle over, Smyth spent a short time flying Hurricane fighters, and in December 1943 he joined 541 Squadron, a photographic reconnaissance squadron, commanding reconnaissance operations from Gibraltar. He was awarded the DFC in July 1945 for his work in reconnaissance and ended his time in the RAF in October 1945. Following his incredible wartime service, he returned to his pre-war job at the Stationery Office, retiring in 1980 and passing away in 2017 at the age of 96.
It is only right that we take this opportunity to commemorate the contributions of Cyril, Donald, Desmond and Ronald. Will the Minister meet the Spitfire AA810 campaigners and help their campaign to honour the brave contributions of the PRU by delivering the first memorial to its work, outside the Churchill war rooms, where its work made such a profound difference to the course of the war?
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Our message from across the House today is thank you: thank you to those who served, to those who died in combat and to the families who supported our armed forces. In Milton Keynes, the city council is proud of its armed forces covenant. As city council cabinet member for housing, I ensured we fulfilled that covenant by giving the highest level of housing to our armed forces, and I am proud that that is now Government policy. I want to give a shout-out to the Milton Keynes armed forces and veterans breakfast club, which provides a lifeline to those currently serving, as well as to veterans.
I will focus my comments on the 7,500 women—six out of 10 of whom were in uniform—who served at Bletchley Park. They are often forgotten. They were in the Women’s Royal Naval Service, the Wrens; the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force, the WAAF; and the Auxiliary Territorial Service. They worked around the clock for the war effort to keep the Colossus and Bombe machines running, so that we could break the Nazi code. Their efforts shortened the war by nearly two years, saving countless lives. Their recruitment was a challenge to MI6, as it had never recruited women before. It started recruiting linguists, mathematicians and engineers, and even used a 12-minute cryptic crossword competition to identify talent. However, the women did not have it easy. When Winston Churchill visited, he said:
“I know I told you to leave no stone unturned to get staff, but I didn’t expect you to take me literally.”
Many famous women worked tirelessly during those years, but it was not until the 1970s that anybody, including some of their own, had an idea of the impact they had had on our war effort. The women were not allowed to be classified as code-breakers, and were not allowed the title or the pay, but today, in this House, we can call them veterans and give them the respect they deserve.
One of them wrote this poem:
“In the years yet to come, when grandchildren are many,
I want you to know what I did before you were a granny,
You’ll say to the children, as proud as can be,
‘In the last war, my darling, a WAAF at BP.’”
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army, it is my honour to speak in this debate on remembrance and veterans. I will use my time to share a story from a veteran of the Royal Marines, who celebrates their birthday today. My constituent has given me permission to share his story in the debate, although I have changed his name to protect his privacy.
John served our country with honour. He was discharged from the Royal Marines after three years of service, but life outside the military was hard. His mental health spiralled. He ended up homeless, sleeping rough on the streets, so he went to the local authority for help. This is the part of his story that shocked me, because John was told that before the local authority could help him, it had first to confirm that he really was homeless. Rather than taking John at his word, he was told that he would have to continue to sleep rough in a named location for two weeks and wait for an outreach worker to visit him to verify that he was homeless.
John did as he was ordered, following what he had been taught by his service, but he found staying in the same place meant he was targeted with verbal and physical abuse, so he moved and kept moving—the cycle went on for years. Eventually, he was diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and referred to Op Courage. Even then, it took several more years in temporary accommodation and him witnessing a violent incident, before Op Courage and Help for Heroes were able to get John the specialist accommodation in my constituency that has allowed him to start to move forward with his life. I know just how great a step it was for John to share his story with me.
I take three things from John’s story. The first is that we owe our veterans much more than our silence and respect on Armistice Day; it is our duty to speak up whenever the systems that come from this place fall short. Secondly, safe and accessible housing is vital. That is why I was so proud to hear just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister announce the Government’s commitment to house all veterans. Thirdly, John’s experience tells me that our commitment to respecting every veteran must reach through every Government Department and every level of staff if we are to succeed—from the Secretary of State down to every member of frontline staff. That is the culture change needed to deliver for people such as John who have served our country.
The spirit of remembrance is defined by what we do for one another, and the contribution that every one of us can make. With shared effort, we can build a greater legacy for those who served us—now and in the future.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is appropriate that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), as I intend to speak on mental health support for veterans. Ahead of today’s debate, I had a conversation with a very good friend of mine who proudly serves in the Guards. What I am about to say reflects comments that he has given to me, both from his experience and from consultation with his comrades about their personal experiences.
Mental health is at the forefront of concerns for those leaving the armed forces. Serving personnel receive excellent mental health care from specialist clinicians, which is available for up to six months from discharge, but civilian services often do not appreciate the toll that military life takes on the mental and physical health of veterans, so they rely on charities such as Military Veteran Football Club to fill that gap. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State recognise the support of veterans charities. Veterans also tell me that the pressure of cuts in the armed forces impacts their mental health. As politicians, we must be sure not to ask individual servicemen and women to take up that strain, but instead ask how we can support our troops, and ensure that service personnel know that they are appreciated, they will be properly paid, and there will be time for a family life.
We must also normalise discussion of emotions and feelings to tackle the tragically high level of suicide among veterans. This is a silent killer, affecting people of all ages and ranks. It does not discriminate, and is the tip of an iceberg of depression, anxiety and stress. It can be treated by an early intervention. Young people and our veterans are losing their lives from not only a lack of support, but an ignorance of the support that is available. As a signatory to the armed forces covenant, I welcome the Government’s commitment to put it on a statutory footing. Veterans need to hear from us that they are not just a number, there is no stigma attached to their service, and once they have left the forces we will care for them, in the same way that they took care of us.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate ahead of Remembrance Day as we pay tribute to all those who have served our country, and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Each year, we gather to recognise the bravery of our veterans, but true gratitude goes beyond these moments. It means showing up for them when it counts in real and meaningful ways. As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent a community with a long-standing tradition of service.
Many families across Burton, Uttoxeter and our surrounding villages have stories of loved ones who have served and sacrificed. I see veterans every day who continue to give back, contributing to our communities long after they have hung up their uniforms—people such as Carlton Wilkin, a veteran of the Mercian Regiment, who leads the poppy appeal in Burton every year, helping us to remember the values that our veterans live by. They volunteer, mentor and inspire, quietly setting an example of resilience and dedication for us all.
We are also fortunate to have the National Memorial Arboretum on our doorstep—a powerful place of reflection and a tribute to our armed forces. I would welcome all right hon. and hon. Members coming to visit the arboretum to fully appreciate the courage and sacrifices that are represented there.
Let us be clear that our gratitude must be matched with support. Charities such as Care after Combat offer a lifeline for veterans as they transition into civilian life by providing mental health support and giving veterans renewed purpose. Such organisations show us what it means to truly honour service with action.
I am committed, as are the Government, to ensuring that veterans in Burton, Uttoxeter and across the country have access to the services that they need, from mental health support and housing to employment opportunities. We owe them nothing less. Our responsibility is to ensure that they can thrive, and to meet their sacrifices with practical lasting action. As we come together in this remembrance season, let us promise that our gratitude will be lived, not just spoken. Let us commit to being there for veterans, as they were there for us, by building a country and community in which they are fully supported every step of the way.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
As we approach this time of remembrance, is it fitting that the national Parliament of the UK reflects on the sacrifice made by so many men and women to ensure that we have the right to be here, in this place, and that our democratic values prevail. Indeed, I understand that the first world war claimed 19 of our predecessors, while the second world war claimed 23.
While we think of the contribution of our veterans, it is wise to take a moment to think about non-combatants, who are also often the victims of war. On 13 March 1941, Bankhead primary school in my constituency was hit by a Luftwaffe bomb. Fortunately, the school had been evacuated, but it was serving as a civil defence station, and 40 people were killed. The reason for the strike was never fully explained; it could have been a remnant of the Clydebank blitz, with one of the Luftwaffe pilots dropping bombs to lighten the load for the way home, or it could have been because of the nearby railway marshalling yards in Yoker. We will never know, but the fact is that 40 civilians died.
Some years ago, Terrence McCourt, a local Knightswood man, began a campaign for a war memorial to be erected in his area. Terrence’s campaign was successful, and a small but very beautiful garden of remembrance was established in my Glasgow West constituency. Regular events take place there to remember important dates such as Armistice Day, VJ Day and VE Day. On Remembrance Sunday, many of us will stand in Glasgow’s George Square to watch the march of veterans and current servicemen and women, as well as of representatives of the emergency and uniformed services.
Sadly but inevitably, the number of veterans diminishes every year, so it is more important than ever that their memory is not allowed to fade. Unfortunately, neither world war was the war to end all wars—the events of the past century are sadly testament to that. As parliamentarians, we must be dedicated to the eradication of conflict through peaceful and democratic means. That is a worthy objective to which I hope we all subscribe, but it is one that remains in peril in this increasingly dangerous conflict-torn world. For the sake of this generation, and generations yet unborn, we must redouble our efforts to support diplomatic and peaceful means of resolving even the most seemingly intractable situations. After all, we cannot make peace by talking only to our friends. As Gandhi put it, an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
At the heart of my constituency lies Carlisle castle, home to the museum of the Border Regiment, the excellent Cumbria Museum of Military Life. The Border Regiment has a long and proud record of service and was the first British unit to join a major engagement by glider, during the invasion of Sicily in the second world war. The regiment went on to serve throughout the Italian campaign, and I wish to pay particular tribute to those who served in that campaign.
My dad was just 20 when he set sail for the Italian mainland, but the liberation of Italy had begun some months earlier with the invasion of Sicily. That invasion cost the lives of 6,000 allied troops, including men from Carlisle’s Border Regiment who were killed when their gliders failed to make land. The invasion of the mainland followed, but the allies encountered increasingly difficult terrain. In particular, Monte Cassino became the scene of some of the most hellish encounters of the second world war. Finally, in the early hours of 18 May, the British and Polish troops surrounded the town of Cassino and forced a German retreat. A couple of weeks later, Rome fell, marking a significant milestone in the Italian campaign.
Sadly for those who served, their recognition was overshadowed by the events on the Normandy beaches. To add further insult to injury, a perception grew that those serving in Italy were sitting out the real fighting of the second world war, and the myth of the D-day dodgers was born. Nothing could have been further from the truth: infantry losses on both sides made Italy the most costly campaign of the second world war in terms of casualties suffered by infantry forces. That is why I believe that in this, the 80th year since Monte Cassino, it is right that that battle is commemorated as other key battles of the second world war have rightly been.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to be given an opportunity to speak this evening as we look ahead to this year’s remembrance events across the country, and as we recognise the service and courage of the exceptional men and women who helped safeguard our values and freedom. My contribution seeks to commemorate some of the local effort from my constituency.
Perhaps the biggest contribution of Alloa to the D-day landings took place at the now gone McLeod and Sons shipyard. The workers there laboured day and night to refit ships for war, including around 130 of the tank landing craft for Operation Neptune. Indeed, a message from their lordships at the Admiralty was sent to McLeod and Sons after the war, congratulating the entire workforce on their “magnificent effort during hostilities”.
Over in Grangemouth, what was planned to be the country’s largest commercial airfield became a fighter base to defend against bombing raids. Once the fear of airstrikes had subsided, it was designated as a training centre for daring young pilots to learn to fly the iconic Spitfire. More than 60 young men from all over Britain and the Commonwealth, as well as from Poland, Holland and what was then Czechoslovakia, died as student pilots, along with some 20 ground crew who also paid the ultimate price while serving there. Today, a replica Spitfire on Bo’ness Road reminds us of their sacrifice, with thanks to the members of the 1333 Grangemouth air cadet squadron for their efforts in pushing for that memorial more than a decade ago.
Veterans of our armed forces deserve not just our respect and gratitude, but our practical and meaningful help as they seek to find a place in civilian life. I commend organisations such as the Falkirk Veterans and the Wee County Veterans from Clackmannanshire. The bond among our military personnel extends well beyond service, and veterans’ groups such as those in my constituency play a phenomenal role in so many ways.
There is currently a difference in opinion between the Royal British Legion and many in the veterans community as to the consequences of cutting the Armed Services Advice Project. Personally, I feel that the veterans have legitimate concerns about the removal of ASAP: some have told me that an in-person interaction with an ASAP adviser was the difference between life and death. On the face of it, I share the same reservations as many veterans, as replacing ASAP with a call centre could be a potentially fatal reduction in service provision, and I urge the RBL to reconsider. Over the last 14 years, this country has seen what happens when austerity takes hold and vital services are sacrificed. Everyone deserves better, especially our veterans.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
As a newly elected Member of this House, it was my great privilege and honour to attend the opening of the House of Commons garden of remembrance today, and to place my cross of remembrance there on behalf of my constituents. Across West Dunbartonshire, just as we do across the nation, we will gather to honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms and protect our way of life.
One of the memorials that I will attend on Remembrance Sunday is at Clydebank town hall in my home town. Our town hall memorial contains the names of those fallen in all wars, and includes the names of five brothers, Andrew, Walter, James, John and Daniel Munn, who all perished in the first world war—five brothers, all lost. It is symbolic of the scale of suffering and the sacrifice of our nation.
Clydebank also suffered dreadfully during the second world war across the nights of 13 and 14 March 1941, the blitz. It suffered the worst destruction and civilian loss of life in all of Scotland. At least 1,200 people lost their lives, and of the 12,000 homes in Clydebank, only eight remained undamaged.
In West Dunbartonshire, we are deeply proud of our armed forces personnel, veterans and the families who support them. Theirs is the ultimate public service. As a Government, therefore, we must ensure that our veterans have access to the support they need. We must commit to supporting those who serve and have served us.
The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland’s manifesto includes recommendations that the Government can take to improve the lives of our armed forces community, such as “Ask the question”, which seeks to ensure that all public bodies ask individuals whether they or an immediate family member have served in the armed forces. That would be recorded and published to understand needs and to provide appropriate support.
On both sides of the House, hon. Members can truly remember by ensuring that a better deal for our armed forces community remains high on our parliamentary agenda.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have heard many powerful and moving contributions, the last of which will be from Dave Robertson.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I closely associate myself with all the remarks that have been made in the debate about the work of the Royal British Legion, and all it does to support remembrance, particularly in November. When November rolls around, I make sure to clear time to remember Charles Leslie Whitehead and William Arnold Robertson, my taid and my grandpa, who saw service in the second world war and in the Pacific in Korea respectively.
We owe our veterans much more than two minutes a year, and remembrance should go further than Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday. It should be something that anybody, anywhere in the country can take part in at any time by taking the time to remember somebody—on their birthday, an anniversary or just a Tuesday.
That is why I am proud to host the National Memorial Arboretum in my Lichfield constituency. It is a wonderful venue and a fantastic place for people to carry out that remembrance if they so choose. There are now more than 400 memorials at the arboretum, and I strongly advise any right hon. or hon. Member who has not had the opportunity to visit yet to do so, so that they can take the opportunity to remember the people who are pertinent to them, or even the strangers who they have never met and will never meet, but who gave their time and themselves, and in some cases paid the ultimate sacrifice, to protect our way of life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a great privilege to rise to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in this debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who made a maiden speech, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her excellent speech. Although it was not a maiden speech, I also thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for mentioning those who were lost at sea. It is far too often overlooked that those who were lost at sea in various conflicts have no grave that families can visit, but their sacrifice was no less important and should be no less remembered at this time.
It is rare to sit in the Chamber and enjoy a debate where there is so much common cause on both sides of the House. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Duke of York and Albany’s Maritime Regiment of Foot on its 360th anniversary—I do not believe the vicious rumour doing the rounds in Parliament that that was the name borne by the Royal Marines when the Minister joined up all those years ago. It is as it should be that we join together as a nation and look towards remembrance as one. Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day are when we pause, reflect, remember and pay thanks to all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice that allows us to live in the peace and freedom we enjoy in our country today.
Remembrance means different things to different people. When the “Last Post” sounds in Ballater in two weeks’ time, I will be thinking of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle, who fell at Gallipoli in 2015, one week short of his 21st birthday, and lies buried at Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. I will think of my great-grandfather, who endured and survived the Somme battlefield; my paternal grandfather, who fought with the 8th Army at El-Alamein, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany, and survived to tell the tale; my maternal grandfather, who for over two decades served in the Royal Navy; and my godfather, a Royal Marine, who served from the Falklands to Northern Ireland.
I will also think of my friends who served and are still serving in far more recent conflicts and operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the various but less reported naval operations of the last 20 years—our continued presence in the south Atlantic, our oilfield patrols off Iraq and the anti-piracy operations in Somalia to name but a few. As we have heard this afternoon, we all remember individuals, family and close friends who chose to serve our country and were prepared to—and, in some cases, did—pay the ultimate sacrifice, and we do remember them.
When we collectively think of remembrance as a nation and when we think of veterans, for many the image conjured up is of the old soldier who landed at D-day proudly marching with his oppos past the Cenotaph, a survivor of a long-distant conflict. They remain rightly at the forefront of our thoughts this year as we commemorate 80 years since D-day, Monte Cassino and other hugely significant operations in that world conflict, which was fought to defend freedom and democracy. It was our victory in that conflict that remains the reason why we can stand in this place today. We remain forever in the debt of that greatest generation.
We must also remember, however, the veterans from much more recent conflicts—the much smaller group of men and women who fought far from our shores in the name of Queen and country, but who, unlike previous generations, did not return to a country with a shared experience of war and conflict. In many cases, they returned to a country that did not really want to know. Being a veteran of a late 20th-century or early 21st-century conflict is, in 2024, far removed from the experiences of those who fought between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. Supporting this new generation is far harder for those charities and organisations that do so much unseen work all year round, not just during this time of remembrance.
It was for this new generation of former servicemen and women that the former Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer, to whom I pay tribute, was determined to fight. That is why he was determined to make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran. It is also why we as a Government established the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, put the armed forces covenant into law and set up Defence Transition Services, providing tailored support to help service people with their transition to civilian life. We launched Operation Fortitude to end homelessness, Operation Prosper to support veterans into work after they leave the armed forces, Operation Restore to support the physical needs of veterans and Operation Courage to support veterans’ mental health. We invested £400 million to modernise thousands of military homes, provided funding for armed forces charities to carry out their vital work, and introduced a new veterans railcard to help veterans reconnect both with loved ones and with new training and work opportunities. We supported veterans through the provisions in our Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I know the Minister is aware that the repeal and replacement of that Act is rightly causing concern in the community of veterans who fought during the troubles.
We are near unique as a nation in honouring the memory of all those who have fallen, those who have served and those who serve in the way we do. It is to our credit as a country. There are still groups that feel forgotten. For example, as has been mentioned, there are the veterans of our nuclear tests, with many still fighting for recognition of what they were asked to do and for what they endured many years on for their country. There is the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit of the RAF, which has also been mentioned. The unit had one of the highest attrition rates in world war two, but it still has no national memorial, and its members must also be remembered in the coming days.
This year when the “Last Post” sounds, it will be some 16 years since, as a very young sub-lieutenant, I had the privilege of meeting the three remaining veterans of world war one—Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone—at the Cenotaph as we marked 90 years since the end of that war, the war supposedly to end all wars. This year, let us pause and think of those unseen veterans who walk among us today: those who did not return, and their friends and their family still living with the loss. Let us also remember those who, as we sit here tonight, remain prepared to give everything for our nation. Let us recommit to do for them what a grateful nation should, and let us redouble our efforts to truly make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is indeed 360 years since the formation of the Royal Marines and they are still going strong. I will refuse to take advice from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on face cream but it was a privilege to take the salute just the other day from both the Commandant General Royal Marines and the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, which demonstrates the strong ties across the pond with the US between those Marine units.
I am grateful to Members for their thoughtful reflections on remembrance and the contributions of veterans to this country. We have heard moving contributions from Members reflecting on their personal experience of service, and as I am sure they would testify there is an unspoken oath of allegiance between service personnel. Indeed, it knows no bounds; it is the glue that holds the forces together, and that oath has always extended to the fallen on the battlefield and beyond. For serving personnel and veterans, remembrance is an enduring reflection of that oath, and on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day I will remember the individuals who have gone before us but also those I have stood next to who have been killed or wounded—after five tours of Afghanistan, one of Northern Ireland, and multiple of the Arabian gulf, eastern Europe and Africa, there have been many.
Importantly, we must remember those who will never see that smile again or see them laugh or hold them close once more. It is a time for them, and those that did not come home to see their children, their partners, or indeed their loved ones or their friends. It is our duty to remember them all.
But remembrance is not only about fallen comrades and veterans; it is a rare moment when the nation comes together, from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. And it is a reminder to everyone in every generation across the whole country that the freedoms we all enjoy—the freedoms of speech, of equality, of quality of life—were all hard fought for and hard-won. Freedom is not free, and it is something in the fractious world we live in today that individually or collectively we should not take for granted.
Those freedoms are forged from the sacrifice of the young men and women of the Army, Navy and our Air Force who stepped forward when the country needed them: the sacrifices of the few who are still owed so much by the many; the sacrifices on the high seas, in the air, on the beaches and the landing grounds and in the fields, and in the streets from world war one to Operation Overlord, where they secured a beachhead in Normandy that would free a continent from Nazi tyranny and usher in the rules-based international system; and the sacrifices of 80,000 British service personnel who fought in the forgotten war on the Korean peninsula to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in that rules-based international system. All are memorialised in stones outside the MOD, of which one says,
“A distant obligation honourably discharged.”
There were the sacrifices in the south Atlantic, on the open water, in the skies and on the windswept heaths, for the right of the Falkland Islanders to choose their own sovereign future. And the sacrifices of service personnel in desert fatigues who liberated Kuwait and fought in Iraq, and those in the operational areas whom I served alongside in the long troubles of Northern Ireland, the middle east, Africa, Afghanistan and eastern Europe who sacrificed so much to uphold the right to self-determination and give freedom and democracy a chance to take root. And the sacrifices we cannot talk about because we do not comment on certain issues.
It is thanks to all those who have served and sacrificed and whom we honour on Remembrance Day that we can sit here, as democratically elected MPs, and debate the future of this wonderful country. Few, if any, outside the armed forces sign a contract that puts their life on the line and those who have served or continue to serve often pay the price for that service, through the long-term mental or physical scars, the impact on families and on their children, or through the painful memories or indeed the longing for the camaraderie and service they left behind. It is my opinion that those who serve through one way or another serve until the day they die. That is why this Government of service are committed to standing with members of our armed forces and their families long after they leave the services.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Syd Little was part of the team which delivered life-saving supplies to Mount Sinjar on 9 August 2014, in the operation now known as Operation Shader. Flight Sergeant Little lost his life this weekend to cancer. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that service people face some of their greatest challenges on their exit from service and that the veterans strategy is essential to ensuring that those challenges are not equal to those they faced while serving?
Al Carns
There are few fights as valiant as that against the barbaric regime of ISIS. My thoughts go to my hon. Friend’s constituent, and his family and loved ones who were left behind. This Government are committed to supporting the welfare of veterans and those who are serving, and there will be more details to follow. As a veteran, as the Minister responsible for veterans, people and personnel, I do not take these commitments lightly.
This Government have already ensured that those who defend democracy will have the right to exercise that democracy at the polling station. In just over 100 days, we have made the veterans ID card a form of voter ID. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that veterans will rightly be prioritised in accessing housing. Furthermore, we are determined to deliver on our manifesto commitments to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant in law, get rid of the postcode lottery, and give veterans the support that they need on mental health, employment and housing. We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and for their families.
I congratulate those who gave their maiden speech today. There were some fantastic speeches, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). They outlined so many veterans’ issues, but also talked about the comprehensive military presence in their constituencies. I also pay tribute to the multiple individuals with military experience in the House. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) served in 2010. I probably dropped into the area he was in. I was very well hosted by his regiment or brigade. I was often met on the ground with a fiery reception, but also some good banter. It is a great tribute to the House that we have so many people with military experience, and like all Members, I look forward to their contributions in this great place.
Several issues were raised today. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) paid tribute to the brave pilots of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, who did so much intelligence gathering during the second world war. Without their work on operations, none of those operations would have taken place. Given that the unit had one of the highest casualties rates of all those in the skies—I think it was 40% plus—it is right to pay tribute to it by moving forward with a memorial; I fully support that.
I say in response to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that I met the Welsh Veterans’ Commissioner, Colonel Phillips, last Thursday. I spoke to him about his role, responsibilities and potential changes for a good hour and a half. Several Members have brought up the issues of Northern Ireland. Our Government recognise the important service of veterans and the sacrifices they made to keep people safe in Northern Ireland during the troubles. I am a Northern Ireland veteran. I give the House my word that any veteran will get the legal and welfare support that they need to ensure that the stresses of any action that we move forward with are minimised.
Members brought up various charities. Across the veterans sector and the armed forces community, there are more than 1,000 charities. They are primarily led by individuals who give up their spare time to support the armed forces and veterans. As we move towards Remembrance Day, it is worth remembering not just those who have served or are serving, but those who support those in the armed forces, primarily in the UK’s amazing charitable sector, which has such an important role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) brought up mental health. Op Courage has had 30,000 referrals. It is doing a fantastic job. I have visited multiple NHS trusts that are delivering fantastic partnership working to ensure that veterans get the mental health support that they require.
The treatment of the LGBT community from 1967 to 2000 was completely and utterly abhorrent. Some of the stories that I have heard have been absolutely harrowing. I had the pleasure of attending the LGBT awards last week. We have delivered 32 of the 49 recommendations from the Lord Etherton review, and we are working hard to deliver an appropriate financial redress scheme, so that we can close out that review in a timely and effective manner.
I had the great pleasure of meeting the nuclear test veterans; that has been absolutely superb. We have built up a relationship through a cadence of meetings to ensure that there is communication and education, and to look into some of their issues relating to files. We are working collaboratively on that.
It would be unfitting of me to finish without saying that I have heard some harrowing stories today of the sacrifices paid by so many, including so many stories of the loss of loved ones. I think especially of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who lost some of his loved ones in the troubles. I have also heard amazing stories about some of our longest-serving veterans, including Flight Lieutenant Harry Richardson, who is now over 100 years old, which is truly remarkable. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) also outlined the amazing world war two story of George.
As I conclude, it is worth noting the broader message that is wrapped into remembrance. Yes, this is a time to remember—to remember that freedom is not free, and that every decision we make in this House, or in this Government, has an impact. That does not mean that we should shy away from difficult decisions on whether to deploy our armed forces. We should, rather, acknowledge and champion the fact that our armed forces are there for a reason: to protect us at home and abroad, to protect our way of life, and to ensure that the freedom we enjoy today is passed down to our children, and their children.
Our armed forces are the guarantors of everything we hold dear. To risk life and limb for one’s nation is, I think, the noblest of all traditions, but if service is anything, it is above politics. That is why I stand ready to work with all hon. and right hon. Members so that veterans and those serving can live a life, in and outside the armed forces, worthy of the incredible contribution they made to this nation. Today, in advance of Remembrance Day, we come together, united, to say thank you to those who have served, and to honour all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Remembrance and the contribution of veterans.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Derriford hospital needs an emergency care centre. Further to a similar online petition approaching 1,000 signatures, I am presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents and those who rely on Derriford hospital in Plymouth.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that following the announcement of the New Hospital Programme Review, patients across South West Devon and across the South West are deeply concerned as to the future of University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust’s new Urgent and Emergency Care Facility at Derriford; further declares that the new Urgent and Emergency Care Facility is essential for the NHS to be able to accommodate for the region's above-average population growth; further that the new facility will treat the sickest patients more quickly, avoid unnecessary admissions, facilitate early discharge and improve outcomes; and notes that UHP's former Member of Parliament had secured £180 million of government funding for the project.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs of University Hospital Plymouth’s new Urgent and Emergency Care Facility whilst undertaking the New Hospital Programme Review and retain the funding previously committed to this project.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003015]
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to echo the calls from across the House this evening for the remembrance and appreciation of our veterans.
I am glad to have this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Grampound relating to the last remaining pub in the village.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Grampound,
Declares that the Dolphin Inn is an Asset of Community Value.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to lend support the Dolphin Inn Grampound, acknowledging that it furthers the social wellbeing and cultural, recreational and sporting interests of the local community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003013]
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
I rise to present a petition on wealth taxes in the autumn Budget, further to a corresponding online petition signed by over 50,000 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom.
Declares that a 2% Wealth Tax on assets over £10 million, a measure to equalise Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax rates, and measures to end state subsidies to fossil fuel giants and to close loopholes in the oil and gas windfall tax should be brought; and further notes that these measures would generate an additional £45 billion per year, providing vast resources to rebuild our public services, boost people’s incomes and invest in a higher-wage economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the requests of the petitions and consider the resource benefits of Wealth Taxes when allocating funds in the budget.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003016]
Agricultural Land: Protection
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am so pleased to have the opportunity tonight to share my pride in the rural areas of my constituency of Aylesbury, to share my admiration for those who work on the land and care for it, and to set out how we can enable both our urban and rural communities, and our natural environment to thrive. I am grateful to the Minister for being present.
I bring forward this debate in part to reassure my constituents of my own and my Government’s commitment to protecting our natural environment and safeguarding our agricultural land. This is a subject of debate in my constituency, as this new Government take forward the planning reforms that are so necessary for our future growth. After 14 years of deep turbulence and decline, with damaging consequences for nature and for our communities, I will suggest a better way forward, rooted in clear principles, more predictability and a dose of pragmatism.
First, let me turn to how we protect and enhance our natural environment, and give some context relating to my constituency. We are in a beautiful part of the country, which includes the Chiltern hills and historic woodlands and waterways, where 14% of the constituency is designated as green-belt land, but under the previous Government we were subject to extensive house building—more than 13,000 new homes in the past 10 years, and counting—which has led to great pressures on services and infrastructure and also on our natural environment.
My constituents understand the urgency of addressing our national housing crisis. The statistics speak for themselves: nearly 1.3 million households are on social housing waiting lists, including 6,000 in Buckinghamshire, and young people under 30 today are less than half as likely to own a home as young adults in the 1990s. Equally, many of my constituents understand the need for investment in renewable energy, whether it is onshore wind or solar panels, to get us on track for clean, secure and more affordable power by 2030, but they and I are conscious of the tension between the need for planning reform, whether for the purpose of building houses, energy or other infrastructure, and the need to protect our natural environment. How do we navigate that tension? Let me make three points based on Aylesbury’s experience.
First, we need to ensure that clear environmental safeguards are embedded in planning policy, and to that end the proposed changes in the national planning policy framework are strong: for example, the emphasis on a “brownfield first” approach using previously developed land for new housing and therefore protecting green spaces; the introduction of grey-belt land, which of course needs tight definition but should ultimately enable a more strategic approach to building on certain types of green space; and the “golden rules” in the NPPF, which ensure that any green-belt building will bring benefits for nature and for community access to green space. That will be a welcome contrast to the haphazard raids on green-belt and greenfield sites that took place under the last Government. In Buckinghamshire as a whole, for example, between 2019 and 2022 11% of new residential addresses were built in designated areas of outstanding natural beauty, compared to a 4% national average. This building has been happening, and my constituents tell me that the rationale for it has not always been clear.
Secondly, we need to learn from the pockets of good practice. I can point to one example in Aylesbury: the Kingsbrook development, on the edge of town, where housing and nature co-exist well. Kingsbrook was built with the help of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and includes 250 acres of wildlife-rich open space, with hedgehog highways and community allotments. I invite members of the Government to visit it, and to learn from such examples. Where it is not possible for developments to include so much green space, we need to ensure that there is ready access to nature nearby—as a member of Aylesbury Ramblers reminded me recently, while describing his battle with the council to keep footpaths in and out of Aylesbury clear.
Thirdly, of course, it is vital that where nature must be protected we do that, and that we do not just protect but strengthen and enhance it. I have seen wonderful examples of that in my constituency. I have observed the work that the Chiltern Society does with its 700 volunteers—for example, sowing wildflowers, or clearing more than 30,000 metres of footpaths and 2,000 miles of cycle paths and bridle paths in the last year alone. In recent years, however, it has seemed as if they are working against, not with, successive Governments who have shown little regard for nature. That is perhaps best exemplified in my constituency by the release of sewage into the rivers for 3,000 hours last year alone, with devastating consequences for nature. I am pleased by the early work of our Government to review the environmental improvement plan, paving the way, we hope, for the ambitious global goal of safeguarding 30% of our land and sea by 2030, but this is just the start, and the test will be whether these safeguards are indeed in place in constituencies such as Aylesbury across the country.
Of course, the NPPF rightly contains protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land as well, but, ultimately, protecting and strengthening agricultural land means supporting the farmers who steward and manage it. I have spoken to many farmers in my constituency, for instance during a brilliant visit to Ledburn farm on the Ascott estate, a producer of the wheat for my kids’ Weetabix. I know that farmers have been under great pressure in recent years, from weather events, disease, economic volatility, Brexit, rising energy costs, rising rural crime—you name it—but I also know that they work incredibly hard to keep putting food on our tables.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this matter? She is absolutely right to highlight the issues affecting farmers. She may not be aware that my constituency is one of the few areas of rich agricultural land that can produce three potato crops a year. It is essential that we ensure that farmers can and do make the most of the possibilities—not simply in lush Strangford, but in Aylesbury and across this great United Kingdom.
Does the hon. Lady agree that we need the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to engage with grassroots farming and to support farmers, thereby ensuring that we increase food security in the United Kingdom while protecting our agricultural land? The Minister is in his place, and there is no better person to do just that.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree that supporting smallholder farmers is absolutely essential.
There is too much to say in the time we have available tonight, but I will pull out three particularly important ways to help set up our farmers for success. First and foremost, we have to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of British farming. The environment land management schemes have been unclear, difficult to navigate and poorly tailored to different contexts—in the case of Ledburn farm, to the heavy clay land. As a result, the uptake has been low, but farmers remain in need of that support and we have to find a way to make it easier to access. Equally, farmers are forging ahead and finding ways to diversify their income, but there is much more we can do to support that—for example, by making it much easier to change the use of existing farm buildings, or to develop lower-grade agricultural land, if it creates renewable energy sources or affordable housing for farm workers.
Secondly, we have to promote and support farmers to roll out sustainable farming practices that address challenges such as soil erosion and low land productivity—for example, by supporting the farmer clusters that have become increasingly prevalent across Buckinghamshire, which bring together farmers to help explore best practice and to share ideas for enhancing natural habitats on their land.
Thirdly, we need to invest in the next generation of British farmers. This means ensuring that we give the profession the status that it deserves in the first place, and that we start educating children about it at a very young age. That means creating pathways into the farming sector—for example, through investing in specialist technical education and expanding agriculture apprenticeships. It means making it not just attractive but affordable to live in rural communities and to pursue a career in farming, particularly in places such as Buckinghamshire, where there is far too little affordable rural housing and services. As a result, the pull to towns is too strong. In short, we can put all the necessary protections in place for quality agricultural land, and I am confident that we will, but without a thriving farming sector to safeguard that land, they will have little impact.
My constituency has suffered from the absence of a coherent strategy for our land—where and how we protect it, where and how we use it, and where and how we develop it. Recent Governments have left nature depleted, farmers deeply uncertain at best and out of business at worst, and communities frustrated by haphazard house building without access to green spaces, infrastructure or services. Under this Government, the future has to look different, and we have to start with clear principles. Alongside the NPPF, the new land use framework will surely help to ensure that we get the right balance between food production, nature and economic growth.
We need more predictability. Of course external shocks will happen, but the role of the Government is to be a steadying force. It is great that we have got to work quickly on the first steps—whether planning reform or setting up Great British Energy—and I think we can look forward to a steady, focused roll-out.
Finally, we need a good deal of pragmatism and an acceptance that getting the right balance between development and environmental protection is not easy, and there will be compromises, but it is necessary. We have to find a way both to build the homes and infrastructure of the future, and to protect and regenerate our agricultural and nature-rich lands, because ultimately one cannot exist without the other.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is highly unusual for other Members to contribute to an Adjournment debate, because it is a conversation between the lead Member and the Minister. I believe that you have sought permission, but it is still highly unusual, so I assume that the contribution will be short before the Minister responds.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Thank you very much for your permission to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to support the representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), because some of the things that she raises are also relevant to my constituency and those across the country.
As my hon. Friend said, the case for more genuinely affordable homes is clear. That is accepted in my community as much as in hers, if not more so, as so many people struggle in the private sector and house prices spiral due to the pressure of unregulated short-term holiday lets, driven by many people’s huge and understandable desire to enjoy the delights of Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate.
We need new homes. I have spoken to far too many people in their 30s and beyond who live in their childhood bedrooms, sometimes with a partner. They are desperate to be able to start their lives in a home of their own, but they are priced out of their own community. We also desperately need the infrastructure to support the families who will live in those homes, and we need to protect and enhance not only the nature that we love but the nature that is essential to our own economy, wellbeing and future.
I came here to change the rules, Madam Deputy Speaker, although of course I observe the ones that you enforce in this House. It is clear that the current rules do not serve our need for homes or our need to protect and enhance nature. They do not enable the right infrastructure to be built, nor do they effectively help us identify and protect our vital farmland. Those who protect the status quo in this argument are condemning our country to failure. Those who think that any of these four elements—homes, farming, nature or infrastructure, including energy—should drop off the list of our priorities do not understand the importance of shaping our communities to benefit our residents, now and for the long term.
Nature is not just a “nice to have”. It is fundamental to us in achieving our economic, health and climate goals. In Thanet, people come to see and enjoy our natural world. Damaging nature, where it is a vital part of the economy, is short-sighted and dangerous. We also have some of the most productive farmland in the whole of the UK, yet the existing planning rules do not protect it from speculation and development. Access to nature is proven to enhance health and wellbeing, and the successes of previous Labour Governments in creating access to nature for everyone are some of our proudest achievements. Furthermore, responsible custodianship of our natural environment, especially precious ecosystems, is vital to capturing, sequestering and reducing carbon emissions. The sixth carbon budget predicts that, by 2050, we will need to remove 39 megatonnes of CO2 a year via nature-based solutions, which is more than double what we do today. That includes wetlands, woodlands and peatlands, which are both beautiful and useful.
This Labour Government were elected on a mandate to transform us into a clean energy superpower by 2030 and to restore and protect 30% of nature by 2030. We cannot achieve those goals under the current rules. That is why I look forward to us publishing a land use framework that will help us to decide what we use land for, and help us to shape our communities and our country to meet our ambition to be somewhere with affordable homes to rent or own and run, affordable sustainable food, affordable secure home-grown clean energy, decent public services, and our beloved countryside providing us with the peace and climate security we all need.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
My thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing today’s debate, delivering such an excellent and thoughtful speech and speaking so eloquently about her lovely constituency, and also—like my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington)—for teasing out some of the challenges, particularly around housing and the importance of nature.
Nature underpins everything from our personal wellbeing to our economy, but the truth is that nature is in crisis. That is why the Government are committed to charting a new course and ensuring that nature is truly on the road to recovery. Ensuring nature’s recovery is one of my Department’s five key priorities, alongside cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas; moving to a zero-waste economy; supporting farmers to boost our food security; and protecting communities from flooding. It is nature’s recovery that will support and complement those other priorities and contribute to the Government’s central mission for economic growth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury raised the important issue of planning reforms. The Government are determined to transform the planning system to ensure a win-win for house building and for nature. Nature recovery is a top priority, alongside the need to overhaul the planning system, grow the economy and reach net zero. It is not a matter of choosing one of these priorities over another. Sustained economic growth depends on a healthy natural environment.
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that the Government are undertaking a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. Our review will ensure that it is fit for purpose to deliver on our legally binding Environment Act 2021 targets and our international commitment to protect 30% of England’s land and sea by 2030. So this debate is extremely timely, and I will seek to address and respond to the points raised.
To restore nature, we need to create, restore and connect wildlife-rich habitat at scale, reduce pressure on species, including from pollution and climate change, and take targeted action to recover specific species. The Government will deliver for nature, working in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world. Working with farmers and landowners to deliver nature recovery will be crucial, which is why we are fully committed to the environmental land management schemes.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Would the Minister be keen to meet some of my constituents, who are threatened by the actions of EDF and Hinkley Point C, which wish to create salt marsh on land that is currently farmed in north Somerset? That is causing a huge amount of distress to people locally, including young Sophie Cole, whom I met this weekend and who has just started on her path as a young farmer. She is 28, and she and all the villagers in Kingston Seymour are very keen to make sure that the Minister understands the tensions between the creation of salt marsh at the behest of Hinkley and their natural desire to carry on farming that has taken place for hundreds of years.
Daniel Zeichner
I would be happy to learn more about the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.
The Government will optimise ELMS so that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way. We will confirm plans for the roll-out of schemes and our wider approach as soon as possible. ELMS, including the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, will contribute to the biodiversity targets at scale by supporting nature-friendly farming and creating and restoring wildlife-rich habitats. They will also help to restore and improve the condition of protected sites, including sites of special scientific interest. From this year, ELM agreements are expected to bring or maintain up to 480,000 hectares of eligible SSSI habitat in England under favourable management, and to create or restore up to 300,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, in addition to up to 200,000 hectares of peat and woodland by 2042.
In addition to the action that we will take to recover nature by creating and restoring habitat, we will take action to effectively protect wildlife-rich habitats and species. That protection is crucial, as species are in decline. That includes important farmland species such as farmland birds, including the turtle dove, which has declined in the UK by 97% since 1994. However, where nature-friendly farmers and major partners such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have put the right ELM measures in the right places, we have seen increases in scarce farmland bird species such as chough, cirl bunting, and stone curlew.
Our work to protect nature will include action to restore our protected sites, which are vital wildlife havens facing increasing pressures from climate change, pollution, and invasive non-native species. Natural England is working to get protected sites into favourable condition. That includes piloting new powers to put in place protected sites strategies to deliver improvements in partnership with others and working with the SSSI major landowners group to develop landscape-scale approaches. Natural England is also working with farmers through the catchment-sensitive farming programme to improve water and air quality on farms around protected sites. That includes helping farmers to secure funding to make management changes to improve their condition.
We will also protect our most beautiful landscapes and help our national parks and national landscapes to become wilder, greener and more accessible to all as we deliver our commitment to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister talks about partnerships, and among the key partners in restoring nature are, of course, small family farms. I have heard speculation that Wednesday’s Budget might remove agricultural property relief on inheritance tax. Of course, the Minister will not be able to comment on the Budget—I will have to wait until Wednesday for that—but if somebody were to float such an idea, would he combat it?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is not going to tempt me. He will have to wait until Wednesday, I am afraid.
One of the key criteria for land to contribute to our 30by30 commitment is protection, as areas counting towards the target should be protected from loss or damage to important biodiversity. Land contributing to 30by30 should be secured for long enough to secure good biodiversity outcomes, generally for at least 20 years. Some areas, including those under intensive farming, are not suitable for 30by30, but our approach recognises that nature-friendly land uses may be able to play a role in supporting our goal.
Jim Shannon
It is disappointing that the good work done by wildfowling clubs across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not often mentioned. They rent and own salt marshes—they own land as well—and they manage them so that wildlife and plant life can blossom. It is done in partnership with landowners, Natural England and many others. Will the Minister recognise the good work that wildfowling clubs do and their contribution to a better life?
Daniel Zeichner
Of course, I join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the role of wildfowling clubs and many others who play an important role in the countryside.
The Government also place great importance on our agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework sets out how the best and most versatile agricultural land should be reflected in planning policies and decisions. The framework is clear that, where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
Meeting our ambitious targets on nature restoration, alongside our priorities on food security and accelerating to net zero, will require careful thought about how we use our land, which is why the forthcoming land use framework for England will consider cross-governmental issues such as energy and food security, and how we can expand nature-rich habitats such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests.
The 16th UN biodiversity summit is currently under way in Colombia, where the importance of biodiversity and ensuring that we achieve our national targets and international commitments will once again be in the spotlight. The Government have also recently appointed Ruth Davis as the UK’s first envoy for nature, and she will champion our ambition to put nature at the heart of our foreign policy and help us to deliver our commitments for nature recovery.
I finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury for securing today’s debate. I look forward to working closely with her and others to ensure that we begin to make real progress on the Government’s priorities of nature recovery and boosting our food security.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Correction
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.
[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 393.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare):
Ms Oppong-Asare
The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will balance China in terms of economic engagement and making sure we strengthen our national security.
Written Statements
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contracts for Difference
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I would like to advise the House that today I am laying draft regulations to implement two amendments to the Contract for Difference (CfD) scheme in time for the next allocation round, supporting the Government’s clean energy superpower mission to deliver clean power by 2030 and accelerate to net zero.
The CfD scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation projects in Great Britain. Awarded through regular, competitive allocation rounds, it guarantees a set price per megawatt-hour of electricity for 15 years, indexed to inflation. The income stabilisation that it provides for the generator makes projects that have high up-front costs but long lifetimes and low running costs attractive to investors and lenders, reducing the cost of capital and overall project cost. It also protects consumers when electricity prices are high.
The latest allocation round, AR6, was a great success, securing a record-breaking 131 projects and 9.6 GW of renewable electricity capacity. But we must continually evolve the CfD scheme to drive progress towards the 2030 clean power target and ensure that it reflects the global challenges and opportunities faced by the renewables sector.
These amendments to legislation will extend the option to phase projects under the CfD to floating offshore wind and enable repowered onshore wind projects to apply for a CfD, provided they meet certain criteria.
This Government have committed to radically increasing the UK’s offshore wind capacity. Floating offshore wind is an emerging technology that allows us to access wind resource in deeper waters, which tend to be further from shore and have higher, more consistent wind speeds. CfD phasing policy allows offshore wind projects with a maximum capacity of 1,500 MW to be built in up to three stages. Previously this only applied to fixed-bottom offshore wind. The extension of phasing to floating offshore wind will benefit this emerging sector, de-risking the construction process and helping developers and the supply chain to work with more certainty. This, in turn, will reduce investment risk and enable the construction of larger floating windfarms, as investors gain confidence in successful project completion.
The other amendment concerns onshore wind. From the late 2020s onwards, it is likely that a significant proportion of current onshore wind sites will reach the end of their operational life. When a project comes to the end of its operating life, the generator can choose to decommission permanently, extend its life, or repower. Repowering would require decommissioning and recommissioning of the existing site, incurring similarly high up-front capital costs to that of a new build. Allowing projects to apply for a CfD to repower, in contrast to retiring, could make a significant contribution to the 2030 clean power goal. This amendment offers revenue certainty for onshore wind projects that may otherwise struggle to repower. Without it, we may lose the opportunity to retain and increase this renewable capacity and the societal and economic benefits this confers.
This draft legislation laid today is another important step forward in delivering clean power, shielding families from volatile gas prices and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower.
[HCWS168]
Sea Level Rise: Maritime Zones
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The UN convention on the law of the sea sets out the legal framework for all activities in the ocean and seas. Upholding UNCLOS is central to the UK Government’s approach to ocean issues as an essential enabler of global security, growth and a healthy planet.
UNCLOS sets out the legal basis on which states can establish the baselines along their coasts, or joining points on their coasts, from which they are entitled to generate maritime zones, including their territorial sea and exclusive economic zone.
When UNCLOS was drafted, significant sea level rise and changes in coastlines as a result of the climate crisis were not contemplated by the drafters, and no provision was made for this. However, with sea level rise, coastlines are likely to regress, and some features may be completely inundated and lost.
The International Law Commission is the UN body of international law experts responsible for studying and making recommendations to encourage the progressive development and codification of international law. ILC work on the topic of sea level rise in international law has been ongoing since 2019, and the UK has responded to ILC requests for information on state practice. On 6 August 2021, the Pacific Islands Forum made a declaration to the effect that having, in accordance with UNCLOS, established and notified their maritime zones to the UN Secretary-General, Pacific Islands Forum members intend to maintain these zones without reduction, notwithstanding climate change-related sea level rise, and will not review or update the baselines or outer limits of their maritime zones as a consequence of climate change-related sea level rise. The Alliance of Small Island States made a similar statement in their leaders’ declaration in September 2021.
Having considered the work of the ILC to date on the issue of maritime boundaries, and the views of our partners, I can confirm that the UK Government take the view that UNCLOS imposes no express or affirmative obligation on states to keep their baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones derived from them under review, or to update them once they have been established in accordance with UNCLOS. UNCLOS provides that baselines and outer limits of the maritime zones are as shown on the relevant chart or specified by co-ordinates. It does not expressly require coastal states to update those charts or co-ordinates. This position is consistent with the object and purpose of UNCLOS as a regime for securing a stable division of maritime space. Once a state has established its maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS, it is permitted to maintain those maritime zones, and the rights and entitlements that flow from them, notwithstanding changes to coastlines and physical features that result from sea level rise caused by the climate crisis. This does not prejudice the UK Government’s position on other international law questions raised by sea level rise that the ILC is also considering.
The UK Government’s position is that this analysis can only apply to baselines or outer limits which are initially established in accordance with UNCLOS. It remains the UK Government’s position that UNCLOS provides the complete and definitive rules on the drawing of baselines from which maritime zones are measured.
While the UK Government recognise that UNCLOS does not require states to update the relevant charts or co-ordinates designated by states as depicting the baselines and outer limits of their maritime zones, the UK Government consider it important that necessary hydrographic surveying takes place and navigational charts and other information continue to be updated as frequently as necessary for the purposes of navigational safety.
[HCWS171]
Supply of Radioisotopes
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am today updating the House on the severe shortage of radioisotopes that the UK is facing. The affected radioisotopes are mainly used for diagnosing cancers, including prostate and breast cancer. It is also used for imaging of organ function in scans, including for the heart. Despite efforts by my Department and NHS England to limit the negative impacts of this shortage, there will be delays to patient access to services relying on the impacted radioisotopes, including cancellations.
This shortage is due to a temporary reduction in the production of molybdenum-99 which is used to generate technetium-99m. The radioisotope technetium-99m is used safely for diagnostics in the NHS. This issue is impacting not only the UK, but countries across Europe, and worldwide.
The shortage of molybdenum-99 is caused by a sudden global disruption of manufacturing capacity, with a number of the nuclear reactors used to produce these elements being out of service. There are six trusted research reactors globally for the supply of molybdenum-99, none of which are in the UK. Some of these reactors are currently out of service to allow for critical repair work; this is essential work necessary for the safe running of the research reactors. Two of the impacted reactors are expected to restart production during the second week of November, with deliveries from these reactors expected to resume in mid-November. My Department, together with relevant experts, is working closely with suppliers to support the process to restart the affected reactors as soon as possible.
There will remain a significantly constrained supply of these radioisotopes to the UK from the remaining reactors. Radioisotopes give off radiation and undergo a process of decay, which means they cannot be stored or kept in reserve. Our priority is to minimise the impact on patients as much as possible. Therefore, my Department is working closely with suppliers, clinical experts, NHS England and devolved Governments to support the allocation of deliveries and ensure there is equitable and fair access across the UK to the constrained supply of stock that is available. NHS England is supporting trusts and hospitals to share available supply and ensure that critical patients are given priority. Guidance is being issued to ensure that patients with the most critical need are prioritised. If any patient is concerned about their treatment, they should discuss this with their clinician at the earliest opportunity.
I know how difficult this will be for affected patients while we face this supply issue. This issue is different in nature to normal supply chain problems due to the unique challenges radioisotope shortages present. My Department is working closely with suppliers and relevant experts to resolve the supply issue as soon as possible. I will continue to keep Parliament updated on our progress to resolve this severe shortage.
[HCWS170]
Social and Affordable Housing
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
This week’s Budget will set out how the Government will deliver more affordable housing and ensure that social housing is available for those who need it most.
This will include an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes, bringing total investment in housing supply in 2025-26 to over £5 billion. This comes ahead of the multi-year spending review next spring, where the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021-26 affordable homes programme. This new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent.
The Government will also consult on a new five-year social housing rent settlement, which caps the rents that social housing providers can charge their tenants, to provide the sector with the certainty it needs to invest in new social housing. The intention would be for this to increase with consumer prices index inflation figures and an additional 1%. The consultation will also seek views on other potential options to give greater certainty, such as providing a 10-year settlement.
These measures to increase affordable housing come alongside changes to the right-to-buy scheme. England’s existing social housing supply is depleted every year by the scheme while also disincentivising councils to build new social housing. To address this, the Chancellor will confirm at the Budget that councils will be able to retain 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This will enable councils to scale up delivery of much needed social homes while still enabling long-standing tenants to buy their own homes. The Chancellor will also set out how right-to-buy discounts will be reduced to protect existing social housing stock to meet housing need, while ensuring that long-term tenants can still benefit. This will deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme that also presents better value for money for councils.
The Chancellor will also confirm at the Budget £128 million of funding to support the delivery of new housing projects, comprising of:
Confirmation of a £56 million investment at Liverpool Central Docks, which is expected to deliver 2,000 homes in north Liverpool, along with office, retail, leisure and hotel facilities. This will transform Liverpool’s former dockland into a thriving waterfront neighbourhood.
A £25 million investment in a joint venture to establish a new fund with Muse Places Ltd and Pension Insurance Corporation to deliver 3,000 energy-efficient new homes across the country, with a target of 100% of these being affordable.
The confirmation of £47 million to local authorities to support the delivery of up to 28,000 homes that would otherwise be stalled due to “nutrient neutrality” requirements. This funding will not only unlock much needed new housing, but clean up our rivers in the process.
[HCWS169]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, this Grand Committee will be adjourned for 10 minutes—but, let us face it, that is vanishingly unlikely.
Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 July 2024. This instrument forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS. We believe this to be critical to deliver clean energy and accelerate our net-zero journey. As the Government recently announced, CCUS is vital as we enter a new era of clean energy, investment and jobs. By boosting this tried and tested technology, the UK has the potential to become a global leader in CCUS, delivering good jobs and economic growth for decades to come.
A critical element of the CCUS mix is the successful deployment of power CCUS—gas-powered electricity generators fitted with carbon capture technology. Power CCUS will complement the rollout of renewable energy, providing secure, flexible, non-weather-dependent low-carbon electricity, critical for a reliable energy system and achieving our mission of clean power by 2030.
The Government are committed to incentivising the deployment of power CCUS and this instrument will enable future payments to power CCUS plants under the business model known as the dispatchable power agreement. This agreement—the DPA—is the contractual framework to support power CCUS. It has been designed specifically to incentivise the investment and deployment of power CCUS in the UK. The DPA is a type of contract for difference and, like a contract for difference, uses the electricity supplier obligation to fund support payments. This levy is calculated and managed by the CfD counterparty—the Low Carbon Contracts Company—and collected from electricity suppliers, who are able to pass the costs on to their customers if they choose to do so.
In addition to the existing renewable contract for difference contract design, the DPA business model will provide an alternative payment based on a power CCUS generator’s availability. This availability payment is based on a generator’s availability of electricity generation and carbon capture, and associated carbon dioxide transport and storage network costs. Under the DPA terms, payments will reduce proportionally to reflect any reduction in a generator’s capture rate or generation.
The payment is made whether a generator dispatches power or not. This ensures that a CCUS power plant will run in response to market signals, ahead of unabated gas plants, but will not surpass cheaper renewables. This arrangement will strengthen security of supply, ensuring that a source of reliable low-carbon energy is available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Let me be clear: this proposed instrument enables only certain types of payments under the renewable CfD and DPA contracts to be funded by the supplier levy. Any future support offer to a project will be subject to rigorous negotiation with partners. Any decision to award support will be subject to value-for-money and subsidy control tests to ensure best value for money for consumers.
In effect, this statutory instrument amends the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014. The amendments will allow the payments made under the DPA to be funded by the supplier levy, by changing how the supplier levy rate calculation works in the regulations.
First, Regulation 4 relates to the way an electricity supplier’s daily contributions paid to the CfD counterparty is calculated. This instrument amends Regulation 4 to enable the definition of generation payments such that the supplier obligation can be charged for payments related to the activities of a dispatchable power plant fitted with CCUS technology. This includes amendments to take into account: the electricity generation capacity made available by a generating station on a given day; a generating station’s achieved carbon dioxide capture rate or capture capacity on a given day; the incurred CO2 transport and storage capital costs incurred for transporting such captured carbon dioxide and if required, associated carbon dioxide; transport and storage network revenue shortfalls proportionate to a DPA-supported generating station which arose on that day.
Secondly, Regulation 7 of the 2014 regulations sets out how the CfD counterparty estimates the quarterly obligation payment that electricity suppliers will be required to provide to the counterparty. This instrument amends Regulation 7 to ensure a consideration of matters related to a dispatchable power agreement-supported generating station are taken into account, including the carbon dioxide transport and storage network capital costs and, if required, revenue shortfalls, and the amount of carbon captured.
Together, these amendments allow a CfD counterparty to estimate, raise funds and ultimately pay a DPA-supported CCUS-enabled power plant. The existing payment calculation, based on the amount of electricity generated by renewable CfD-supported generating stations is retained and unaffected.
These proposals have been long considered as the power CCUS business model has been updated. This has included update publications in December 2020, May 2021, October 2021 and April 2022. The instrument was formally consulted on from December 2023 and received a range of responses from electricity suppliers, power operators, a trade body and a consumer-focused charity. Respondents were broadly in agreement with the principles laid out. My department continues to engage closely with industry in the development of the CCUS sector.
In summary, this instrument represents a positive step forward in the delivery of the Government’s ambitious CCUS programme and 2030 clean power mission. It will lay the regulatory groundwork to encourage the deployment of power CCUS and begin to unlock the great economic and jobs opportunities that we see coming from this important development. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the Government’s Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. These regulations will enable licensed electricity suppliers to make payments to natural gas power plants fitted with carbon capture, usage and storage—also known as CCUS—technology. In 2023, we introduced funding for CCUS with the plan to make up to £20 billion available to support the early development of CCUS, so we welcome this step as an essential part of reaching the net-zero target, and we are pleased to see that the current Government are continuing our work in this area.
On these Benches, we both aspire to and understand the need to reach net zero, and there is indeed consensus from all on the 2050 target. The use of carbon capture technology will play an important role in achieving that goal, and this amendment introduces incentives for suppliers to produce low-carbon electricity—an objective with which we agree.
However, we seek clarification from the Minister. When in government, we committed to deploying CCUS technology in four industrial clusters by 2030. Can he please inform the Committee as to whether his Government will also commit to working towards and reaching that same target?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl’s welcome for the statutory instrument. He is right that a lot of the original work was undertaken by the previous Government. I think I said in my opening speech that most of the consultations took place under the auspices of the previous Government, so there is clearly consensus about the key role of CCUS.
I had expected greater attendance and that we might have debated the principles of CCUS. For me, it is an essential part of the transition. We will need gas-powered electricity generators for years to come. They give the flexibility we need in relation to renewables and having nuclear as a baseload. If we can have it abated then that would clearly decarbonise our energy structure, but it can also play a key role in the industrial use of energy.
On the noble Earl’s question, I say gently to him that, in a sense, the previous Government’s £20 billion seemed rather a theoretical figure. We have had to work hard with our colleagues across government to get to the almost £22 billion that we have announced. Clearly, that money is to be spent on building the foundations for the industry. Basically, the funding we have announced is being invested in our first projects. These include the underpinning CO2 transport and storage networks and three CO2 capture projects. Other projects will join later, but these are subject to agreement across government. Of course, the noble Earl will know that we will have the Budget and spending review decisions very shortly. I will have to wait till those decisions are made before I respond on where we will go next.
I thank the noble Earl for his general support for this instrument. I believe we need as much political consensus as possible in relation to net zero, and the general support for CCUS is very welcome.
Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 30 July, are technical but, we believe, necessary. They are part of the implementation of the economic regulation framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage established in the Energy Act 2023.
I do not need to repeat what I said earlier about the potential of CCUS, but one of the key points here is the potentially monopolistic characteristics of carbon dioxide pipeline transportation and storage infrastructure. A framework of economic licensing and regulation is necessary to prevent anti-competitive behaviours by infrastructure operators and ensure protections for users and consumers.
Under this framework, an operator of a carbon dioxide transport and storage network requires a licence that permits charging users of the network a fee for delivering and operating the network. The licence will determine the “allowed revenue” for a transport and storage operator, reflecting its efficient costs and a reasonable return on its capital investment. The economic regulator, Ofgem, will oversee charges and determine whether costs can be passed on to users in accordance with the agreed economic framework.
To ensure that the economic regulation framework operates as intended, Ofgem has enforcement powers to ensure compliance with licence conditions and provide appropriate redress for any regulatory breaches. Such redress includes the ability for Ofgem to impose financial penalties on licence holders for contraventions of the licence, up to a maximum amount of 10% of company turnover. That the maximum amount of penalty cannot exceed 10% of company turnover is established in the primary legislation; the regulations that we are discussing today specify how a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of calculating the maximum amount of penalty that could be imposed.
The amount of financial penalty imposed will not automatically be set at the maximum; the maximum penalty of 10% of turnover is a cap, not a target. Any penalty imposed should be reasonable and appropriate, considering all the circumstances of the case. The regulations before us today set out that turnover is to be calculated based on the revenue from the company’s ordinary activities, excluding trade discounts, VAT and other taxes. This includes revenue from goods and services provided by the company, whether authorised by the licence or not.
The turnover is usually based on the company’s revenue for the business year preceding the date of notice of the penalty. However, if the business year is not 12 months long, the turnover is adjusted proportionally. This is consistent with general accounting practices. Any financial assistance from public bodies or publicly owned companies that is directly linked to the company’s ordinary activities, or is provided under a carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support contract, is included in the turnover calculation.
Ofgem is required by the primary legislation to prepare and publish a statement of policy outlining its policy and approach to enforcement and penalties in the carbon dioxide transport and storage sector. This statement of policy should include the factors and circumstances considered in decisions on whether to impose a financial penalty and in determining the amount of any financial penalty. Ofgem has consulted on documents explaining how it will conduct its enforcement activities and issue penalties in its role as the economic regulator of the CCUS sector. The consultation closed in early July; Ofgem has now considered and published its response.
To conclude, these regulations are technical but necessary, providing clarity on what is meant by “turnover” when determining the maximum amount of a financial penalty that can be imposed by Ofgem. We see these regulations as an essential part of the economic regulation framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage, designed to overcome market barriers to deploying CCUS infrastructure in the UK and achieving net zero while protecting the interests of users and consumers of this infrastructure. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are made using the powers created in the Energy Act 2023. They form part of the implementation of the economic regulation framework for CO2 transport and storage involved with carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—which we have just debated.
This measure will introduce a framework of economic licensing and regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and to avoid the potential monopolistic characteristics of CO2 pipelines. Operators of carbon dioxide transport and storage networks will operate with licences that allow them to charge gas plants for using their CCUS services. This licence will determine the revenue that the CO2 transport and storage operators can receive. Ofgem will oversee the charges and determine whether the costs can be passed on to users.
As we have heard, Ofgem will have the power to address any regulatory breaches with a financial penalty of up to 10% of company turnover. However, it will not automatically be set that high; the 10% is a cap, not a target, and Ofgem will have to publish a statement of policy to explain any penalties.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition support this regulation. I will use the words of my colleague in the other place, as he put it so well:
“The regulations address a technical point arising from the Energy Act 2023 and follow on from the ambitions of the previous Government. This is a necessary measure to clarify the technical detail of how big the maximum fine can be, and we are 100% behind it”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 9/10/24; col. 4.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I emphasise two points. First, the 10% is a cap, not a target, as he rightly said. Secondly, Ofgem has now published its statement of policy, so we have the clarity that industry needs. Having said that, I am most grateful to him for his support. I beg to move.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations are made under the powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Noble Lords may be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this SI as an instrument of interest in its second report, published on 5 September. This statutory instrument will enable the Financial Ombudsman Service —also known as the FOS—to charge case fees to claims management companies and relevant legal professionals when they bring cases to it on behalf of complainants.
The Financial Ombudsman Service provides a proportionate, prompt and informal service to resolve disputes between consumers and financial services firms. It is designed as an alternative to resolving cases through the courts, which can be expensive for both firms and consumers and is a lengthy process that can delay redress. The Financial Ombudsman Service is cost-free to consumers and funded by a combination of an annual levy on firms and case fees charged to firms that are subject to complaints.
The FOS is designed to be an accessible service, and indeed the majority of consumers raise complaints directly with it. However, some consumers choose to use claims management companies or law firms to bring claims to the Financial Ombudsman Service on their behalf. Collectively, these are known as professional representatives. These professional representatives normally take a proportion of any compensation awarded as payment for their services. This can reduce a consumer’s redress by as much as 30%.
Currently, these professional representatives cannot be charged for bringing cases to the FOS, despite the fact that they gain an economic benefit from doing so. Although many of these professional representatives act responsibly, there is evidence that some firms are exploiting the cost-free service provided by the FOS to consumers by flooding it with templated and poorly evidenced complaints. This behaviour negatively impacts the ability of the FOS to resolve other consumer complaints promptly. It also has a significant cost to industry, as firms are required to pay a case fee of £650, regardless of whether a complaint is upheld against them.
The Government have also noted concerns that firms experiencing this treatment may feel pressured into settling claims early by offering an amount below the £650 case fee in order to reduce the overall cost to the firm, even where they feel the claim is without merit.
To address these exploitative practices, this instrument will enable the FOS to charge a case fee to professional representatives for bringing complaints on behalf of claimants. This will provide a financial incentive for those professional representatives to consider carefully the merits of any cases they are bringing on behalf of complainants and to avoid flooding the Financial Ombudsman Service with templated complaints. Charities bringing complaints on behalf of consumers are not included in this instrument and therefore will not be charged by the FOS and, of course, the FOS will remain completely free for consumers to access directly.
As it is already for financial services firms subject to complaints, the Financial Ombudsman Service will be responsible for determining exactly who is charged and the level of any fees. The FOS has consulted on its proposed detailed approach to charging fees to professional representatives in anticipation of this instrument. This proposed a fee of £250 to professional representatives for each case they bring. When the FOS finds in favour of the claimant represented by the professional representative, it has proposed that the fee will be reduced to just £75. In this way, it has sought to disincentivise bad behaviour, while minimising the impact of the changes on professional representatives bringing cases with merit. If this SI is approved, the Financial Ombudsman Service will confirm its final plans, having considered the responses to its consultation.
The approach taken through this SI ensures that the FOS will remain cost-free to consumers while ensuring that the poor behaviour of some professional representatives does not undermine the ability of the FOS to deal with consumer complaints promptly. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations, I commend them to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for explaining clearly what this statutory instrument is about. I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have some questions, about which I have already alerted the Minister. I actually alerted my noble friend Lord Livermore, thinking he would be answering on this, but I think he has passed them on.
There is a concern that, while it is laudable that no charges will be involved for claimants who make direct contact with the Financial Ombudsman Service, which has proven to be an excellent service for people who have particular issues in the financial world, notwithstanding that, some people like the services of professional representatives. A recent survey found that 43% of people were likely to be vulnerable prior to financial scams—we are all beset by them—and 85% became vulnerable in the aftermath as the reality of the situation hits them and their mental health may deteriorate. Will the Minister outline the real reason for eradicating, in many instances, the middle person, the professional representative? That would be very useful.
As we know, all professional representatives are regulated either by the Financial Conduct Authority or the SRA. Claims management companies are explicitly forbidden by regulations from bringing cases that do not have “a good arguable case”, or that are “frivolous or vexatious”. Therefore, firms are required to learn from the FOS approach to ensure that they do not continue to submit cases with an unrealistic chance of success. So why is the FOS not pushing regulators to enforce this more? The FOS would be better highlighting this to the regulators, which have the power to take heavy action against these firms. The ombudsman has the power to reject poor-quality submissions. Why is it not using this to a greater extent against the 10 firms that are particularly clogging up the system?
Finally, could my noble friend the Minister advise, or come back by way of writing, on whether the Government intend to ameliorate the situation? Sometimes, people like the services of professional agents, notwithstanding their level of financial security, and would appreciate that, and they do not think that it is fair that the cost that has been levied on the professional claims person should be passed on to them.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and appreciate the very full description of them that the Minister gave. As she said, they enable the Financial Ombudsman Service to amend its rules to charge case fees to claims management companies and legal professionals on behalf of complainants when a customer launches a complaint against a financial services firm.
On these Benches, we believe in the importance of fair and justified financial regulation and the ability for customers to issue a complaint against financial services firms when necessary. We recognise the benefit of this legislation, which seeks to address the economic benefit gained by intermediaries from bringing a case and the large volumes of poorly evidenced complaints submitted to the FOS.
We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work in which we introduced the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which enabled the Government to add to the list of persons to whom the FOS can charge fees. I would like answers to a couple of questions, but the Minister can write to me if need be. What measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that genuine and well-evidenced complaints continue to be submitted to, and heard by, the Financial Ombudsman Service? Can the Government confirm that this legislation will not result in increases in fees paid by consumers who have submitted a complaint?
I was interested in the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to them. As I said, we support these regulations, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank both my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for their comments, in particular their close consideration of these draft regulations. It is important that everyone in the Committee has an opportunity to raise important points. I re-emphasise that this SI will play an important role in ensuring that the Financial Ombudsman Service can focus on promptly resolving consumer complaints and reduce the impact of spurious complaints on financial services firms.
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her detailed questions. I know from her comments earlier, before we came into this Committee, that her primary concern is for the consumer and to make sure that the necessary protection is in place. By way of reassurance, we are looking at the needs of vulnerable people, in particular, to make sure that they will not be disadvantaged by this amendment; that is the crux of what we need to address today.
I re-emphasise that the Government are clear that all consumers should be able to access the FOS without the need for professional representative support. Serious consideration has been given to that while developing this policy. The final outcome, as I mentioned earlier, is that charities, family members and advisory organisations will not be charged for this service; that is an important consideration. Another aspect here—it is reassuring, I hope—is that the FOS has a dedicated accessibility team as well as the additional support team, working specifically to ensure that complaints with additional needs are added. I hope that that goes some way to providing the reassurance sought.
The other question is: should the Financial Conduct Authority not be doing more to regulate professional representatives effectively in the first place? It is a very reasonable question. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority play an important role in regulating, respectively, claims management companies and law firms. The Government strongly support the relevant regulators in taking robust action to tackle poor claims management behaviour wherever it arises.
There is an important point here that needs to be firmly pointed out. We re-emphasise: all consumers can access the service free of charge and without the need for any professional representative support. Where consumers choose to use a professional representative, there are rules in place to limit the amounts that these firms can charge. The FCA, which regulates claims management companies and professional representatives, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which regulates legal professionals, already restrict the fees that a professional representative can charge to consumers through their fee cap rules. The FCA has agreed that any fee paid by professional representatives to the Financial Ombudsman Service will be included in this cap; this will prevent fees being passed on to consumers in cases where the representative is charging at the maximum level, which the FOS understands to be the case already for most professional representatives.
If there is a feeling that I need to follow up in writing, I will of course do so, but, with those closing comments, I hope that we can move forward.
Insurance and Reinsurance Undertakings (Prudential Requirements) (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2024
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Insurance and Reinsurance Undertakings (Prudential Requirements) (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2024.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, as reported to the other place, this Government are determined to reinvigorate the UK’s capital markets to drive growth and investment. These regulations form part of that commitment by implementing a smooth transition to the reformed Solvency II regime, which governs the rules that maintain the safety and soundness of UK insurance firms.
This updated regime utilises the approach to regulation in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to empower our regulator—the Prudential Regulation Authority—while addressing demand-side barriers by reducing insurers’ regulatory capital requirements, reducing pressuring on insurers’ balance sheets and incentivising them to invest in the UK. The regulations make necessary provision to maintain these reforms and the wider regulatory regime on the revocation of the relevant assimilated EU law on 31 December 2024.
In summary, this instrument preserves a significant cut in the regulatory capital buffer known as the risk margin, which came into force at the start of this year; it maintains the regulatory requirements on insurance groups and undertakings in Gibraltar; and it makes further amendments required as a result of changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other legislation. But I should reiterate in more detail what these regulations do, as laid out in the other place.
The regulations restate provisions on the calculation of the capital buffer known as the risk margin, which would otherwise be repealed at the end of this year. They also affirm the Prudential Regulation Authority’s power to make rules permitting insurers to adopt proportionate approaches in determining the risk margin. The regulations also provide that UK supervisory arrangements for Gibraltarian firms will continue unchanged until the broader Gibraltar authorisation regime, legislated for in the Financial Services Act 2021, comes into force.
The regulations empower the PRA to publish results for individual firms within scope of its life insurance stress tests—generally, the largest firms in the life sector. This is in addition to the sector-level results that the PRA has been publishing since 2019. This safeguard provides additional transparency to the market around the resilience of life insurers. It mirrors the approach taken for the results of stress tests for banks.
Finally, the regulations make a number of technical amendments to existing legislation, including the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to support implementation of the Government’s package of Solvency II reforms. For example, the regulations amend the definition of both insurance and reinsurance undertaking to remove references to assimilated EU law. They also remove the definitions of “third-country insurance undertaking” and “third-country reinsurance undertaking”, which are not relevant now that the UK is no longer part of the EU.
Other parts of the regulations make changes that are consequential to the proper functioning of the reformed regime, including for the necessary retention of the risk margin and the Gibraltar regulations, as already noted.
As I said in opening, these regulations are a vital aspect of ensuring a smooth transition to the reformed Solvency II regime by the end of this year. I hope that the Committee will follow the other place and endorse these technical but highly necessary reforms. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the circumstances in which these regulations have been brought forward. They are part of the Brexit dividend that we end up discussing—this carrying forward of regulations as a consequence of leaving the single European regime. I will use them as an opportunity to raise an issue of concern about the reassurance provided for people’s pensions.
As noble Lords will know, the benefits held by occupational pension schemes—specifically defined benefit schemes—are increasingly being shifted away from those schemes; they are being wound up. The benefits are being protected in one way or another. An increasingly popular way of protecting members’ benefits following the winding up of a scheme is bringing them out in the form of annuities. The annuity market is commercial, and I think people who hold annuities are often surprised at the way their futures are treated as a form of commodity to be bought and sold on markets and—relevant to these regulations—to be reinsured in ways that leaves them concerned about the security afforded for their future pensions. The particular concern, and these regulations are directly relevant, is those annuities where the reinsurance arrangements are dealt with by overseas entities. The distance between people’s expected future pensions and where the ultimate security for their pension rights lies is giving rise to increasing concerns.
There were suggestions earlier this year that the Bank of England would tighten supervision of life insurance—the annuity offices’ use of what are called funded reinsurance markets—and the extent to which this approach to securing people’s pensions will lead to riskier benefits securing members’ rights and riskier securities holding members’ rights, and the extent to which the ultimate protection is achieved not under UK provisions but by the provisions placed on overseas reinsurance facilitators. I raise that in the context of these regulations. It is an issue on which I have not given notice to my noble friend so I am not expecting an immediate response, but perhaps she could commit to giving some attention to the concerns held by ordinary policyholders about where, ultimately, the security for their benefits ends up when they are bought out of their occupational pension schemes. If necessary, perhaps we could have a meeting to discuss this in greater depth and with greater notice.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and thank the Minister for her very clear description of their use and how they will be put into practice. We on these Benches recognise the importance of this legislation in ensuring that insurance firms act safely and responsibly. The legislation also seeks to minimise the likelihood that insurance firms will come into financial difficulty. This instrument will allow for this by making a series of amendments to legislation—that is, to make certain that the UK’s insurance regulatory regime functions as planned following the implementation of the Solvency II reforms and the revocation of assimilated EU law at the end of this year.
The previous Government, following engagement with industry, created detailed plans to reform Solvency II, and we welcome this Government’s decision to continue our plans. These reforms were designed to allow for a prosperous insurance industry, while ensuring the soundness of firms by demanding that insurers hold enough capital to withstand. I have just one question for the Minister: can His Majesty’s Government confirm what conversations they are having with the insurance industry to ensure that these reforms are implemented properly? I again confirm that His Majesty’s Opposition welcome these regulations, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area, which is exceptionally important to putting ourselves in the best possible position to take advantage of the different agendas that the Government are moving on.
My noble friend Lord Davies was absolutely correct that I am unable to answer his specific questions today —they are outside the scope of this SI. However, HMT officials would be pleased to write to him. I am sure that, if there is a need for meetings, we can move forward.
I welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I absolutely assure him that there is continued engagement with the industry at ministerial level. There is a recognition that it has taken a significant time for the process to get to this point. We are almost at the last hurdle, and it is crucial that we keep everybody informed and successfully move forward towards its conclusion at the end of the year.
I am sure the Grand Committee will join me in supporting these amendments to ensure a smooth transition to the reformed Solvency II regime.
Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 9 September this year. The Online Safety Act lays the foundations of strong protection for children and adults online. I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued interest in the Online Safety Act and its implementation. It is critical that the Act is made fully operational as soon as possible, and the Government are committed to ensuring that its protections are delivered as soon as possible. This statutory instrument will further support the implementation of the Act by Ofcom.
This statutory instrument concerns Ofcom’s ability to share business information with Ministers for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act 2023, under Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003. This corrects an oversight in the original Online Safety Act that was identified following its passage.
Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 contains a general restriction on Ofcom disclosing information about particular businesses without consent from the affected businesses, but with exemptions, including where this facilitates Ofcom in carrying out its regulatory functions and facilitates other specified persons in carrying out specific functions. However, this section does not currently enable Ofcom to share information with Ministers for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act. This means that, were Ofcom to disclose information about businesses to the Secretary of State, it may be in breach of the law.
It is important that a gateway exists for sharing information for these purposes so that the Secretary of State can carry out functions under the Online Safety Act, such as setting the fee threshold for the online safety regime in 2025 or carrying out post-implementation reviews of the Act required under Section 178. This statutory instrument will therefore amend the Communications Act 2003 to allow Ofcom to share information with the Secretary of State and other Ministers, strictly for the purpose of fulfilling functions under the Online Safety Act 2023.
There are strong legislative safeguards and limitations on the disclosure of this information, and Ofcom is experienced in handling confidential and sensitive information obtained from the services it regulates. Ofcom must comply with UK data protection law and would need to show that the processing of any personal data was necessary for a lawful purpose. As a public body, Ofcom is also required to act compatibly with the Article 8 right of privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
We will therefore continue to review the Online Safety Act, so that Ofcom is able to support the delivery of functions under the Act where it is appropriate. That is a brief but detailed summary of why this instrument is necessary. I should stress that it contains a technical amendment to deal with a very small legal aspect. Nevertheless, I will be interested to hear noble Lords’ comments on the SI. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for explaining the essence of the SI. We all have a bit of pride of creation in the Online Safety Act; there are one or two of us around today who clearly have a continuing interest in it. This is one of the smaller outcomes of the Act and, as the Minister says, it is an essentially an oversight. I would say that a tidying-up operation is involved here. It is rather gratifying to see that the Communications Act still has such importance, 21 years after it was passed. It is somewhat extraordinary for legislation to be invoked after that period of time in an area such as communications, which is so fast-moving.
My question for the Minister is whether the examples that she gave or which were contained in the Explanatory Memorandum, regarding the need for information to be obtained by the Secretary of State in respect of Section 178, on reviewing the regulatory framework, and Section 86, on the threshold for payment of fees, are exclusive. Are there other aspects of the Online Safety Act where the Secretary of State requires that legislation?
We are always wary of the powers given to Secretaries of State, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, will probably remember to his cost. But at every point, the tyres on legislation need to be kicked to make sure that the Secretary of State has just the powers that they need—and that we do not go further than we need to or have a skeleton Bill, et cetera—so the usual mantra will apply: we want to make sure that the Secretary of State’s powers are proportionate.
It would be very useful to hear from the Minister what other powers are involved. Is it quite a number, were these two just the most plausible or are there six other sets of powers which might not be so attractive? That is the only caveat I would make in this respect.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with a comment that I hope will not be taken badly by either my noble friend the Minister or the large number of civil servants who have been involved in this Bill over the years. Colleagues may recall that the Bill took seven years to pass through the various processes and procedures of Parliament, including initial Green Papers and White Papers and then scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee, of which my noble friend opposite was also a member, and it seems slightly surprising and a bit odd that we are dealing with what seems to be an administrative oversight so late in the process. I do not expect a serious response from the Minister on that, but I wanted to put on the record that we are still very much aware of the fact that legislation has its faults and sometimes needs to be corrected, and we should perhaps be humble in expecting that the material we finally agree in Parliament is indeed the last word on things.
Having said that, I think I follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this point: the subsequent legal analysis, which has identified a potential gap in provision on this instrument, tries to tidy it up but, in doing so, has left me a bit confused. I simply ask the Minister to make it clear to me when she responds that I am reading it correctly. The worry that has been exposed by this subsequent legal analysis is about the sharing of information when Ofcom is using its powers to address issues with the companies with which it has an engagement. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that companies are taking their burden of making sure that the Bill works in practice. There may be a deficiency in terms of what the Secretary of State has separate powers to do, but my confusion is that the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The Secretary of State has several key functions relating to the implementation of the framework under the”
Online Safety Act. It is obviously sensible, therefore, that the sharing of information that Ofcom gathers is available for that. But is that all the powers of the Secretary of State or only the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the Online Safety Act? The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“If Ofcom were not able to share business information relating to these areas”—
that is, the areas directly affected by the Online Safety Act—
“there is a risk that implementation and review of the framework could be delayed or ineffective”.
I accept the general point, but, to pull up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is this an open invitation for Ofcom to share information that does not relate to its powers in relation to the Online Safety Act with the Secretary of State and, therefore, something for the Secretary of State to take on as a result of a slightly uncertain way of doing it? Are there are any restrictions to this power as set out in that paper? I could mention other points where it comes up, but I think my point is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also touched on the point that this is a power for Ofcom to share with the Secretary of State responsible for Ofcom, which is fair enough, but, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out:
“There are also certain functions relating to definitions conferred on Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland departments”—
presumably now Ministers—which may also be “relevant persons” of the Act, but we are not given much on that, except that
“these are unlikely to require business information for their exercise”.
I would like a bit more assurance on that. Again, that might be something for which the department is not prepared and I am quite happy to receive a letter on it, but my recollection from the discussions on the Online Safety Bill in this area, particularly in relation to Gaelic, was that there were quite a lot of powers that only Scottish Ministers would be able to exercise, and therefore it is quite possible that business activities which would not be UK-wide in their generality and therefore apropos of the Secretary of State might well be available to Ofcom to share with Scottish Ministers. If it is possible to get some generic points about where that is actually expected to fall, rather than simply saying that it is unlikely to require business information, I would be more satisfied with that.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this instrument so clearly. It certainly seems to make the necessary relatively simple adjustments to fill an important gap that has been identified. Although I have some questions, I will keep my remarks fairly brief.
I will reflect on the growing importance of both the Online Safety Act and the duty we have placed on Ofcom’s shoulders. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the long-standing consequential nature of the creation of Ofcom and the Communications Act were well made in this respect. The necessary complexity and scope of the work of Ofcom, as our online regulator, has far outgrown what I imagine was foreseeable at the time of its creation. We have given it the tasks of developing and enforcing safety standards, as well as issuing guidance and codes of practice that digital services must follow to comply with the Act. Its role includes risk assessment, compliance, monitoring and enforcement, which can of course include issuing fines or mandating changes to how services operate. Its regulatory powers now allow it to respond to emerging online risks, helping to ensure that user-protection measures keep pace with changes in the digital landscape.
In recognising the daily growing risk of online dangers and the consequent burdens on Ofcom, we of course support any measures that bring clarity and simplicity. If left unaddressed, the identified gap here clearly could lead to regulatory inefficiencies and delays in crucial processes that depend on accurate and up-to-date information. For example, setting appropriate fee thresholds for regulated entities requires detailed knowledge of platform compliance and associated risks, which would be challenging to achieve without full data access. During post-implementation reviews, a lack of access to necessary business information could hamper the ability to assess whether the Act is effectively achieving its safety objectives or whether adjustments are needed.
That said, I have some questions, and I hope that, when she rises, the Minister will set out the Government’s thinking on them. My first question very much picks up on the point made—much better than I did—by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It is important to ensure that this instrument does not grant unrestricted access to business information but, rather, limits sharing to specific instances where it is genuinely necessary for the Secretary of State to fulfil their duties under the Act. How will the Government ensure this?
Secondly, safeguards, such as data protection laws and confidentiality obligations under the Communications Act 2003, must be in place to guarantee that any shared information is handled responsibly and securely. Do the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already in place?
Thirdly, in an environment of rapid technology change, how do the Government plan to keep online safety regulation resilient and adaptive? I look forward to hearing the Government’s views on these questions, but, as I say, we completely welcome any measure that increases clarity and simplicity and makes it easier for Ofcom to be effective.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. It goes without saying that the Government are committed to the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act. It is critical that we remove any barriers to that, as we are doing with this statutory instrument.
As noble Lords said—the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, stressed this—the Online Safety Act has taken on a growing significance in the breadth and depth of its reach. It is very much seen as an important vehicle for delivering the change that the whole of society wants now. It is important that we get this piece of legislation right. For that purpose, this statutory instrument will ensure that Ofcom can co-operate and share online safety information with the Secretary of State where it is appropriate to do so, as was intended during the Act’s development.
On specific questions, all three noble Lords who spoke asked whether the examples given were exclusive or whether there are other areas where powers might be given to the Secretary of State. The examples given are the two areas that are integral to implementation. We have not at this stage identified any further areas. The instrument would change to allow sharing only for the purposes of fulfilling the Secretary of State’s functions under the Online Safety Act—it does not go any broader than that. I think that answers the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, about whether this meant unlimited access—I assure him that that is not the purpose of this SI.
My noble friend Lord Stevenson asked whether this relates only to the powers under the OSA. Yes, the instrument allows Ofcom to share information it has collected from businesses only for the purposes of fulfilling the Secretary of State’s functions under the Act.
On the question of devolution, the powers of Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Ministers primarily relate to the power to define the educational establishments for the purpose of Schedule 1 exemptions. There are also some consultation provisions where these Ministers must be consulted, but that is the limit of the powers that those Ministers would have.
I am conscious that I have not answered all the questions asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, because I could not write that quickly—but I assure him that my officials have made a note of them and, if I have not covered those issues, I will write to him.
I hope that noble Lords agree with me on the importance of implementing the Online Safety Act and ensuring that it can become fully operational as soon as possible. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 12 September this year. The Government stated in their manifesto that they would
“use every government tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence”
in order to achieve their
“landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade”.
Through this statutory instrument, we are broadening online platforms’ and search engines’ responsibilities for tackling intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. More than one in three women have experienced abuse online. The rise in intimate image abuse is not only devastating for victims but also spreads misogyny on social media that can develop into potentially dangerous relationships offline. One in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images, rising to one in seven young women aged 18 to 34.
It is crucial that we tackle these crimes from every angle, including online, and ensure that tech companies step up and play their part. That is why we are laying this statutory instrument. Through it, we will widen online platforms’ and search engines’ obligations to tackle intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act. As noble Lords will know, the Act received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. It places strong new duties on online user-to-user platforms and search services to protect their users from harm.
As part of this, the Act gives service providers new “illegal content duties”. Under these duties, online platforms need to assess the risk that their services will allow users to encounter illegal content or be
“used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence”.
They then need to take steps to mitigate identified risks. These will include implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks and content moderation systems to remove illegal content where it appears.
The Online Safety Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. These offences reflect the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. They are set out in schedules to the Act. Platforms will need to take additional steps to tackle these kinds of illegal activities under their illegal content duties.
The priority offences list currently includes certain intimate image abuse offences. Through this statutory instrument, we are adding new intimate image abuse offences to the priority list. This replaces an old intimate image abuse offence, which has now been repealed. These new offences are in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They took effect earlier this year. The older offence was in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The repealed offence covered sharing intimate images where the intent was to cause distress. The new offences are broader; they criminalise sharing intimate images without having a reasonable belief that the subject would consent to sharing the images. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, including so-called deepfakes.
Since these new offences are more expansive, adding them as priority offences means online platforms will be required to tackle more intimate image abuse on their services. This means that we are broadening the scope of what constitutes illegal intimate image content in the Online Safety Act. It also makes it clear that platforms’ priority illegal content duties extend to AI-generated deepfakes and other manufactured intimate images. This is because the new offences that we are adding explicitly cover this content.
As I have set out above, these changes affect the illegal content duties in the Online Safety Act. They will ensure that tech companies play their part in kicking this content off social media. These are just part of a range of wider protections coming into force next spring through the Online Safety Act that will mean that social media companies have to remove the most harmful illegal content, a lot of which disproportionately affects women and girls, such as through harassment and controlling or coercive behaviour.
Ofcom will set out the specific steps that providers can take to fulfil their illegal content duties for intimate image abuse and other illegal content in codes of practice and guidance documentation. It is currently producing this documentation. We anticipate that the new duties will start to be enforced from spring next year once Ofcom has issued these codes of practice and they have come into force. Providers will also need to have done their risk assessment for illegal content by then. We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. These include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as testing their algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. We are committed to working with Ofcom to get these protections in place as quickly as possible. We are focused on delivering.
Where companies are not removing and proactively stopping this vile material appearing on their platforms, Ofcom will have robust powers to take enforcement action against them. This includes imposing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is highest.
In conclusion, through this statutory instrument we are broadening providers’ duties for intimate image abuse content. Service providers will need to take proactive steps to search for, remove and limit people’s exposure to this harmful kind of illegal content, including where it has been manufactured or manipulated. I hope noble Lords will commend these further steps that we have taken that take the provisions in the Online Safety Act a useful further step forward. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I endorse everything she said about intimate image abuse and the importance of legislation to make sure that the perpetrators are penalised and that social media outlets have additional duties under Schedule 7 for priority offences. I am absolutely on the same page as the Minister on this, and I very much welcome what she said. It is interesting that we are dealing with another 2003 Act that, again, is showing itself fit for purpose and able to be amended; perhaps there is some cause to take comfort from our legislative process.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the coverage of the offences introduced by the Online Safety Act. She considered that the sharing of sexually explicit material included deepfakes. There was a promise—the noble Viscount will remember it—that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was not passed in the end, would cover that element. It included intent, like the current offence—the one that has been incorporated into Schedule 7. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen—I have it in my hand—explicitly introduces an offence that does not require intent, and I very much support that.
I do not believe that this is the last word to be said on the kinds of IIA offence that need to be incorporated as priority offences under Schedule 7. I would very much like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about why we require intent when, quite frankly, the creation of these deepfakes requires activity that is clearly harmful. We clearly should make sure that the perpetrators are caught. Given the history of this, I am slightly surprised that the Government’s current interpretation of the new offence in the Online Safety Act includes deepfakes. It is gratifying, but the Government nevertheless need to go further.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s remarks and the Government’s step to introduce this SI. I have concerns that it misses the wider problems. The powers given to Ofcom in the Online Safety Act require a lengthy process to implement and are not able to respond quickly. They also do not provide individuals with any redress. Therefore, this SI adding to the list of priority offences, while necessary, does not give victims the recourse they need.
My concern is that Ofcom is approaching this digital problem in an analogue way. It has the power to fine and even disrupt business but, in a digital space—where, when one website is blocked, another can open immediately—Ofcom would, in this scenario, have to restart its process all over again. These powers are not nimble or rapid enough, and they do not reflect the nature of the online space. They leave victims open and exposed to continuing distress. I would be grateful if the Government offered some assurances in this area.
The changes miss the wider problem of non-compliance by host websites outside the UK. As I have previously discussed in your Lordships’ House, the Revenge Porn Helpline has a removal rate of 90% of reported non-consensual sexually explicit content, both real and deepfake. However, in 10% of cases, the host website will not comply with the removal of the content. These sites are often hosted in countries such as Russia or those in Latin America. In cases of non-compliance by host websites, the victims continue to suffer, even where there has been a successful conviction.
If we take the example of a man who was convicted in the UK of blackmailing 200 women, the Revenge Porn Helpline successfully removed 161,000 images but 4,000 still remain online three years later, with platforms continuing to ignore the take-down requests. I would be grateful if the Government could outline how they are seeking to tackle the removal of this content, featuring British citizens, hosted in jurisdictions where host sites are not complying with removal.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I started my discussion on the previous instrument on a slightly negative note. I want to change gear completely now and say how nice it is to see the first of the SIs relating to the Online Safety Act come forward. I welcome that.
Having said that, may I inquire what the Government’s intention is in relation to the Parkinson rule? I think I am correct in saying that we wish to see in place an informal but constant process by the Government when they bring forward legislation under the Online Safety Act, which would be offered to the standing committees so that they could comment and make advice available to Ministers before the Secretary of State finally approved any such legislation. This would primarily be concerned with the codes of practice, but this is exactly the sort of issue, well exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, where there is still some concern about the previous Government’s approach to this Bill.
If I recall, this rule was in one of the later amendments brought in towards the end of the process. Rather unlike the earlier stuff, which was seven years in the making, this was rushed through in rather less than seven weeks as we got to the end of discussions on the Online Safety Bill. To get the deal that we all, across the political parties, hoped would happen, and so that the country would benefit from the best possible Act we could get out of the process, there were a number of quite late changes, including the question about deepfake issues, which was not given quite the scrutiny that it could have had. Of course, we are now receiving discussion and debate on those issues, and it is important that we understand them and the process that the Government will take to try to resolve them.
This question of having consent was hotly debated by those who led on it during the time the Bill was before your Lordships’ House. I felt the arguments very clearly came out in favour of those who argued that the question of consent, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, really is not relevant to this. The offence is caused by the circulation of material, and the Act should contain powers sufficient for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that Ofcom, in exercising its regulatory functions, has the powers to take down this material where it is illegal.
There are two issues tied up in that. I think all of us who have spoken in this debate are concerned that we have not really got to the end of the discussion on this, and we need to have more. Whether through the Private Member’s Bill that we will hear about in December or not, the Government need to get action on that. They need to consult widely with the committees, both in the Commons and here, to get the best advice. It may well be that we need further debate and discussion in this House to do so.
Having said that, the intention to clarify what exactly is legal lies at the heart of the Online Safety Act. The Act will not work and benefit the country if we go back to the question of legal but harmful. The acid test for how the material is to be treated by those who provide services to this country has to be whether it is legal. If it is illegal, it must be taken down, and there must be powers and action specifically for that to happen. It is unfortunate that, if material is not illegal, it is a matter not for the Government or Parliament but for the companies to ensure that their terms of service allow people to make judgments about whether they put material on their platforms. I hope that still remains the Government’s position. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I shall also start on a positive note and welcome the ongoing focus on online safety. We all aim to make this the safest country in the world in which to be online. The Online Safety Act is the cornerstone of how all of us will continue to pursue this crucial goal. The Act imposed clear legal responsibilities on social media platforms and tech companies, requiring them actively to monitor and manage the content they host. They are required swiftly to remove illegal content and to take proactive measures to prevent harmful material reaching minors. This reflects the deep commitment that we all share to safeguarding children from the dangers of cyberbullying, explicit content and other online threats.
We must also take particular account of the disproportionate harm that women and girls face online. The trends regarding the online abuse and exploitation that disproportionately affect female users are deeply concerning. Addressing these specific challenges is essential if we are to create a truly safe online environment for everyone.
With respect to the Government’s proposed approach to making sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, this initiative will require social media companies promptly to remove such content from their platforms. This aims to curb the rise in abuse that has been described as “intolerable”—I think rightly—by the Secretary of State. The intent behind this measure is to prevent generations becoming “desensitised” to the devastating effects of online abuse.
Although this appears to signal a strong stance against online harm, it raises the question of what this designation truly accomplishes in practical terms. I am grateful to the Minister for setting this out so clearly. I am not entirely sure that I altogether followed the differences between the old offences and the new ones. Sharing intimate images without consent is already illegal under current laws. Therefore, can we not say that the real issue lies in the absence not of legal provision but of effective enforcement of existing regulation? We have to ensure that any changes we make do not merely add layers of complexity but genuinely strengthen the protections available to victims and improve the responsiveness of platforms in removing harmful content.
With these thoughts in mind, I offer five questions. I apologise; the Minister is welcome to write as necessary, but I welcome her views whether now or in writing. First, why is it necessary to add the sharing of intimate images to the list of priority offences if such acts are already illegal under existing legislation and, specifically, what additional protections or outcomes are expected? The Minister gave some explanation of this, but I would welcome digging a little deeper into that.
Secondly, where consent is used as a defence against the charge of sharing intimate images, what are the Government’s thoughts on how to protect victims from intrusive cross-examination over details of their sexual history?
Thirdly, with respect to nudification technology, the previous Government argued that any photoreal image was covered by “intimate image abuse”—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, touched on this issue well. Is there any merit in looking at that again?
Fourthly, I am keen to hear the Government’s views on my noble friend Lady Owen’s Private Member’s Bill on nudification. We look forward to debating that in December.
Fifthly, and lastly, what role can or should parents and educators play in supporting the Act’s objectives? How will the Government engage these groups to promote online safety awareness?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This is, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken recognise, a really important issue. It is important that we get this legislation right. We believe that updating the priority offences list with a new intimate image abuse offence is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackle this type of content, and that it will provide stronger protections for online users. This update will bring us closer to achieving the commitment made in the Government’s manifesto to strengthening the protection for women and girls online.
I will try to cover all the questions asked. My noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether we will review the Act and whether the Act is enough. Our immediate focus is on getting the Online Safety Act implemented quickly and effectively. It was designed to tackle illegal content and protect children; we want those protections in place as soon as possible. Having said that, it is right that the Government continually assess the law’s ability to keep up, especially when technology is moving so fast. We will of course look at how effective the protections are and build on the Online Safety Act, based on the evidence. However, our message to social media companies remains clear: “There is no need to wait. You can and should take immediate action to protect your users from these harms”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked what further action we are taking against intimate abuse and about the taking, rather than sharing, of intimate images. We are committed to tackling the threat of violence against women and girls in all forms. We are considering what further legislative measures may be needed to strengthen the law on taking intimate images without consent and image abuse. This matter is very much on the Government’s agenda at the moment; I hope that we will be able to report some progress to the noble Baroness soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked whether creating and making intimate image deepfakes will be an offence. The Government’s manifesto included a commitment to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This is a priority for the Government. DSIT is working with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to identify the most appropriate legislative vehicle for ensuring that those who create these images without consent face the appropriate punishment. The Government are considering options in this space to protect women and girls from malicious uses of these technologies. The new sharing intimate images offence, which will be added to the OSA priority list through this SI, explicitly includes—for the first time—wholly synthetic manufactured images, such as deepfakes, so they will be tackled under the Online Safety Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked about the material that is already there and the ability to have a hash database to prevent those intimate images continually being circulated. We are aware that the technology exists. Strengthening the intimate image abuse priorities under the Act is a necessary first step to tackling this, but we expect Ofcom to consider this in its final draft illegal content codes and guidance and to give more information about both the codes of practice and the further measures that would need to be developed to address this issue.
Several noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson—asked for more details on the new offences. As I tried to set out in my opening statement, the Online Safety Act repeals the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with the intent to cause distress—this comes under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and is commonly known as the revenge porn offence—and replaces it with four new offences.
First, there is a base offence of sharing an intimate image without consent, which carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. Secondly, there are two specific-intent offences—the first is sharing an intimate image with intent to cause alarm, humiliation or distress; the second is sharing an intimate image for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification—each of which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment to reflect the more serious culpability of someone who acts without consent and with an additional malign intent. Lastly, there is an offence of threatening to share an intimate image, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. This offence applies regardless of whether the image is shared.
These offences capture images that show, or appear to show, a person who is nude, partially nude, engaged in toileting or doing something sexual. These offences include the sharing of manufactured or manipulated images, which are referred to as deepfakes. This recognises that sharing intimate images without the consent of the person they show or appear to show is sufficiently wrongful or harmful to warrant criminalisation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked what is so different about these new offences compared to those in the Act. I stress that it is because they are being given priority status, which does not sound much but gives considerable extra powers under the Act. There will be new powers and new obligations on platforms. The key thing is that all those offences that already exist are being given priority status under the Online Safety Act. There are thousands of things that Ofcom could address, but this is now in the much smaller list of things that will place very specific obligations on the platforms. Ofcom will monitor this and, as I said earlier, companies can be fined huge sums of money if they do not act, so there is a huge obligation on them to follow through on the priority list.
I hope that I have answered all the questions and that noble Lords agree with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about parents and made an important point. This is not just about an Act, it is about everybody highlighting the fact that these activities are intolerable and offensive not just to the individuals concerned but to everybody in society, and parents have a responsibility, as we all do, to ensure that media literacy is at the height of the education we carry out formally in schools and informally within the home. The noble Viscount is absolutely right on that, and there is more that we could all do. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Unregistered Children’s Homes: Fees
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they are taking to lower fees being charged by unregistered children’s homes.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, profiteering from vulnerable children in care is unacceptable. Children must live in safe, high-quality homes, which is why it is a legal requirement for children’s homes to register with Ofsted. This means that they can be inspected and children are safe, and that where there are failings, they are addressed. We will strengthen regulation through the children’s well-being Bill so that children’s social care delivers high-quality outcomes for looked-after children at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, but there remains a real concern about the number of children still living in unregistered children’s homes. Is the Minister aware of the recent BBC investigation, which highlighted that some unregistered children’s homes are charging up to a staggering £20,000 a week and still failing to keep very vulnerable children safe, which a senior family court judge has described as breathtaking? What immediate steps are the Government taking to address this issue? Does the Minister also agree that the key aim of addressing excessive costs, which I fully support, should not lead to the eradication of children’s homes, and that we need a mix of high-quality, registered provision to meet all children’s needs?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that some extraordinary amounts of money are being charged by placement providers. The Local Government Association found, for example, that in 2022-23, 91% of respondent councils paid at least £10,000 per week or more for one placement, compared to 23% in 2018-19. That is why, as the noble Baroness says, we need to ensure that a range of safe, regulated, high-quality placements are available for children, and to ensure that where there is excessive profit, we take action against that as well.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that local authorities rushed into outsourcing their services some years ago, and now there is insufficient provision but they are paying these huge fees? Could she give some thought to the number of children who are being placed, time after time, in different places, sometimes many miles away from their home base? That is not good for these very vulnerable children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, in that in the children’s home market, 83% of provision is now private. To be clear, there is high-quality private children’s home provision, just as there is in the local authority and voluntary sectors. What is important, as the noble Lord says, is that children can be placed securely in those homes—that they are not being constantly moved from one to another—and that they get the care they need. It is absolutely true that moving children frequently and taking them far away from friends and perhaps other family members is not in their best interests. That is why we need to tackle this, and we will take further action on regulating the sector in the children’s well-being Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s announcement today. Surely, the promised reform of public services must prioritise the provision of residential care for our most vulnerable looked-after children, and we have to deal with inadequate care and profit gouging. There are some great examples of good provision, particularly in the voluntary sector and social enterprises. Can my noble friend assure me that this issue is being addressed across government, given that the Cabinet Office is involved regarding procurement, and the MHCLG and Department for Education are also involved? Will my noble friend meet with me so that I can share some of the good practice I have seen and heard about in recent months?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Because of the disproportionate costs being placed on local authorities and the findings that Ofsted sometimes makes in unregulated homes, if we are not careful, we can forget that some brilliant work is being done, as my noble friend says, in the voluntary sector, in social enterprises and in private and local government-provided facilities. We should celebrate that, and that should be our aspiration for all children. My right honourable friend the Commons Minister and I will be very pleased to hear about those examples. They will inspire us to take forward the provisions we are planning in the children’s well- being Bill.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recognise that a disproportionately high number of the prison population comes from children’s homes; it is a very sad figure indeed. While she is looking at the issue of unregistered children’s homes, can she also look at the broader issue of the number of children from children’s homes who finish up in prison?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. Across a whole range of measures, care leavers do worse than those who have not been in care. Whether or not they end up in prison, they are more likely to be not in employment, education or training and are more likely to be homeless. That is why we must ensure that the care and concern we have for children while they are in care continues after they leave care, and that we set those children up for life as well as possible while we, as the state, have responsibility for looking after them.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although there is clearly good practice in many children’s homes, there are also examples of really bad practice. Do the Minister and the Government have any plans to formally and professionally regulate some of the senior staff, at least, in children’s homes? A number of staff are from very diverse backgrounds and are not necessarily professionally qualified social workers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that the leadership of these homes is very important in ensuring that they are providing the quality of care we want to see. In thinking about the provisions in the children’s well-being Bill, we are working with the sector, with local authorities, on where we need to improve regulation. In considering that, I will certainly feed back the point the noble Lord makes about staff.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, at the last count in March 2023, 41% of children’s homes in England were located in the north of England. What steps are the Government taking to provide additional support to areas of the country where there is a disproportionately higher number of children in the care home and care system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. In the development of private children’s homes, we have seen a growth: for example, it is possible to get hold of accommodation more cheaply, but that does not necessarily mean that such homes are where children need them. Some 25% of all homes nationally are in the north-west, despite only 16% of children who need to be looked after in residential care coming from the north-west. That is why there has been investment to support local authorities to improve existing provision and to create additional placements; and it is why, through the children’s well-being Bill and in other ways, we will work to ensure that, wherever a child needs care, there is high-quality care that does not involve them having to travel or the local authority facing excessive costs.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raised the issue of the costs associated with some unregistered children’s homes, but I want to ask the Minister a more basic question. We know from Ofsted’s 2023 guidance that it is illegal to send a child, even a child with a deprivation of liberty order, to an unregistered children’s home, yet the case to which the noble Baroness referred, as I understand it, was about a year later. What are the Government doing to make sure that children do not go to unregistered homes at all, whatever they cost?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies the absolute difficulty and the challenging circumstances that directors of children’s services and others find themselves in. For example, on a Friday afternoon, when faced with having to find a placement for a child urgently, they have no other option, because of a failure to provide sufficient places, than to place a child in an unregulated home. This is so unsatisfactory for everybody, and that is why, through the provisions we will bring forward in the children’s well-being Bill and through appropriate investment in increasing the number of places, we will try to ensure that that happens far less in the future.
Specialised Research Units: Closures
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Winston
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Medical Research Council’s plans to close certain specialised research units; and of the implications of those plans for affected scientists.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Medical Research Council is changing how it supports research across its units and centres following a review of its funding models. The new MRC centres of research excellence model will improve how we bring together the best science, skills and leadership to focus on key challenges in medical research. All existing units can apply for funding through this new model, or transition to other models of MRC grant funding.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for answering my Question and I am pleased to hear that he supports the notion of these specialised units. Does he agree, too, that these units are particularly important in the study of relatively uncommon diseases, often with a very high profile, and are extremely unique? They all have an international reputation and have produced a number of Nobel Prize winners. Is it not possible that the current review, having received successful grant money from the MRC, might destabilise these units, and we would end up losing scientists who may be forced to go to other places? Does he feel there is something we can do about that?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. In the transition to this new model, all the existing units will be able to apply to the new model and there will be transition arrangements for those staff who do not become part of the new model and return to funding from the host institution or through grant funding. He is right that there will be specific centres with some role in global resilience, or another bespoke reason to keep them going, that will be looked at as special cases as part of this process.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as professor emeritus of the University of Dundee and its previous chancellor. The MRC unit in Dundee on protein phosphorylation and ubiquitylation has spawned many other sub-sections in cell signalling. I know the Minister is aware of the number of drug molecules developed using reversible phosphorylation. One of the aspects of the new system will be that it will limit the number of postgraduate trainees. I was always amazed how many postgraduates were graduating with a doctorate—20 to 30 at any one time. The new system will limit the ability to recruit that number of PhD students. That will be damaging to the reputation of the unit and our global recognition. Does he agree?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I know that unit extremely well. It is a very important unit globally and it was given an award of £30 million recently. The new model will allow for a longer period of funding—seven years plus seven years’ funding, so a total of 14 years—with a different process of evaluation, which is a lighter-touch, less bureaucratic process. There is no reason why there cannot be a similar number of trainees going through the new system.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of a university governing council. To some extent the Minister’s responses are reassuring, but is this part of a wider trend towards centralising decisions on research funding through UKRI? Are we moving towards a situation where the Government will fund research only within particular sectors set out in their industrial strategy? If that is the case, will that not stifle new research talent and innovation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord may be aware, I have been very clear about the need for supporting basic curiosity-driven, investigator-led research, and I will remain resolute in that determination. Some of these new centres have specified areas, such as mental health and multi-morbidity, but there is a whole round which is unspecified, allowing for people to put forward ideas of their own for units of the future, which I believe will be important for the very reason the noble Lord says.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. The funding base to support science in some of our leading universities, including those that may host these centres in the future, has become dependent on cross-subsidy from overseas student income. Is the Minister content that, with the obligation for universities to play a greater role in supporting those centres that receive MRC status, the funding base for scientific research in our universities is sufficiently secure to make that possible?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Universities have been under pressure, as the noble Lord knows, for a number of reasons, including student fees, overseas student numbers and questions about the full economic costs of research in addition to inflation. These are all important areas that will need to be looked at. It is worth remembering that, over the years, roughly one MRC unit per year has closed and a new one has started. This process is part of that continuing change, which I believe is important to make sure that we stay at the cutting edge. As part of that, the staff on the new wards will be fully paid. The principal investigator salary is the one that will have to be picked up in part by a host institution or by other grants coming in to provide support.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given the well-known fact that every £1 of government investment generates a return of £3 to £4 to the UK economy, does the Minister agree that any move to reduce government R&D spend or to close specialist research centres would be an act of economic self-harm, in direct contradiction to the Government’s claim to prioritise economic growth?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord will be unsurprised that I am a strong supporter of R&D funding and know the importance of its links to economic growth. It is crucial that we look at the spread of R&D funding. It is the case that it will be necessary, from time to time, to shut some things and open new things—that has always been the case—otherwise things become ossified and you never end up with new programmes. I fully expect there to be a continued pattern of renewed support for some areas and a closing down of others. What is important in the context of this particular scheme is that the same proportion of MRC funding will be spent on these new centres as was spent on the old units and centres.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there has been both veiled and explicit criticism of the way in which UKRI conducts its work, particularly work of a bureaucratic nature. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations are being had between UKRI and his department, and indeed himself, to clear up those issues?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I will speak about these particular schemes first. These are seven years plus seven, with one review at the beginning and one review at six years. The whole idea is to reduce bureaucracy and make this simpler. UKRI is undergoing a full review of all its activities, with the aim to reduce bureaucracy, following the Grant review. I have discussed this with the CEO of UKRI and will keep a very close eye on it. I believe it is important that scientists get as much time as they can to do science.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the new set-up, the role of the charity sector, particularly the medical research charities and the support that they give for what are often MRC-funded or underpinned research projects, will be key going forward? Is he sure that we have the right kind of environment and that the ecosystem is working well enough to support this charity contribution?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As my noble friend says, the charity sector has been incredibly important for medical research in the UK, ranging from large charities such as the Wellcome Trust through to smaller ones. This new scheme will allow centres to have funded technical and other support, which are the things that need great constancy, and will allow the principal investigators to seek research funding from others, including the charitable sector. The charitable sector will remain an incredibly important part of our system for funding scientific research in the UK.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving Army reservist. With all departments facing intense budgetary pressure, can the Minister give any assurances about safeguarding budgets for military research and development and, in particular, the Minerva project?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am obviously unable to comment on the upcoming Budget, but I recognise the importance of military spending and of the DSTL within that. I will continue to be a strong advocate for the need for that as part of a successful resilience and defence strategy.
Whistleblowers
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current capacity and efficacy of the law to provide confidentiality for whistleblowers and to protect them from retaliation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing in public life. They need confidence that they will be taken seriously and will have legal recourse if subjected to detriment or dismissal for making a protected disclosure. There are already day-one rights for workers, but we intend to strengthen whistleblowers’ protections.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, whistleblowers who are defined as workers, and therefore protected by the existing law, still fail to win 96% of their cases in employment tribunals because of evidentiary requirements. They are financially ruined by cases that can drag on for years and, even if they win, their careers are destroyed because the tribunal does not acknowledge blacklisting. Will the Minister commit to an office of the whistleblower to ensure genuine protection for whistleblowers and proper investigation of tip-offs—to avoid a repeat of Horizon Post Office, Grenfell, financial mis-selling, Letby and Al Fayed, to name but a few?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise those cases. We all take those issues very seriously, and we have debated them here in the Chamber on many occasions. There should not be a need for anybody to whistleblow; people should have their concerns taken seriously in the first place. This Government are absolutely determined, from the top, to make sure that people who have concerns at the workplace are able to raise them without the detriment to which the noble Baroness refers. With regard to an office for the whistleblower, there are a number of ideas around this. We are looking at the role and remit that such a body could have. There will be a need to look at the cost, role and function of a potential new body, but we are looking at all the ways we can ensure that whistleblowers are protected at the workplace, as they should be.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, alongside the essential statutory protection of whistleblowers, the current director of the Serious Fraud Office has repeatedly emphasised the importance of offering incentives to the whistleblowers. My noble friend will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in May, when he was talking about a crackdown on money laundering and corruption, stated that a Labour Government would
“launch a new whistleblower reward scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward”.
Can my noble friend the Minister outline where the Government’s thinking is on balancing the need for these incentives, as well as the existing legal protection?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we are continuing to look at the whistleblowing regulations. We understand that there may be a need to review them further; a review was carried out by the previous Government. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: there should not be a need for whistleblowers to come forward; they should be protected in the workplace to come forward with their concerns. This requires leadership from the top in every department to make sure that those concerns are heard and acted upon properly. That is what we intend to do across government—make sure that people do not have to resort to whistleblowing to make sure the terrible incidents they are shining a light on finally come to light.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, non-disclosure agreements are protective of the confidentiality of wrongdoers. They are frequently employed against whistleblowers. Is the Minister confident that non-disclosure agreements that are not consistent with the public interest, including those concealing criminal activity, are and will be non-enforceable in our courts? If she is not confident of that, will the Government bring forward appropriate legislation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, is it possible to ensure with legislation that any company that victimises whistleblowers or trade union members could be banned from taking any public sector work in future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We are looking at the way we give future government contracts; that is a huge piece of work that is taking place. I will certainly take the noble Baroness’s point on board and see whether that has a role. We want to make sure that the allocation of public funding to organisations is done on a fair and transparent basis.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, this is not just a situation facing the private sector; the public sector also has significant issues of whistleblowing. This year the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care pledged before the election—I am aware that plenty of pledges were made before the election, so the Minister may be confused about this—that NHS managers who silence and scapegoat
“will never work in the NHS again”.
Has that goal been achieved? If not, when do the Government intend to achieve it?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I say, we are absolutely committed to lead from the top on this issue. That includes in the health service where, as the noble Lord said, there have been some terrible examples of professional staff being discriminated against and losing their jobs. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is working on this issue, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in due course and update noble Lords on the progress being made.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, last week I chaired a meeting upstairs with about two dozen whistleblowers, who each spoke about their experiences in the public sector and the private sector and their appalling treatment from their employers. Many of them lost their homes, partners and jobs, and there was no fair trial or hearing. Does my noble friend not agree that more needs to be done? Will she look carefully at the Bill promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to set up a whistleblowing office so that everybody knows where to go? Otherwise, we are never going to have a one-stop shop that is safe for whistleblowers, which is surely what we need.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I say, we are looking at the calls for an office for the whistleblower. It is a proposal that I know attracts a great deal of support. We are considering other ideas as well, but we want to make sure that all the individuals my noble friend talks about have somewhere they can go and have their complaints taken seriously. We understand that. That requires changes in process and in procedure, but ultimately in culture so that these individuals are taken seriously. We will drive that forward and we will require employers to take these issues seriously, but for the moment we are still working on whether we need a specific office for the whistleblower.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, on 29 July I submitted a Written Question to His Majesty’s Government to ask
“what payments they have made to whistleblowers in the NHS in each of the last five years (1) as part of non-disclosure agreements reached through out-of-court settlements, and (2) as the result of a decision by an employment tribunal”.
I was very surprised by this part of the reply on 6 August:
“The Department does not hold the information requested. National Health Service organisations are independent employers and have their own policies and procedures in resolving workplace disputes, which should be aligned to current employment law and good human resources practice”.
Does the Minister agree that such an approach does not meet the need for public accountability and public audit, and that the Government and the public should know what sums are being spent, including legal costs?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I will take that back to the Secretary of State and discuss it with him further.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if we go down the road of an office of the whistleblower, which is an excellent idea, could the Minister take back that we need to put something in legislation to protect whistleblowers who are attacked in a vile way on social media, to the point of almost committing suicide? We need really strong protections.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. I cannot emphasise enough how important these things are. We need to protect whistleblowers and make sure that their concerns are taken seriously, and we need to create a culture in which their views are respected rather than denigrated.
Women’s State Pension Age: PHSO Report
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the report Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues, published by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on 21 March, how much compensation they plan to pay to affected women, or to the families of affected women who have died; and on what timescale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the issues outlined in the ombudsman’s report are significant and complex. As such, they require serious deliberation, and we need time to review and consider the report alongside the evidence and the views expressed. As part of that work, the Government recently met WASPI representatives to hear their experiences directly. Once we have undertaken that work, the Government will be able to outline their approach.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, paragraph 19 of the parliamentary ombudsman’s report clearly states that
“complainants have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration”,
and the report recommends compensation. Thousands of women have died while awaiting compensation, but all that successive Ministers have done is kick the can down the road, saying, “We are still consulting”. There has already been an inquiry. Can the Minister specify the date by which this injustice will actually be addressed and compensation paid? In addition, will she agree to meet another delegation of the affected women?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we understand the human impact felt behind the issues raised in this report. Retirement is a significant milestone that should, one hopes, be greeted with excitement rather than surprise. But I say to my noble friend that I do not think this Government could be accused of kicking the can down the road; the ombudsman published its report in March, we became the Government only in July and it is now October. Although I fully understand that he would like me to articulate a response here, I am sorry that I am not able to do so. However, I assure him that the Minister for Pensions met WASPI representatives recently—the first Minister to do that since 2016.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, by the time they reach 65, women will typically have £69,000 in their pension pots compared with the £205,000 the average man will have by the same age. What practical measures will the Government take to address the injustice of the pensions gender gap and enable proper security for women in retirement and old age?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising a really important point. The gender pensions gap starts with the gender pay gap. Therefore, the first thing the Government need to do is address the gender pay gap and we are committed to doing that. The national pay gap still stands at over 14%, which is really shocking. We know that most employers understand that, when women succeed, so does their business. We are committed to making sure reports are given. For example, gender pay gap action plans will be mandatory and will reflect the hard work of outsourced workers as well as employees.
The kinds of reforms that have taken place under successive Governments are beginning to change at least the way the state pension addresses the gap between men and women. In the new state pension, there is less of a difference because the old state pension was much more dependent on national insurance contributions and pay-related additional pensions, whereas the new one does not have that. The gap is closing, but in private pensions it is still significant, and we need to do more about that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the final PHSO report in March cited maladministration, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said. This is regarding communications by the DWP for 28 months from August 2005. But a ministerial submission in 2009 admitted that, despite steps taken to disseminate leaflets with pension forecasts and the rest, all this had failed to raise awareness among those directly impacted. What assurances can the noble Baroness give that the department has learned its lessons on how best to target its audience and to do it rapidly and in large volume?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the department is carefully considering the findings of the report. Since 1995, successive Governments have used a range of methods to communicate changes to the state pension age, from leaflets to advertising campaigns and direct mailings. We are making sure that the department is looking more closely at this. For example, we have written letters to people at different stages. Women who were affected by the Pensions Act 1995 were written to between April 2009 and March 2011. People impacted by the 1995 and 2011 Acts were written to between 2012 and 2013, and so on. People in the transitional group—those whose pension age is rising from 66 to 67, in which I count myself—got letters from the department between 2016 and 2018.
I think we are getting better. In the 2021 Planning and Preparing for Later Life survey, people whose state pension age falls between 66 and 67 were surveyed and 94% of respondents either got their state pension age right or underestimated it. Hopefully, this work is paying off.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I do not take a state pension, but about seven or eight years ago I got an email telling me that I was entitled to a pension for being over 80. I replied and filled out everything. So far, I have not heard a word. I wonder whether, in fact, the DWP is doing better.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if I could persuade—with some trepidation—the noble and learned Baroness to share the details with me, I would be very happy to look into that.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the ombudsman made it clear that these women suffered from maladministration and that they are entitled to redress. I ask my noble friend to recognise the case for urgency, particularly because the delay is leaving the people affected prey to scammers, who are offering to assist them in making claims. This issue needs to be resolved as quickly as practical.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that last point. To be absolutely clear, because there has been no response to the report, there is no compensation scheme. Anyone claiming to offer it is scamming and nobody should touch it—please can that message go out loud and clear. I understand my noble friend’s general point, and I know he will understand the position that this Government are in. At the risk of boring myself, never mind the House, all I can do is repeat that the Government are looking very closely at the findings of the ombudsman and will respond as soon as is practicable.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has outlined that she cannot currently give a date, but is she certain that this group of women is clearly defined in the department? There are representative groups, but when a decision is made, does the DWP know exactly whom they need to communicate with?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, just to be clear, I am not making any assumptions about anything. In a sense, this is about when people were born. For example, we know that around 3.5 million 1950s-born women were impacted by state pension changes, as were a group of men. Most of those people have now reached state pension age, but I think there are 790,000 people born in the 1950s who have not yet reached that age. I am not saying that anything in this area is straightforward—it is not—but I understand the noble Baroness’s warning that any attempt to communicate with groups of people will need to be done carefully and with precision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, when I reached my 80th birthday, I received a letter from the DWP telling me that in view of my advanced age my pension would be increased by 25p a week—I was overwhelmed by the generosity. That measure is no doubt 40 or 50 years old, and it would probably save the DWP considerable money if that aspect of the old age pension were discontinued.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am shocked to find that the noble Lord is 80, but I commend him on his recent milestone. It is rarity that anyone in the House offers a way to save money, so I will take his point back.
Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL]
Monday 28th October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Police Accountability
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement and I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in welcoming its contents. It is true that, for the British consent-based policing model to work, the trust must be mutual. The people must trust the police and the police must trust the system in order to perform their duties effectively. But too often lately both sides have been let down.
I therefore welcome that this Government are continuing the work of the previous Government on accountability. I particularly welcome the work of Dame Elish Angiolini on police culture; having worked with her, I have no doubt at all that her final report will make very sensible recommendations. I am also pleased that previously agreed measures to ensure that officers convicted of certain criminal offences are automatically found to have committed gross misconduct, and the empowering of chief constables to dismiss them, will be beefed up and taken forward. On these Benches we welcome these moves.
However, we are here because of the acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in his trial for the murder of Chris Kaba. This raises several questions, which I would like to put to the Minister. First, I welcome that in future there will be a presumption of anonymity for accused officers. I can only imagine the struggles that Sergeant Blake and his family have been through, and they are still probably living in fear. It was appalling to read that Mr Kaba’s alleged gang associates had put a bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head. Could the Minister update the House on whether there are police investigations to find those responsible for this threat to Sergeant Blake’s life?
I also welcome that reviews will be held of the thresholds for criminal misconduct and inquest investigations, which, as the Statement notes, add
“complexity, confusion and delay to the system”.
But I would go further. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people, an average of 2.1 per year. In the past decade, there have been only 66 incidents where the police have discharged a weapon at all, even though armed police are deployed to around 18,000 incidents every year. In terms of police killings per 10 million people, the only countries with a lower death rate than the UK are Japan and Iceland. Britain does not have a police brutality problem. The stats prove this and campaigners need to acknowledge it. The armed police show great restraint in the face of danger and should be commended as such. Does the Minister agree?
As my right honourable friend James Cleverly noted, training for these roles should form a legitimate part of the defence when criminal prosecutions are brought forward. This is not to argue that officers are above the law. If there are any doubts, they must of course be investigated, but we owe it to them not to create a situation in which, as James Cleverly stated, they are disincentivised from acting decisively. That puts us all at risk. Does the Minister agree?
This is a difficult and sensitive subject. Community cohesion and tensions will inevitably be mentioned in this and subsequent debates, which is right and proper. We have had a summer in which the fabric of our society has been stretched to breaking point in many cases. We in these Houses must therefore be very careful what we say to avoid stoking tensions and exacerbating problems. So I ask the Minister to condemn the comments of his honourable friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who said that the media were using racist tropes to justify Chris Kaba’s killing. They are not.
Any death at the hands of the police is a tragedy, but in this case an officer doing his duty has also had his life ruined. Of course, my thoughts are with the relatives of Chris Kaba, but also with Sergeant Blake’s family. I again place on record my thanks to all the police, armed and unarmed, who put themselves in harm’s way. They are heroes who would rather walk towards dangerous criminals than run away from them. As I said in my opening remarks, I welcome this Statement, but we need answers to the more difficult questions if we are truly to learn anything at all from this tragic case.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on speeding up proceedings in cases involving police using lethal force. Protracted investigations cause additional trauma to bereaved families, prolong the stress for officers involved and damage wider police morale. We also welcome the equalisation of thresholds for criminal charges to ensure that the police and public are held to the same standards.
These measures are long overdue, because we have now reached a point where police officers feel deeply undervalued, both by the public at large and by many politicians. Low public confidence has led police to believe that the work they do is not always appreciated. Assaults and attacks on police are now a daily occurrence. A recent review found that more than half had been physically attacked in the previous year, with a significant number requiring medical attention.
A police officer’s every move is now captured both on their bodycam and, increasingly, by members of the public, ensuring that their every action and split-second decision is recorded, criticised and documented for posterity on social media. Trial by media raises the real risk that, when things go wrong, the focus is on blaming individual officers, even when the reality points to wider systemic failings. I hope that these measures around the presumption of anonymity and the need to take account of officers’ training and guidance will help alleviate some of these problems.
I admit that I am slightly uneasy about the timing of this announcement, given the danger that it could be taken by some to signal the lowering of police accountability. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Government have made an urgent commitment to toughen up procedures around police misconduct and vetting. By putting national vetting standards on a statutory footing, we can make concrete progress in restoring public confidence. We particularly want to see the rules around officers accused of domestic abuse or sexual offences tightened significantly.
We must remember that the Kaba case is not taking place in a vacuum. Last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted the continuing presence of racism within policing almost 25 years after a similar conclusion was reached by Macpherson. Data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that black people are five times more likely than white people to have force used against them. It is therefore critical that this accountability review strikes the right balance. It must be accompanied by a clear timetable to implement the existing Angiolini and Casey review recommendations. The public need to be assured that bad officers will always be held to account, that guilty officers will always be punished and that this will be done fairly and transparently. But, at the same time, it is imperative that our police are reassured that if they do the right thing and follow their training, the system will protect them and not be stacked against them.
I ask the Minister whether this review will be open to contributions from all sides. We know that the police have already made submissions, but what opportunity will there be for representatives of, for example, the black community, who are of course particularly invested in the outcome, to contribute?
I have two final points. Polls suggest that more than a third of the public lack confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct—IOPC—while barely one in five black people think that it is impartial. This is not good enough, nor is the fact that IOPC recommendations are almost always out of date by the time they are published because it can take years for individual case proceedings to conclude. The proposal for a lessons-learned database is extremely welcome in this context. Nevertheless, a recent independent review made 93 recommendations to improve the IOPC. What steps are the Government taking to implement these recommendations?
Finally, reports as far back as Scarman in 1981 point to the need to urgently address the lack of diversity in policing, to better reflect the communities the police serve. The Home Secretary said in her Statement that she wants to introduce neighbourhood policing, so will the Government commit to ensuring that such reform is used as a platform to address this lack of diversity, so that people in all communities believe that the police are on their side?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to both Front-Bench speakers for their constructive comments and their broad welcome for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement in the House of Commons last week. In particular, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about trust being extremely important is very valid. The whole purpose of the response to the trial last week and to the wider cases, the reviews by Dame Elish and the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and our general review of accountability, is to make sure that we build that trust in communities. The noble Baroness mentioned that point also.
There was a welcome from both Front Benches for the provisions around anonymity in the legislation, and that is perfectly right. I cannot comment on the court case because the lifting of anonymity was a matter for the court at that time, but it is really important that we review that, and one of the proposals that my right honourable friend has brought forward is to ensure that anonymity is the norm in future.
With regard to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about the officer himself, the Metropolitan Police, as the employing authority, has a duty of care to the officer. If there are leads regarding any threat to any individual in society the police will follow those up. I think it is best to leave it at that. The noble Lord is right that deaths from police shootings are extremely rare in the United Kingdom but it is still important that we have the accountability mechanism in place. What we are trying to do with the proposals that my right honourable friend has brought forward is to ensure that accountability is balanced. That is why we have lifted the threshold to put it in line with that for ordinary civilians involved in similar incidents. That is part of the rebalancing to make sure that we give support accordingly. That is why we are having a review of the threshold for prosecution as well, which will report to the Government in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the important issue of training. He will be aware that the College of Policing will review training requirements based on this incident following the comments and the Statement from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Before I turn to the noble Baroness’s comments, it is important that we reflect again on the key issue that the police deserve our full support on this. Officers who carry firearms do so voluntarily. They put their own lives at risk, potentially, and they take split-second decisions which could result in saving life and preventing incidents and, indeed, threats to their own life. We need to bear that in mind and pay tribute to them because it is a noble task that they undertake on our behalf.
My honourable friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside was mentioned by the noble Lord. It is for her to make her comments and she is accountable for them as a Back-Bencher. What she has articulated is not the Government’s position. She is entitled to her views, as is any Member of Parliament or, indeed, Member of this House. I will leave it at that, if I may.
I hope I have covered the points. We have received part 1 of the Angiolini review. I have met the review chair, Dame Elish Angiolini, and we are encouraging her to bring forward the second part of the review in an appropriate timescale so we can consider the recommendations in due course.
I am grateful again for the broad support on anonymity and threshold changes from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. She made the important point about attacks on police. She will know that legislation has been put in place to ensure that attacks on emergency workers are aggravated offences. The police should not only not be attacked but they should be recognised as a having a special role in our society when attacks such as she mentioned take place. She also mentioned training. I emphasise to her that the College of Policing is reflecting on what has happened. I hope that we can have some guidance shortly to bolster the support for police officers in general terms.
I will refer in turn to three particular points that the noble Baroness mentioned. The first point is the accountability review and the possibility of individuals contributing to it. We have had a report from the review; it is a complete document now. Although the review was commissioned by the previous Government, the report has been presented to this Government. We have concluded and have included in the Statements from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the response we wish to make.
Obviously, we want to have engagement with a range of stakeholders now that the review is completed. The noble Baroness mentioned not just the police but members of the community. I welcome evidence for the accountability review being given to the Government in whichever form individuals or groups want so that that broad spectrum of views can inform the conclusions and the implementation of what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said.
The noble Baroness mentioned the IOPC and the review of it that took place. She is right to say that there were 93 recommendations for improvements under the Fairfield report, which was commissioned by and delivered to the last Government. There was a response from the last Government in March 2024. I am keen to ensure, as are Police Ministers and the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, that the recommendations are undertaken and delivered. Work is under way to implement the majority of the recommendations and obviously I will report back to this House. If the noble Baroness wishes to table a Question in a couple of months’ time, we can certainly give an update on the implementation of the recommendations that have been accepted.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the Home Secretary and police diversity. It is certainly extremely important, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, that the police reflect the community they serve. That means not just people of colour but people with a range of sexual preferences, backgrounds and other things. It is really important that the police have the confidence of the community they serve. That is why, particularly as we go forward with the new model of neighbourhood policing that my right honourable friend wishes to introduce, we should involve people from all backgrounds to reflect the community they serve. Without that confidence, information will not be forthcoming to police officers and they will not understand the communities they operate within. We share the joint enterprise of ensuring that people outside the law are held to account by the forces of law and order through the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and, ultimately, if convicted, the justice system. That requires genuine partnership between the community and the police.
I hope I have answered all the points mentioned by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. If so, I will take comments from other Members of the House.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, given the very difficult circumstances in which armed police have to operate, those who make the decision to prosecute should do so only when the evidence of illegality is very robust, and that such decisions should not be made simply and solely to address expressions of concern, however aggrieved and distressed those expressions may be?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that there are grounds for the police to recommend to the CPS and for the CPS to take action on prosecution. That could happen in any number of circumstances. In the circumstances that generated this Statement, the decision to take forward the prosecution was taken by the CPS and others. The court considered it and agreed that the police officer should be acquitted. That is a perfectly legitimate decision.
We have tried to put in a mechanism whereby there is a higher threshold for prosecution of police officers than there is currently, in line with what would happen to ordinary citizens involved in that type of activity elsewhere. That is right and proper, but we have also commissioned the wider review led by Tim Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford, who will look at the legal test for the use of force and the threshold for determining the short-form conclusion of an unlawful killing in inquests. It is important that we rebalance slightly because, on reflection, that rebalancing is needed.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support the Government’s response to this review, but I will make a few comments about the case of Chris Kaba, Sergeant Blake and firearms officers. I am not sure that the review goes far enough in two clear areas.
I repeat that it is a tragedy that Chris Kaba lost his life—and for his family. It has also been a terrible time for the officer and his family over the last two years. But the review says nothing about reviewing what happened in Sergeant Blake’s case—the decision-making by the IOPC and the CPS in the court. We hear that the jury wrote a note; it was not published, but someone might want to review what it said. That is probably not best done in public, but the whole process may leave everybody a little confused about why Sergeant Blake was prosecuted when the jury took so short a time to reach its unanimous verdict.
Secondly, there is a more general issue about whether firearms officers, who, as we have heard, are few in number and deal with these very difficult cases on our behalf, have any comfort in law at all. When the criminal and the officer—who is only doing their job—arrive at the same location, why are they treated in exactly the same way? The criminal knew what they were doing when they arrived; the officer responded to society’s request—demand, almost—that they stand up for us and challenge this person, but the law gives them no comfort at all. This case highlights that, but it is not the only one.
So there are two questions for the Minister: a review, perhaps, of this case and the more general requirement in criminal law to treat firearms officers in a better way than they are treated now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, obviously brings great experience to this question and this discussion, and I appreciate the discussions I have had with him—not just in the Chamber of this House but also outside the Chamber.
The noble Lord will know, and understand, why I cannot comment in too much detail on what happened in relation to this case. He will also know, however, that the decision to charge was made within the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP guidance to prosecutors, particularly in relation to death in custody guidance, which covers any deaths following contact with the police. That was the procedure; I am not the CPS and nor should I be. It made the determination to prosecute in this case and the result was a very speedy acquittal by the jury. There was a two-year hangover, which caused great distress to the family of both the victim and the police officer. I understand that, and we are trying to speed up as part of the response to that case.
The important thing, which I hope I can guide the noble Lord to focus on, is the issue of the future, because we are trying to rebalance the prosecution threshold, which is key for the future. I fully accept the noble Lord’s point that we ask a lot of officers to, on our behalf, arrive at a scene, make split-second judgments and put their lives at risk. One of the things we are trying to do in the review’s response is to more effectively balance that balance between the response of an officer and the individual they may face. That is part of the working through of the code of practice that will be developed by the DPP, the review by the Attorney-General of guidance on charging police officers and the review by his former colleague Tim Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford.
We can revisit this again in a few months’ time, but I hope, when we finalise the reviews, that will refocus how we best support officers dealing with extremely difficult situations.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, 30 years ago, the House of Lords sitting judicially in the criminal appeal of Lee Clegg expressed concern that only a charge of murder was available in these cases, instead of an offence of, for example, using excessive force. The Law Lords pointed out—as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has—that law enforcement officers do not go out intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm: they go to protect the public. The two cases are very different.
Therefore, would the Government consider looking at the substantive law that applies in these cases and possibly introducing a change to strengthen the position of law enforcement officers? It would be not dissimilar to the way in which the position of householders was strengthened in 2013 by giving them additional defences when they used force to defend themselves and their property.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. We are in the process of reviewing the legislation and I do not want to pre-empt the reviews that are being undertaken by the Attorney-General and the individuals commissioned by the Home Secretary. It is clear, however, that we need to give clarity and support to officers. The key element that has come out of this case is that an officer found themselves prosecuted through the decision of the CPS, which rightly was its independent decision. However, in light of that decision, we have to review whether the threshold for the prosecution was right and whether we need to examine the issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Those are things we will do, but I cannot give a commitment today to finalise it.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I accept that there is going to be a review, so perhaps I could ask the Minister to ask the review to consider the following. Surely, a lawfully armed police officer on duty, acting in accordance with their training, who volunteers to carry a gun to protect the public and who tragically kills someone should not be subject to exactly the same process as an illegally armed criminal who goes out to murder someone? It is not just about the court; it is about the decision of the IOPC and the decision of the CPS. Why did that happen in this case, and what will the Government do to make sure it does not happen again? Of course, there needs to be accountability, but surely not parity.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord brings extensive experience to this debate and these questions from his policing background. I understand the points he has made, but I hope he will understand when I say to him first and foremost that I cannot second-guess the decisions that were taken by the CPS and/or the IOPC about this case. Those decisions were taken—that is their right to do so—and ultimately those charges were brought in a proper way under the legislation and framework that was in place. They have been put before a jury and the jury has determined that there is no case to answer for those charges. That is the history of this matter, difficult though it is.
As well as the anonymity issue, which is important, the Home Secretary has brought forward three measures in the Statement to improve the timeliness and fairness of investigations: aligning the threshold of IOPC referrals of officers to the CPS so that we can examine that in detail; speeding up the process whereby the IOPC sends cases to the CPS and putting the IOPC victims’ right to review policy on a statutory footing; and reviewing the DPP guidance on the existing legal framework, which will conclude by the end of 2024. Those things are in train. While the noble Lord might want me to opine about the decision that was taken, I cannot, but I am sure this House will hold me to account in future as to the outcome of those reviews downstream.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, having served as Police Ombudsman and having had the awesome responsibility of investigating a fatal police shooting, I know that these incidents are very, very rare. I know how difficult this is for all concerned—the family of Chris Kaba, but most particularly now, Sergeant Blake and his family, given what they must have suffered over these last two years. I want to express my gratitude here in this House to the firearms officers who protect us here in Westminster, day in, day out, in a situation in which one of their number lost his life not too long ago. That is very important.
I welcome the decision to introduce anonymity prior to conviction for a police officer if they are put on trial. It is reassuring to see the equalisation of the threshold for prosecution, because trust is fundamental to this, and there will not be trust in the prosecution service or the prosecution process unless the public can believe that there is equality before the law.
Can the Minister assure us that the review of these cases will consider the necessity for extensive forensic investigation, which on many occasions takes quite a long time? That has to be factored in; we do not serve officers well if we rush these cases. Secondly, can the Minister assure us that funding of the IOPC will be looked at in terms of the number of cases it has to carry? Increasingly frequently, it has to return cases to the police to investigate, which leads to distrust in the process. People go to the IOPC thinking they are getting an independent investigation of police complaints, and they end up back with the police force investigating the complaint. May I ask that those matters be considered? Funding the IOPC is actually cheaper than the cost of police officers investigating.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who brings her experience to this debate. We both spent time in Northern Ireland some time ago, when I was a Minister and she was the police ombudsperson responsible for those areas. I welcome her welcome for the anonymity clause; it is vital that it be put in place. The decision was taken in this court case not by me, this House or the Government, but by a judge at that time. There is no criticism of that; it was entirely their decision to make. However, we have reflected on that and determined that anonymity in this case will prevent the type of difficulty and challenges that Officer Blake has had post acquittal, even though he was acquitted. That is a really important issue.
The noble Baroness mentioned forensic investigations. Self-evidently, these matters are beyond my remit, but it is important that the case presented includes all the information. If it takes time to bring forensic information forward, so be it, and we need to factor that in as part of our review. In Budget week, I cannot comment too much on funding for the IOPC, but I am sure we will revisit that in due course. If the noble Baroness wishes to question that post-Wednesday, we can discuss then the adequacy or otherwise of the budget for the IOPC.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the Statement and everything the Minister has said. However, he will be aware of my report of the harassment of the heavy haulage industry by West Midlands Police. As I stated in that report, I have personally observed West Midlands Police officers harass drivers of a highly respected heavy haulage company. Ministers keep telling me that this is an operational matter for the police. How egregious and widespread does this police harassment have to be before Ministers will do something about it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome for the Statement. On the West Midlands Police, he will know that there are mechanisms in place to make reports to tackle any poor behaviour. Most police officers follow a code that is appropriate and proper, and they can be held to account. I am not aware of the case, having been in post for just four months, but if there are areas of concern, the noble Earl should follow the mechanisms of complaint. If he is unhappy with that, he can seek redress in other ways.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the debate on the Chris Kaba incident, as a lot has been said in this House; however, I pay tribute to all officers who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. I want to talk about a more fundamental point that this House must not ignore. In Britain’s black communities, there is an all-time distrust in our policing. It is no surprise that people are outraged when they see, for example, the stop and search of the black middle-class couple Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos, who were wrenched from their car with a baby in the back, and after which the police officers had no charge to answer in many respects. If we are to police by consent, we must build trust, and that will take a lot of time and effort from everybody involved.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that policing is undertaken by consent. To have that consent, policing needs both to reflect and to understand the community. I have no problem with police officers stopping and searching individuals—that is part of the prevention of criminal activity—but they need to do so in a way that is conducive to consent and to community relations, while having full accountability and explaining why and how those activities have taken place. The noble Lord’s point about the disregard between members of the black community and the police is a source of deep sadness. Many of the people who were involved in, and have been killed by, some of this concerning behaviour were innocent people from the black community. Therefore, trust is a long-term measure. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to build a stronger mechanism of community policing, but I will certainly take on board the points the noble Lord mentioned, and we will reflect on how we can build that confidence in the community to ensure effective, proper policing.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I welcome the Minister’s typically sensible and pragmatic approach to this issue. Does he agree that we have to strike a balance in the bulwark of our system, which is judicial independence, notwithstanding the sui generis nature of the Kaba case, but that part of the review should also include the not quite unprecedented but unusual decision by the judge to release the name of Sergeant Blake, which had massive ramifications? That should be part of the review, because there has to be a robust evidential basis for a decision to plunge that officer potentially into a very difficult situation by removing anonymity.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My response to the noble Lord will not be critical of the judge. I simply say that, having seen the implications of that decision, my right honourable friend and I have taken the view that anonymity is the best way to protect the safety of anybody charged with these offences who is a police officer. I hope that Members of this House who have a judicial background will not take that as a criticism. It is a way in which we can review what has happened in this case, and the consequences of what happened after naming the individual, and try to put in a framework that in due course will potentially have legal backing from this House and the House of Commons.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the attention of the House today is rightly turned on relationships between the police and the black community, but there is another sector of the community that feels completely abandoned by the police. Week after week there are marches through the centre of London: pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, with anti-Semitic slogans and violence. On Sunday the police did nothing while a violent mob gathered outside the leading Jewish community centre in London, to the great distress of those attending a meeting there. When someone pushes back against that, they get arrested rather than the anti-Israel demonstrators in a way that I do not think would happen if there was a right-wing demonstration. I am saying not that there is two-tier policing but that the police are turning a blind eye to a very dangerous and difficult situation. For example, the blockade of Tower Bridge only nine days ago was hardly reported. Will the Minister remind the police that a great deal of anti-Semitism and violence is demonstrating itself on the streets of London? It must be stopped if trust is to be rebuilt.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue. I do not believe there is two-tier policing. I believe the police act impartially against anybody who is committing an offence, and the police will act in that way against anybody who is perceived to be committing an offence. If the noble Baroness has concerns over that, maybe she should raise them with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who at least can be aware of her concerns. Ultimately, I believe that police officers will act against criminality and that no judgmental decision is made by the police one way or the other. If criminality occurs, the police should act and arrest; if that arrest is taken forward, the CPS should prosecute, and the court under a jury system should determine.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Monday 28th October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 17-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2024)
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to put in place measures to address river pollution by water companies and water and sewerage companies.(2) The Secretary of State and, as the case may be, the Water Services Regulation Authority must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in implementing the provisions of this Act, and in doing so must also have regard to—(a) the need to meet the biodiversity targets set under sections 1 (environmental targets) and 3 (environmental targets: species abundance) of the Environment Act 2021, and(b) the current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (report on impact of climate change).”
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 91 in my name. These amendments seek to set a strategic direction for the Bill and, crucially, to apply a new duty on the water regulator to take account of—and take all reasonable steps to ensure that Ofwat and, by extension, the water companies that it regulates, contribute to—our targets under the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. It would have immediate effect outside the price review process by applying climate and nature considerations into yearly in-period determinations. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, as well as the Blueprint Coalition, for their support.
As the first speaker in Committee, and conscious that I was not here at Second Reading, I will quickly say that I fully support the general intent of the Bill and note that this is just one stage of the Government’s wider plans for tackling water pollution. While I do not have major issues with what is in the Bill, it presents us with a legislative opportunity to strengthen the regulator to ensure that Ofwat has the duty to contribute to the delivery of our climate change and nature targets. This is a key chance to modernise Ofwat’s remit and ensure that it is fit for purpose.
As we all know and hear daily, the water industry has a huge impact on our natural environment. Its shortcomings and their effects are well documented—I will not repeat them here—but it is not just the shortcomings of the water industry. It is hard to imagine that these shortcomings would have been possible with a regulator which had a remit that also ensured it took these issues seriously. But the fault, or reason, does not lie simply with Ofwat. It lies with the duties it has—or, more importantly, does not have—which have been legislated by this Parliament over the past three decades. In short, there is a misbalance between what Ofwat currently does and prioritises and what the Government and the public would like us to do: ensure that industry cleans up its act.
In Ofwat’s duties there is no mention of climate change—which is going to make its job harder as we experience more erratic weather events—or biodiversity, on which we have binding targets that will be impossible to achieve without putting an end to sewage pollution in our rivers. We can all acknowledge that the regulators are busy and, without these targets on their list of things to do, this will continue to fall by the wayside or be deprioritised, as it so obviously has been in recent years. That is why I have tabled Amendment 91, which would help the Government and the public to ensure that a greater contribution is made by the sector. With a clear duty, it would mean that the regulator has to further two of the Government’s core aims.
Amendment 91 would amend the Water Industry Act 1991, which established Ofwat, to require it to take all reasonable steps, in exercising its powers, to contribute to the achievement of our biodiversity targets under the Environment Act and our net-zero targets under the Climate Change Act, and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Such a duty is currently missing from Ofwat’s governance.
Ofwat’s current primary duty, set under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act in 1991, is
“to further the consumer objective … to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition”.
Section 3 goes on to state that Ofwat’s work to further the conservation of flora and fauna should be undertaken only as far as is consistent with the primary consumer objective. This clear subordination of environmental considerations to economic ones was not corrected by the introduction of a rather muddled resilience objective in 2014 and was actively exacerbated by the 2024 imposition of a new statutory growth duty on Ofwat
“to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”.
In a speech in the other place last Wednesday, the Secretary of State announced an independent water commission that
“will ensure that we have the robust regulatory framework that we need to attract the significant investment that is required to clean up our waterways”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 279.]
That is good and welcome, as is the text in the notes that it must consider alignment with net-zero objectives. However, I went back through it and did a word search. Nature is mentioned once in the notes and there is no mention at all of biodiversity or of consideration of alignment with our mandatory targets for biodiversity, as outlined in the Environment Act and associated secondary legislation.
Is it relevant that we are asking Ofwat and, through it, our water companies to look at the biodiversity and water targets? Over the weekend, I went back and looked at the 2030 species abundance target, which was one of the biodiversity targets that was published as a statutory instrument in January 2023. I counted the list of species that will contribute to this target; included are 244 freshwater invertebrate species, which absolutely require clean water; 40 species of birds that forage and nest in riverine environments—that is 25% of the total list of bird species; and 48 plant species associated with, or growing in, rivers, streams or marshy freshwater environments, which is 22% of the plant list. By the most basic calculation, almost a quarter of the plants and birds on our species abundance list—the list that will be used to check whether we meet those targets—and 100% of our freshwater invertebrates rely on clean, unpolluted rivers to thrive, yet we have no statutory purpose or duty for Ofwat to look at this. Many of those species will not recover unless we improve the quality of our rivers, so this is a fundamental part of what we should be looking at. We urgently need every water company to acknowledge the Environment Act targets and for Ofwat to measure their performance against them.
It may well be argued that this would be covered by the independent water commission review, but there is an issue of timing as well. Even if these biodiversity targets are included as part of the consultation outlined by the Secretary of State last week in the other place, it will not, as stated, have any findings until the first half of 2025; and because of the current price review processes, changes will likely not come into effect until 2029 to 2030, which, if I have understood correctly, means they would be implemented after the biodiversity target to halt species decline in 2030 has come and gone. Perhaps the Minister can clarify on this.
A review is not legislation—I do not need to remind people in this Committee of that. Legislating for a climate and nature duty for Ofwat early in this Parliament would allow benefits to accrue ahead of the looming environmental deadlines falling at the end of Parliament, including the previously stated 2030 biodiversity targets. If we do this now, with a duty that will come into force in 2025, we can build these environmental objectives into work on the next price review from the start, as well as applying climate and nature considerations into yearly in-period determinations and everyday decision-making.
In summary, it would be counterproductive not to take this opportunity to give Ofwat a new duty to help ensure that we meet our climate and, crucially, Environment Act habitat and species targets. I hope we can find some agreement there.
The public were clear at the election that they expected change and that protecting and restoring our environment, including biodiversity, is a priority. This amendment would be a simple, proportionate, pragmatic and positive change that we could make today. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has set out clearly the case for a duty for Ofwat to deliver on the Government’s biodiversity and climate change objectives. I just want to pick up on the point about the review, because I think the Minister will say, “This is a fantastic amendment, but we just need to wait for the review”, and there are three reasons why this Committee will find that response unsatisfactory.
The first point is that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which is around the timing of the review, which we all welcome, but we do not know when exactly it is going to finish. Of course, by the time it is in legislation, and we do not know when there is going to be a slot, we could have missed our biodiversity targets, let alone our climate target.
Secondly, there is nothing in this amendment which is not already Government-stated policy. It is Government-stated policy to deliver on our biodiversity objectives, to move towards our climate change objectives, and to adapt to respond to those. So why do we need to wait for the review? There is nothing about putting this in legislation now which is counter to the Government’s position and therefore there is no barrier.
Thirdly, the wording is rather clever. It does not say “Ofwat”; it talks about “the Authority”. So, whatever the review decides, it is relevant. It is also clever because it says that it must “take all reasonable steps”. Again, it is not precluding or being prescriptive about that future authority; it is just setting the parameters.
It is a very well-crafted amendment and I think the Committee will be deeply disappointed if the Minister comes back and just says we should wait for the review. It would also make us question what the point of the review is, and we would not wish to do that because we have the highest regard for the Minister. If the Government are not prepared at this stage to put in the Bill that part of the review is to ensure that we deliver on our environmental and climate targets, then how can we be sure the review is going off on the right foot?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to these two amendments, to which I have put my name. I was pondering why Ofwat lost the plot on the environment around 2010. In a way, it is not surprising, because the reality is that it was getting a strong steer from government that the important thing was to keep bills down and that everything else should take second place. It was eminently possible to say that to Ofwat because the number of objectives and duties that it had been given was quite a large, disparate and often conflicting set and was growing yearly.
Ofwat currently has a primary duty under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to
“further the consumer objective … to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate, by promoting effective competition”.
That really became the sole mission of Ofwat in the 2010s.
Section 3 says that Ofwat’s work to further the conservation of flora and fauna should be undertaken only as far as it is consistent with the primary consumer objective. So, there is a “get out of jail free” card for Ofwat about environmental improvement and biodiversity decline and they take a very second-class seat. Ofwat also has a duty for pursuing sustainable development and a whole suite of environmental and recreational duties.
In 2014, a very muddled objective was added to Ofwat’s increasing list relating to resilience. In 2024, Ofwat got a statutory duty to promote growth. If one was being benign towards Ofwat, one could say that perhaps it was a bit confused by a number of directions which were mutually inconsistent, but the primary one was that Ofwat was told very firmly to keep prices down, and it pretty well did that in terms of the environmental elements of successive price rounds since then. Had Ofwat been challenged at any point as to whether it was meeting these duties, many of which are about contributing to or furthering or having regard to, it would have been very easy for it simply to construct arguments that demonstrated that it had a limited compliance with almost anything and to deliver nothing that it did not want to deliver.
The Minister will no doubt say that the broader review which has been referred to will consider how to streamline and focus Ofwat’s duties, and I agree that that is important and that the review should do it, but I share the views expressed that we cannot wait that long. The review will report eventually and there will be a delay while legislation comes forward. This amendment, which gives equal prominence to environmental duties and consumer duties, is fundamental if Ofwat is going to immediately play its full part in meeting the legally binding targets of the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. At the end of the day, though I gather the debate on climate change last Thursday tried to deny it, these are in fact existential issues, which is why there are legally binding targets on both climate change and biodiversity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the first Defra Bill to Committee stage; I congratulate the noble Baroness and those who supported the amendments moved.
I wish to add a note of caution and I declare my interests in the register: not least, I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group, and I worked for five years with the water regulator for Scotland, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. The degree of caution I would like to urge in this regard is that I believe we are already committed in law. The Water Industry Act 1991 reflects that very carefully, as do the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act and others, not least the Flood and Water Implementation Act 2010, which is built on that.
I urge the Minister to be cautious in trying to reach a balance both in the Bill before us in Committee today and, more especially, the review to which other noble Lords have spoken, which we will go on to consider. I believe that the balance is currently right but falls heavily on the side of environmental benefits. I do not think that it is entirely clear what the costs will be.
I will issue a note of regret that I have not had the chance to go through the 87 pages of the impact assessment, which was released only on Thursday when I was due to speak in a debate on the Friday—literally, the first working day before Committee. One thing I have picked up that the impact assessment looks at is what the cost of natural capital and decarbonisation, for example, would be. I would certainly like more information on this, if possible. In relation to natural capital and decarbonisation, it says:
“This measure will help to protect the Water Environment and improve the state of the UK’s natural capital. The measure will ensure Water Companies take steps to protect the environment”.
It goes on to say:
“The measure is not expected to significantly impact greenhouse gas emissions”.
That is possibly debatable.
We will go on to discuss my main concern in greater depth in relation to amendments in my name in later groups, so I will not argue this at length now. However, I was absolutely astounded to learn this week that water companies are prevented from encouraging customers to take water efficiency measures. This addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone—a very pertinent point in this regard—about keeping customers’ bills down, which has been the concern of successive Governments as well as of the Consumer Council for Water, Citizens Advice and many MPs, as I found when I was next door, along with other noble Peers.
I am concerned that the definition of “wholesome water” is focused entirely on environmental matters and does not allow for measures to introduce water efficiencies, which I think all noble Lords would sign up to, such as recycling grey water to wash vehicles and, possibly, even dishes. I am a firm believer that clean drinking water coming into the home should be kept precisely for that purpose. It is extremely expensive to produce. We should keep drinking water for the purposes of drinking water. We should seek at every opportunity to encourage water companies to encourage their customers, in whichever area they live. In an area of hard water, for example, it is more difficult to work up a lather. Water companies are best placed to know the water quality in that area and I believe they should be allowed to address it.
The second thing that astounded me this week was that Ofwat had taken away some of the powers for water companies to introduce water efficiency schemes. It took some of those moneys away for better use—to give back as grants for water efficiency. I have no truck with Ofwat in this regard, but I would argue that water companies are better placed to know what water efficiency measures will work in each region in which they operate.
I conclude by saying that, while I listened very closely and admire the eloquence and knowledge with which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, moved the amendment, I think we have to err on the side of caution and make sure we are allowing the water companies the tools they need to do the job, to ensure that we preserve as far as possible drinking water for drinking water purposes, and allowing them to roll out measures to ensure that water efficiency going forward will encourage us all to use water differently. They are currently prevented from doing that by the definition as I understand it of “wholesome water”. We will go on to discuss that at a later stage, but one has to be cautious with the best intentions that are sometimes expressed in these amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I also add my support for these amendments, and I agree with much of what has been said already. On the matter of water usage, I have lived in deserts and I find the idea of people power-washing their cars with pure drinking water in this country extraordinary. But that is where we are today, I guess.
Why do I support these amendments? It is simply because it is vital that this Bill is consistent with existing policy and legislation to which it naturally links. The only reservation I have, which may be something that comes out of the review, is that it brings us back to the question of whether Ofwat and the Environment Agency should be a single agency or two separate ones with a division of responsibilities.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for moving the amendment and for the interesting points she makes regarding the importance of clarifying the intention of this Bill. As we said at Second Reading, we are committed to cracking down on pollution by water companies and we support the Government’s intention to deliver effective measures that bring polluters to justice. While government can always do better, we are proud of our record in the past: we increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 7% in 2010 to 100% today; and the Thames Tideway Tunnel is now complete.
So we on these Benches share the Government’s concerns about the many instances of water and sewerage companies discharging pollution in recent years. This poses a risk to those who use and enjoy our waterways and is causing serious damage to the environment. It is imperative that the Government continue to build on the progress the previous Conservative Government made on improvement, monitoring and tougher action to tackle sewage overflow incidents.
The Government are right to prioritise this issue, but we have serious concerns about the impact of this Bill on the water industry that we expect to explore as we go through Committee. I reiterate my thanks to the Minister, who has continued to engage constructively with us. I am grateful for the time she has given us in the lead-up to Committee. I hope we will continue to make constructive progress and improve this Bill for the benefit of all stakeholders—cost-effective water for consumers and security for the 100,000 employed in the water industry—while protecting the Government from financial risk and restoring our natural environment and incentivising investment.
Amendment 1 would make the purpose of the Bill clear and place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, as well as the need to meet certain biodiversity targets and the current unpredicted impacts of climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is right that we should take every opportunity to improve biodiversity, and there is an opportunity in the Bill to deliver transformative change for our rivers. We have amendments coming up in later groups that would help to incentivise the industry to invest in catchment restoration. That would not only improve water quality and flood management but contribute to nature restoration, biodiversity protection and, more importantly, the recovery of our biodiversity.
The Government want to keep the Bill narrowly focused on the regulation of water companies and their manifesto commitments on penalties for water companies, with the promise of further reform soon. We on these Benches are disappointed that the Government have not brought forward more comprehensive reforms in the Bill. If the promised water Bill does not materialise next year, it would not be the first time that a Government had delivered just partial reform.
We want to see a more ambitious approach from the Government, focused on the whole water sector and not just penalties for water companies—or for executives of water companies. For that reason, we believe there are areas beyond the Government’s fairly narrow focus in the Bill that ought to be included and should not be put at risk by the unclear timing of the future water Bill. The Minister has previously spoken about the need for incentives to attract talent to the sector, as well as an effective penalties regime. We need whole-sector reform if we are to deliver the clean rivers and healthy environment that people across the country are calling for. We support the spirit of the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. We on these Benches agree that the Government must go further than the measures included in the Bill, and must do so urgently.
Amendment 91 similarly seeks to place duties on the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of our biodiversity targets and our climate change targets and to adapting to the impacts of climate change. The Minister will know that, in 2023, the last Government published the first ever comprehensive Environmental Improvement Plan, setting out targets and indicators for water-quality improvement.
Over 25 pages of the plan are devoted to water and targets. There were targets to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments; a target to halve the length of rivers polluted by abandoned mines; an interim target to construct eight water treatment works; targets on reducing water waste, reducing leakage by a further 20% by 2027; a target to restore 75% of our water bodies to good ecological status; a target to require water companies to have eliminated all adverse ecological impact from sewage discharges at all sensitive sites by 2035 and all other overflows by 2050; a target to create a level of resistance to drought so that emergency measures are needed only once in every 500 years; a target to direct water companies’ fines relating to environmental breaches to improving the water environment; a target to crack down on sewage pollution by holding water companies to account for delivering the targets set out in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan; a target to require water companies to upgrade 160 of the wastewater treatment works to meet the strictest phosphorus limits by 2028, with a further upgrade of 400 of them by 2038, which would reduce nutrient pollution from treated wastewater; and—of great concern to me—a target to protect our chalk streams by supporting the chalk stream strategy. Lastly, there was a target to make sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments, subject to final decisions following consultation on scope, threshold and process.
I mention those targets to show that the Opposition are not coming here to say that we have just discovered some good ideas and actions for the future. We have a track record of setting tough targets, and they are in the EIP. These targets are specific to water quality and will greatly increase biodiversity. They are not just reasonable steps but specific, measurable targets.
The Government have said that they are urgently reviewing the latest EIP, which is about to be published. I do not expect the Minister to say what the tweaks will be, but can we expect any changes to the water EIP targets when the Government publish them? We share the ambition of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for water sector reform, and we hope that the Government will listen to the concerns of noble Lords, who are calling from all sides of the Committee for a more ambitious approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for her interest in and general support for the Bill. I am sure that, despite missing Second Reading, she will make a very valuable contribution to Committee.
As I set out at Second Reading, the purpose of this Bill is deliberately narrow in order to improve water industry performance as an urgent priority. On her Amendment 1, I agree with the noble Baroness that addressing the wider issue of river pollution arising from water and sewerage companies’ operations is of critical importance, as of course is meeting our biodiversity targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that she hoped I was not going to just refer to the review, and I am sure she will be delighted to know that I am not.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made the important point that we already have commitments in law on this; we already have targets that we need to be meeting on biodiversity and the wider environment. It is important to stress that we must have regard to the Climate Change Act in this space. The Government are already required to meet the legally binding targets under the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008, and to set out their plans to adapt to the impacts of the changing climate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just mentioned, we are doing a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. This is because we are serious about meeting the Environment Act’s biodiversity targets. We did not feel that it was fit for purpose to meet those targets, which is why we are doing this review—to protect and restore our natural environment and come up with a delivery focus to help meet very ambitious targets.
Ofwat—I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned this—has a core duty under Section 2A of the Water Industry Act 1991 to work towards strengthening resilience. This duty ensures that Ofwat is already required to promote long-term planning for water companies to adapt to environmental pressures, including climate change. I take on board the comments of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, who felt that Ofwat at some point lost the plot. This is why we need to look at the role of regulators through the review—I am afraid I will be mentioning the review from time to time today.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is reassured that the Government share her ambition to tackle the wider issues of river pollution, biodiversity and climate change. I hope she understands that, because we feel we are already acting in this space through legislation that is in place, we will not accept Amendment 1.
Amendment 91 was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. In addition to the duty under Section 2A, Ofwat has a core duty under the Water Industry Act to work to ensure the long-term resilience of water companies’ supply and sewerage systems. Furthermore, on 23 October the Government announced the independent commission into the water sector and its regulation. This is intended to be the largest review of the industry since it was privatised, and part of the development of further legislation, not just a review. We want it to have a positive end in tackling the problems we see in our water industry. The objectives of this independent commission will include ensuring that the water industry regulatory framework delivers long-term stability to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, to meet the challenges of the future and drive economic growth.
I hope the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be replaced with excitement when he sees that these will form the basis of this further legislation to attract long-term investment and set out recommendations to deliver a collaborative, strategic and, importantly, catchment approach to managing water, tackling pollution and restoring nature.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made a specific point about the impact assessment. I do not have the assessment in front of me, so I am not entirely sure what section she was referring to. I hope she and I can catch up following Committee and discuss this, so I can answer her questions in more detail.
The commission’s terms of reference do include environmental aspects. The commission’s objectives include to “support best value delivery” of environmental outcomes, and to:
“Rationalise and clarify requirements on water companies”
to achieve better environmental outcomes. Furthermore, under “approach and deliverables”, it says that the chair
“will invite views from an advisory group of nominated experts, covering areas including the environment”,
and
“will also seek views from wider groups of stakeholders, including environmental campaigners”.
Therefore, we are trying to make sure that, as well as meeting the targets already in legislation, we put the environment at the heart of what we are doing.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is reassured that these two new Clauses are unnecessary as they overlap with existing government requirements, Ofwat’s core duties and our ambitions for the future. I hope she will take an active part in what we are trying to achieve with the commission, and I thank noble Lords for their engagement on these important matters.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister and everybody else who has contributed to this discussion on my amendment. I am not going to repeat the valid and important points that have been made, but I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the term “caution on costs”. There is a lot of debate about costs, and nature-based solutions can often be much cheaper while also elevating biodiversity. For the last 20 years we have been told to be cautious about costs and on-costs, and as a result our species targets have gone down and down. The time has come to redress that balance, and I look forward to debating this another time.
On the commission, I appreciate the Minister’s comment that we already have commitments to the environment in the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. However, I was shocked when I discovered over the weekend that, according to the list of protected species that we want to stop the decline of by 2030—not 2035—25% of plants and birds and 100% of freshwater invertebrate species rely on clean rivers. Therefore, while I am delighted about the commission and will absolutely get behind it and join in, it is going to be too slow and too late to achieve the biodiversity targets we set out in the Environment Act. I look forward to picking up this issue on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires Ofwat to issue rules about remuneration and governance.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I wish to inform the Committee that my noble friend Lady Bakewell is unwell and unable to attend today, so I will be speaking to many of her amendments as well as my own. This second group of amendments concerns the rules for renumeration and governance, and Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Bakewell, requires Ofwat to issue such rules.
This Government are seeking to strengthen the measures in this Bill by making them firm commitments with due weight in law, and not merely the vague assumptions as currently written into the Bill. We on these Benches have little faith that, without this amendment, the water companies will keep to the spirit of the law on these matters. I have a very similar “must” to “may” amendment, Amendment 24, in group 6, and I shall make general points on both in this speech. We have strong grounds for taking such a position, based on the past performance of the water companies themselves, especially in relation to awarding pay and bonuses and returns to shareholders, which have always come first. Meanwhile, investment in infrastructure and the protection of our environment from the harm these companies have caused and continue to cause have always come a very distant second, if at all.
By way of a very brief introduction, we would of course prefer it if this Government had a more comprehensive and clearer set of plans in place to make more rapid progress on these matters. We on these Benches are clear that we would abolish Ofwat and replace it with a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority, and we would make water companies public interest companies. This Government have taken a different route and are of a different opinion, believing that the shopping list of measures in this Bill can bring improvements that will hold while a full review is undertaken, before fuller and more fundamental reforms are implemented later on.
We welcome the announcement of the review, but I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, particularly about our commitment to 30 by 30 and further delay on these matters. The trick for the Government is to make sure that they can make the rapid change required and make Ofwat fit for purpose, since that is their stated intention, and to put in place all our environmental regulations and protections in the timeframes available. That is a bit of a magic trick, and I remain to be convinced that the Government will be able to pull it off, so that is a key concern for us.
We will work to support the Bill where we feel that it brings improvements, and there are many measures that we welcome and will support. We thank the Government for bringing them forward and signalling the future direction of travel and intention to take these matters very seriously. But the measures are really a list of stopgaps and quick fixes, intended to make the system work somewhat better than it has until the full review is finished and implemented. These measures come first and will need to work alongside any further actions. That is something we will need to think about in Committee—how the measures and amendments we are bringing forward and discussing today might work with potential outcomes from the review that is yet to come.
For the measures in the Bill to work, even the stopgap measures, the clauses need to be strong and effective. If they are not firm or binding, or can be easily ignored or circumvented without clear consequences, they simply will not work or do what they are intended to do. This is one area of the Bill that we think can easily and should be strengthened, so that it has the intended and required effect. The wording here as it stands is simply not strong enough. We cannot allow weak and ineffective measures to stand while the country waits for the Government to consider making further legislative changes post the review, and these then to pass through Parliament, to be enacted at a much later stage, which, as we have heard, could be by 2030. I seek clarification from the Minister as to when those measures will go through that process and come into force.
Since privatisation 35 years ago, we have witnessed one of the worst environmental crises in the UK, with unabated and unprecedented pollution. Just 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. In 2023, there were some 3.6 million hours-worth of untreated sewage discharges in England alone. Meanwhile, water companies have paid at least £78 billion in dividends, while failing to invest adequately in the infrastructure required. At the same time, they have piled on £64 billion net in debt, yet they were privatised debt free. The levels of executive pay and remuneration have rightly caused outrage across the country, as water bosses have got even richer as our bills have got even higher and we face more and more pollution in our rivers and streams.
Clause 1 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new Section 35B, which links the remuneration of water company directors to the meeting of a single set of specified standards, which include environmental standards. This is a welcome and long overdue measure. Performance-related pay and profits must be linked to the outputs achieved, and investment and environmental standards must be the benchmarks. While the intention is clear, the determination of the proposed legislation is weak. As drafted, it simply says that the authority “may” issue such rules. That is neither clear nor well-defined enough as it stands. The Bill must ensure that Ofwat issues clear and well-defined guidance, in a defined timeframe. What is written is not enough and brings no guarantee that Ofwat will issue such guidance, with no means of holding it to account if it decides that it is simply not minded or does not see any need to issue any guidance.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on having set up, last week, the review under Sir Jon Cunliffe. That is an excellent move by the Government; a very respected individual will carry out the review, and a number of us have been asking for this for a while. I really think the Government have made a wise decision.
I want to comment on Amendment 2. I have sympathy with “must” rather than “may”, but I have a reservation about the then wording, “must issue rules”. It seems to me that it is necessary for the authority to issue what I would prefer to call “guidance” rather than “rules”. That would give a certain flexibility to individual companies—no two companies will ever have the same set of circumstances, either among their executive management or in the environment in which they are operating. I ask the Government to consider changing the wording of the clause, so that it reads: “The Authority must issue guidance about the arrangements made by relevant undertakers”.
There is no doubt that the water companies have abused the total independence they have had to date around setting remuneration and everything associated with it. They are monopolies, and I think they have gone too far. Many people have been rather dismayed to see the levels of executive remuneration. I ask the Minister to consider changing “rules” to “guidance”. That would be a great improvement.
On Amendment 3, in a light-hearted manner I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, a misprint, where his amendment refers to “renumeration” rather than “remuneration”. I am sure that that is an oversight which he will have already noticed.
There is a good point in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, in his proposed new Section 35B(1B)(b), about the importance of attracting, motivating and retaining persons of sufficient quality to work in the industry. We must all remember that what we all want is better-run water companies. I do not think we should be tying too tightly the hands of remuneration committees and the board in general in how they attract and retain executives. I am very persuaded by that particular aspect of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I worry about seeking to define too closely exactly how water companies should make their remuneration arrangements.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in my name and I apologise for the typo. I had noticed it, but only recently, and only a moment or two before the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, brought it to the Committee’s notice.
As we know, Clause 1 contains rules about remuneration and governance. Most importantly, it contains provisions giving Ofwat the power to block the payment of bonuses to senior executives of water companies. My amendment clarifies that Ofwat’s powers under this clause cannot be exercised in a way which conflicts with its general duties with respect to the water industry and emphasises that the industry’s capital and human resources needs are of critical importance. I declare an interest as having been a non-executive director of Severn Trent, the largest of the listed water companies, for eight years, between 2014 and 2022, chairing the board’s remuneration committee for that time.
Why is it that these clarifications are required? Essentially, it is because we are giving extremely wide powers to Ofwat to draft rules in a very complex area, seemingly at its discretion and without further scrutiny by this House, which may have many unintended and harmful consequences. There is no clarity in the Bill on the appropriate targets and performance standards, how they will be measured, when relevant triggers occur and which remuneration, in which year, will be affected. This will all be for Ofwat to determine—yes, Ofwat.
I have huge sympathy for regulators—I was one myself for a period, running the Takeover Panel—and know that they attract only criticism and never praise. Having said that, I thought the mood of your Lordships at Second Reading was especially stark in expressing views about Ofwat’s past performance, and some of those views have already been reiterated in the short time we have had today. That was as regards its role as an economic regulator—its core competence. We are now effectively extending Ofwat’s remit into difficult areas of fine judgment best left to company boards and for which Ofwat is totally unsuited. Can we be so reassured by the integrity of the ensuing process and the safeguards built in that my concerns can be assuaged by leaving this clause unamended? I fear not.
First, it offends the principles of natural justice, as there is no distinction between the legislative process and the judicial one. The powers will lie with one body, Ofwat. It will make the rules and then judge companies and individuals under them. Secondly, the Minister may refer me to the consultation process which Ofwat will undertake, to which she drew the attention of your Lordships in her helpful letter dated 25 October. I welcome that, although it would be a heroic achievement for Ofwat to decide definitively on such a wide range of questions and responsibilities that this Bill, if enacted, will impose on it. Yet we all know that consultation is no panacea. The responses will contain many conflicting views and the conclusions that Ofwat will reach will be influenced by the weight it gives to particular views and to some preconceived ideas that it will inevitably hold.
Thirdly, there will be no opportunity for your Lordships to scrutinise the rules promulgated by Ofwat. For this reason, I support the thrust of Amendment 27 in the names of my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra and Amendment 25 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which are designed to achieve such scrutiny. I will leave those noble Lords to talk to them in more detail.
But is this enough? I suggest not, because the scrutiny so achieved would be after the rules had been made by Ofwat. There is a need to influence Ofwat’s thinking much earlier in the process. That is what my amendment is designed to achieve. It is drafted with an eye to the wider objectives to which this Bill should aim: the need for more innovation, the recruitment of new talent and, above all else, the greater investment required to raise standards.
The amendment is in two parts. First, it is designed to ensure that Ofwat does not exercise its powers in a way that conflicts with its general duties under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Such duties include a consumer objective, a duty to have regard to principles of best regulatory practice and a growth duty. Indeed, Ofwat refers to such duties in its consultation document when it says that one of its desired outcomes is that the rules should be proportionate. That is to be welcomed.
The Minister may be tempted to say that existing duties in the Water Industry Act and Ofwat’s acknowledgement of them should satisfy me and render this part of my amendment redundant. Were she to do so, I would say that that might hold good if the Bill imposed some constraints on Ofwat rather than adopting a blanket “Over to you, Ofwat” line. In the same section of its consultation document, it appears to qualify its commitment to proportionality by saying that
“we will be bound by statute”—
presumably as a result of this Bill—
“to introduce rules with the requisite effect”.
It is therefore critical that there is not just implicit recognition of Ofwat’s duties under the Water Industry Act of over 30 years ago but explicit recognition of those obligations on the face of the Bill, linked directly to this new and additional power that we will be giving to the regulator.
The second part of my amendment requires Ofwat to have regard to two further considerations in exercising its powers under this clause: namely,
“the need for a relevant undertaker”—
the water company—
“to … attract the investment required for its capital programme, and … attract, motivate and retain persons holding senior roles”.
I can find no reference to these considerations in Ofwat’s consultation document generally, nor in the specific questions it proposes, yet the scale of the investment in the industry that is required is such that we cannot afford to deter that investment, or experienced executives from working in it. Unlike in the past, much of that investment will have to come from equity investors, who assume a higher level of risk than debt investors and have more of a vested interest in, and so take a more critical attitude to, the prospects of a company, its financial plans and, importantly, the quality of the management tasked with delivery.
There is a limited number of appropriately qualified and skilled candidates to take on the most senior roles in water companies, and one of the successes of privatisation has been the ability of such companies to attract successful individuals from outside the utilities sector. In a competitive world for talent, Ofwat should not introduce rules that put water companies at a significant disadvantage when recruiting and seeking to retain such staff.
When launching the independent review of the water sector last week, the Secretary of State was at pains to stress the importance of attracting the investment needed to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure—and, specifically, facilitating a regulatory environment that attracts investment. The least we can do is play our part in supporting the Secretary of State in this noble endeavour. I should have thought that this amendment would be music to the Minister’s ears, so I look forward to her response with a great deal of hope and expectation, and indeed no little optimism.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I will speak to Amendment 25. This amendment seeks to strengthen Parliament’s role in crafting and approving regulations for the water industry. The Bill as it stands asks people and Parliament to trust regulators, which the Bill calls “authority”—currently they include Ofwat and the Environment Agency—to make rules. Well, that trust has already been severely eroded.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the lead amendment in this group. I will speak to Amendment 27 in my name.
Amendment 27 seeks to set a timeframe of six months within which the authority must publish rules regarding remuneration and governance, and it ensures that these rules are scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation. This amendment is necessary to ensure that water companies are able to review the rules that Ofwat intends to implement within six months of the Act coming into effect. The amendment will also ensure that there are mechanisms for raising any concerns within which Ministers and Parliament can scrutinise them fully.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, clearly, public trust in the water sector has been severely damaged and the number of serious pollution incidents is increasing, as we heard very clearly from my noble friend Lord Sikka when he introduced his amendments. At the same time, companies have been paying out millions in bonuses. To rebuild public trust, the Bill enables Ofwat to issue new rules on remuneration and governance to ensure that companies and executives are subject to robust oversight and held accountable for failure. I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the application of these rules.
I will start with Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing it on the noble Baroness’s behalf and wish her all the best from these Benches. I also listened with interest to the suggestions made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Clearly, he and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had different opinions on the wording. Our approach is intended to strike a balance between the approaches suggested by the noble Lords, to give Ofwat some flexibility while ensuring that it issues rules in relation to our priority areas.
However, I emphasise that the provisions in the Bill state that Ofwat must exercise its power to set rules in relation to performance-related pay, fitness and propriety, and customer representation. Ofwat may also make rules about other remuneration and governance arrangements at its discretion, but it must take action regarding the specific matters referred to in the Bill. We are pleased that Ofwat is already taking action to implement these rules through the publication of its consultation announced on 22 October. This was referred to by number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I hope the noble Earl will tell the noble Baroness that we hope that this has reassured her that her amendment is unnecessary.
I turn to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. Ofwat has a range of primary duties, including acting to protect the interests of consumers, ensuring that companies properly carry out their functions, and securing that companies are able to finance the delivery of their statutory obligations. I assure the noble Lord that Defra has worked to assure agreement with companies to update their articles of association to place customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions which impact on consumers.
The noble Lord is correct that I am going to say that Ofwat’s existing duties are already consistent with the outcomes that this amendment aims to ensure. This includes ensuring due consideration of the human and capital needs of the sector. He also raised concerns about influencing Ofwat. The current consultation that I have referred to is an initial policy consultation which has been launched with the express purpose of inviting views early. This will be followed up with further statutory consultations, which will also take into account the views shared through this initial policy consultation.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing his knowledge and experience to the development of this legislation. It is very valuable to hear his contributions. However, I hope that he is reassured that, in setting the rules about remuneration and governance, Ofwat will continue to act in accordance with its core duties and understands that it is for this reason that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Amendment 25, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka, and Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to the timing and process for setting the rules for remuneration and governance. My noble friend took the opportunity to lay out clearly the many concerns around the behaviour of water companies and the ability of regulators to hold them to account. Ofwat is required to undertake statutory consultation with the relevant persons, which includes the Secretary of State, before any rules are finalised. Allowing Ofwat to set rules in this way, rather than through legislation, will enable those standards to be more easily amended, subject to the relevant procedural requirements, where it is appropriate to do so in the future. The Government and Ofwat agree that the rules should be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and Ofwat intends to implement them following its statutory consultation, which, as I previously mentioned, has already been launched. I hope the noble Lords are therefore reassured their amendments are not necessary.
Finally, Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka, relates to dividend payments. Sustained investment in the water industry will continue only if the shareholders of companies can expect a fair return. Ofwat already has the power to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience and to take enforcement action if companies do not link dividends to performance for consumers and the environment. The amendment risks deterring much needed investment in the sector. I highlight that the Government’s new independent water commission will look at how we can improve the regulatory framework to attract investment and support financial resilience for water companies. I hope this is helpful in explaining to my noble friend why the Government will not accept his amendment.
A few noble Lords talked about the importance of investor confidence and the impact that we could have on this and talent in the water industry. While we believe it is right that companies and their executives are held to account for basic and fundamental performance requirements, it is important that, should companies meet their performance expectations, executives can still be rewarded. The proposed £88 billion in investment under PR24 is the largest ever in the water sector and has the potential to create up to 30,000 new jobs. It is crucial that the sector can recruit the talent it needs to deliver the PR24 proposals, because improving the performance of the water industry will help the industry attract and retain talent. Private sector investment is also at the core of how we grow the economy, and the Bill is designed to deliver a clear and consistent regulatory framework for the water industry and its investors. Noble Lords may be interested to know that on 10 September Defra and Treasury Ministers held a round table with investors where they outlined how the Government will work in partnership to attract the billions of pounds in private sector investment that are desperately needed if we are going to clean up Britain’s rivers, lakes and seas.
Finally, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that I always try to get on well and work constructively with everybody, including Ofwat. I once again thank the noble Lords for their suggestions and input to this discussion on the general application of the rules for remuneration and governance.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, put forward an interesting idea on issuing guidance, and it is one that I will take back to my noble friend for further consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, talked about the lack of ability to scrutinise the rules, the need to attract talent and the carrot and stick approach. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about broken trust, the poverty of regulations and the level of convictions in the water industry. His Amendment 101 would curb excessive dividends, financial engineering practices and practices inflating the worth of companies. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, n his amendment said that rules must be published within six months and he talked about the powers of Ofwat being unchecked.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to confirm that all members of the board are held to account, in a way consistent with company law, and to remove any ambiguity in the Bill about what constitutes a senior role.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 4 seeks clarity as to what the Bill is getting at. The Bill’s intention appears to apply penalties to only selected directors and not the entire board of directors, even though decisions are made collectively. The Explanatory Notes say it commits to
“ban bonuses for persons holding senior roles”,
and the Bill defines a “senior role” as a person who
“is a chief executive of the undertaker”—
a somewhat unfortunate phrase—
“is a director of the undertaker, or … holds such other description of role with the undertaker”.
The tone of the Bill suggests that references may all be to executive directors, but we know that water companies also have non-executive directors, and under the Companies Act non-executive directors have exactly the same liability and responsibility as executive directors. The Bill does not mention non-executive directors.
Amendment 4 seeks clarity and asks the Minister to confirm that the prohibitions and penalties will apply to not only non-executive directors but legal persons who may be acting as directors, because natural persons can be directors as well as legal persons. I beg to move.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I must admit to having experienced a degree of trepidation on discovering that I was to share a group of amendments with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and with him alone. Having listened to his views on the Bill in general, so eloquently expressed at Second Reading, I feared that we would find little common ground when debating particular aspects of it. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I compared his Amendment 4, to which he has just spoken, with my Amendment 18, to which I am about to speak, to discover that we might have more in common than I had thought.
I think that some of the rationale behind Amendment 4 is misplaced. While I agree with the noble Lord that all members of the board under company law are held to account, performance-related pay is in practice paid only to executives, while non-executives are remunerated by way of fixed fee. Given that the provision to which Amendment 4 relates is in respect of performance-related pay, the inclusion of non-executive directors is of no practical importance. Notwithstanding this, Amendments 4 and 18 effectively would achieve the same practical impact in respect of the individuals to whom these remuneration rules apply. Amendment 4 would remove the reference to senior roles and replace it with a reference to directors of the company, while Amendment 18 would retain the concept of senior roles but effectively define them as directors of the company.
I do not believe that it is right for Ofwat to extend the rules to
“such other description of role”
as it specifies. Not only would such an extension be wider in scope than the current disclosure requirements of Section 35A of the Water Industry Act 1991 but it would be difficult to implement in practice, as different water companies will have individuals described differently by title and role. Nor would such an extension be consistent with the general remuneration and corporate governance rules for listed companies, which do not extend to individuals below board level.
I hope the Minister agrees that, through the adoption of my amendment, this additional power conferred on Ofwat by the Bill should be removed. If we wish to attract and support the next generation of leaders in this vital industry from middle management, this will not be achieved by extending these restrictive remuneration practices to them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that I have an experience, rather than an interest, as I was a non-executive director for a number of years on the board of Yorkshire Water. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that I never had a bonus during that time, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, has explained.
This group of amendments follows on neatly from the previous discussion about performance-related pay and the remuneration of senior directors of water and wastewater companies, so I thought it was worthwhile to draw out a bit more of the debate around this issue. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that water and wastewater companies are regulated by a number of different institutions. Ofwat is the economic regulator and, because of the way that the water Act was written, is primarily looking at the financial performance of the water companies. That inevitably leads to a disregard for the environmental outcomes of water companies as a priority. Consumers, who see that their rivers, lakes and coasts are being heavily polluted by these water companies, are astounded to see the same water companies giving huge bonuses to their directors. That is because the two issues are not related in the mind of Ofwat. That is why my party wants a single regulator for water companies, so that all the issues that are the responsibility of water and wastewater companies are taken into account. Part of that debate was reflected in the first group of amendments, discussed earlier.
We need to remind ourselves that remuneration in companies is decided by boards of directors. They will look at the financial objectives of the company and the outcome of the price review agreed by Ofwat and come to conclusions, whether or not objectives have been achieved or considerable benefit to the company accrued by the actions of directors.
That is part of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has attempted to describe, the price review is a tussle of words and figures between the companies on the one hand and Ofwat on the other. I remember the discussions. If you are in a company and you want to make sure there is a good outcome for your owners and shareholders, you make sure that the submissions you make in a price review to Ofwat enable profits to be made. That is the whole purpose of a private company. It is at the heart of all the discussions we are having about water companies, their performance and their remuneration and bonuses. The 1991 Act was designed for them to be private companies with shareholders, who were going to receive dividends as a consequence. If that is the prime duty, and the main regulator oversees that prime duty, the other issues that water companies ought to be taking into account—the environmental issues in particular, as we heard earlier—become less important.
I hope that, when we come to Report and discuss these issues more closely, the Minister will think about a government amendment that strengthens the duties of water companies, and of Ofwat as the regulator, to take into account these other issues. For me, that is at the heart of the discussions we have had on this group and the previous group. I agree with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. You cannot try to control pay awards further down the company; those often very talented people need to be attracted into water companies if we are to improve what is a sad state of affairs.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, which simply deletes new subsection (5)(c) on page 2. It seems to me that we cannot allow the authority—whatever it may be in the future, after the review, or even from now on—to start getting involved in the remuneration of those below board level. That really becomes too much intrusion into the way a company is run.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is entirely correct that, in the end, a director of a company is a director, whether executive or non-executive, as covered by the Bill; it mentions “a director” of the company. It seems to me that, while senior role remuneration should have some guidance from the authority, that should be restricted to the chief executive and other executive board members. There is no point entering into a discussion about non-executive directors, who clearly do not participate in performance-related pay or bonuses or anything like that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, is right; it would be appropriate to delete new subsection (5)(c) and include in this clause only the chief executive and any other executive director.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for moving Amendment 4. It is right that the Government should take steps to put appropriate pressure on water and sewage companies to reduce the frequency and scale of water pollution incidents, and imposing financial penalties on board-level executives is a powerful way of disincentivising unwanted behaviours in the sector. But if we are to have financial penalties targeted at water executives who do not meet the standards expected of them, we must ensure that these are appropriate. As we discussed in the last debate, it is crucial that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise the rules that Ofwat will be implementing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their interest in the rules relating to performance-related pay. The public have been clear that they expect to see change in the performance of the water industry and, where performance is poor, that executives should not receive bonuses.
I turn to the amendments in this group: Amendment 4 from my noble friend Lord Sikka and Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I thank them for their introductions and their unexpected agreement. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for sharing her experience of working with Yorkshire Water; these shared experiences are important as we develop the legislation going forward.
In line with the general principles of regulatory independence, Ofwat will rightly be responsible for developing and enforcing the rules on remuneration in governance, including determining the individuals in scope. As I mentioned in the previous group, Ofwat published its policy consultation on 22 October, and this will run through to 19 November. This consultation is to design the rules that are outlined in the Bill.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I will say that the consultation sets out Ofwat’s intention to apply rules on performance-related pay only to executive directors who are members of the regulated company board and receive performance-related pay. Ofwat has also stated in its policy consultation that it intends for the rules relating to fitness and propriety to apply in the first instance to chief executives and individuals appointed as directors to the board, and that would include both executive and non-executive directors. But Ofwat may consider extending the rules to other senior management roles in the future.
Allowing Ofwat to set out in the rules the performance metrics to be applied will also enable those standards to be more easily amended, subject to the relevant procedural requirements, where or when it is appropriate to do so in the future. Ofwat will of course need to consult with the relevant persons, and this will include the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Consumer Council for Water and other stakeholders, before these rules are finalised.
In conclusion, the Government will therefore not be accepting these amendments, because we need to ensure that Ofwat can retain the flexibility to expand the group of persons covered by the rules in future if appropriate.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and I am sure that some of the issues will return. Perhaps I may just clarify a point. The Bill also holds out the possibility of criminal sanctions against directors. Are we to assume that non-executive directors will never be charged with anything? The Post Office scandal shows that non-executive directors were culpable, so there appears to be a case for including them in some of these considerations. I am sure I will read Hansard with considerable interest and possibly return next time. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sikka
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to strengthen the Bill by focusing on total remuneration, regardless of the form.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Gosh—my turn again. This amendment seeks to replace the words “performance-related pay” with “total remuneration”. At Second Reading, I raised the question of how the ban on bonus payments was actually to be implemented. At the time, the Minister did not reply and, to my mind, the question still stands. Over the years, I have written many executive remuneration contracts and seen many others; some of them contain many odd bits. For example, so-called performance-related pay may come in the form of cash, shares, share options, chauffeur-driven cars, even gardeners, rent-free accommodation, children’s school fees and much more.
Published company accounts never really make it clear what the complete components are and the executive remuneration contracts are never filed at Companies House for anyone to see what exactly they are getting paid for. The value of some of these payments may not be known until some time in the future. For example, the value of a share option granted today and exercisable after a certain number of months or years would not be known until the date of the exercise. So how will the regulator decide whether any bonus payment is materially significant and deserving of a possible ban? Somebody might simply say, “This does not appear to be significant at the moment, but it could be significant by the time it is exercised”.
Companies can also shift the basis of bonus plans to retain or attract executives. If Ofwat or any other regulator were to impose a ban, it might change the weight attached to the part of the performance that may be considered by the regulator, and thereby defeat the whole objective of imposing any ban. The company can also easily bypass any restriction on bonus payments by adjusting the bonus pay. It can simply say to directors, “Your basic pay will increase and your bonus pay is down”. As many water companies are part of giant conglomerates, directors can be offered seats on other company boards so that their total remuneration is no less, even if a bonus is banned.
So it is not clear to me how this ban is going to be implemented. It looks good on paper, but in practice I have yet to hear the details, so what I am suggesting is that the attention needs to focus on total pay, not just bonuses, because bonuses can easily be bypassed. That is why this amendment seeks to substitute “performance-related pay” with “total remuneration”. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 6, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to which I have added my name, would mean a water company could not give performance-related pay to persons holding a senior role if the company had failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills or leaks. This definition also includes legal spills. We have included legal spills as this practice also needs to stop, and the only way to ensure that it does is by working to put pressure on private water companies to apply the appropriate and necessary levels of investment in infrastructure. Only then will these companies be operating as intended, and only then should they potentially be free to think about remuneration above and beyond basic salaries to their top executives.
I have also added my name to Amendment 28, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell. This amendment creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills or leaks. Taken together, these amendments seek to help tackle head-on one of the main issues that I am sure many of your Lordships had raised with them, with passion, on the doorsteps at the last general election: the sheer hypocrisy of water companies continuously and seemingly endlessly failing to protect our environment. It is outrageous that they are continuing to get away with unabated sewage spills in our much-loved rivers and lakes, all the while paying themselves massive bonuses and dividends and racking up huge amounts of debt.
We are not able to go to the beach or to wild swim, while they get rich off the back of failure after failure. All of this has been done while failing to adequately invest in the infrastructure that is so desperately needed to end this seemingly endless cycle of scandal. My party has tirelessly campaigned on this issue and we will continue to do so. No other issue has cut through to the electorate on such a scale and with such a level of arguable clarity as this one has. Indeed, the promise to scrap CEO bonuses was a core manifesto pledge we stood on at the last general election. The electorate are outraged and rightly so. No one feels good when they are overcharged for the privilege of receiving an appalling service. To be clear, this is exactly what bill payers are getting with a proposed 40% increase in bills and no end in sight to the pollution of our environment. Our rivers, streams and lakes have been polluted to the point of collapse. My party has led a campaign on these issues that cut through on all sides of the political spectrum.
The broken system has seen those who have a duty to protect polluting with no consequences, and time and again they have rewarded themselves lavishly for the privilege. Instead of the “polluter pays” principle ever being applied, we have the “polluter awards themselves a pay increase” principle applied every time. In 2023 alone there were some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England, up a staggering 105% on the year before. How many fines have been levelled against water companies in the previous few years? I have really struggled to find that information. Meanwhile, water companies have paid at least £78 billion in dividends while failing to invest.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name. As this is my first contribution on an amendment of my own, I thank the Minister for meeting me, for the fact sheets and the letter, and for the good news that the commission and the review are taking place. We all appreciate that. I support the Bill and welcome the commission review to come.
I turn to the amendment. As touched on by other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in the debates on the second and third groups of amendments, company employees require appropriate remuneration, just as investors need a return. But the financial engineering introduced previously by investors and company directors—for example, debt levels, transfers to parent companies and other practices that were forensically set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka —has enabled opaque enrichment, and has subsequently brought some water companies close to bankruptcy. That is not what monopoly water companies are for, and I believe it lies at the very heart of the current problems of the water companies.
The amendment enables the authority to include rules or guidance, as we may decide, with regard to a company’s structuring and its transparent reporting. It is deliberately left as “may” rather than “must” because the authority may want some flexibility here. Nevertheless, the amendment would act as an overt reference to the responsibility of the authority and water company employees to evaluate clearly the company’s financial structures and changes to them, and how those would impact on the distribution of financial benefits across investors, employees, directors and, indeed, consumers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, yet again for introducing this group and raising these matters for consideration when the Government are establishing the regulations surrounding performance, pay and bonuses.
Amendment 17 seeks to clarify the definition of what constitutes performance-related pay. There are many ways in which companies can create performance-based incentive schemes. That can include multiyear programmes containing cash bonuses, share awards, restricted stock units, share options and pension contributions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, it rarely includes chauffeur-driven cars, private schooling or any other benefits in kind, which tend to be part of the base package.
Is the intention to capture all forms of performance-based rewards within the powers of the Bill? If so, would it not be better to be exhaustive in defining them in the Bill? It is vital that such a definition be as clear as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its intent to punish senior executives who are not fulfilling their obligations to us all in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches.
In the Bill as drafted, the rules are not clear enough as to what financial components could make up the bonus of a senior water company employee in a given financial year. The amendment is therefore necessary to prevent water companies redesigning performance-based awards to take them outside the scope of the Bill. This is not to suggest any nefarious activity, but anyone currently captured by the Bill would choose not to be if they were able. It would then become impossible for a water company not to offer schemes outside the scope of the Bill if they wanted to attract the best talent.
I understand the intention of Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It is indeed important that we ensure that water companies have no incentives to continue polluting our rivers. We have looked at this issue in our own amendments. Amendment 27 would ensure that any rules relating to pay and governance will be suitably scrutinised, so I believe the issue could be solved without the inclusion of Amendment 5.
Additionally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whether he has considered the impact that this amendment would have on the hiring process of water companies. I think it unlikely that many people would respond to a job advert indicating that you may have a salary but that there is a chance that by the end of the year it could be taken away from you. If the total remuneration of senior roles is included in the Bill, it is inevitable that water companies will lose people with relevant skills and experience in the sector. That will worsen the leadership and perhaps lead to more serious issues within the sector.
It is also possible that the water companies would be forced to delegate their own management to third-party consultants outside the scope of the Bill entirely, in order to find the necessary expertise to run the companies. Have the Government given thought to how to cope with the possibility of such third-party consultants not captured by the Bill?
On Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I agree that both legal and illegal dumping of sewage lead to undesirable outcomes. As such, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. In 2022 we published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which put in place targets to reduce the release of the overflow of sewage and in fact to stop it, except in situations with unusually heavy rainfall, by 2050. So we recognise that the issue is a pressing one and that action must be taken to ensure our rivers are kept clean. However, in order to stop the legal release of sewage, a substantial investment of money and time is necessary, and the amendment does not allow for such provision of time.
Our sewerage systems are a result of Victorian infrastructure design, and the increasing population and heavier, more frequent storms have led to increased pressure on this system. The suggested penalty will make it even less desirable to hold a senior role in a water company. As such, it will further decrease the number of people with skills and expertise at senior levels. This is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the water system for consumers, which is ultimately the aim we share across these Benches. I fail to see how we can support the noble Baroness’s amendment, despite the case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would require executives to take personal liability through their performance-related pay for unspecified structuring or restructuring that may put companies at financial risk. This would appear to us to be too vague to have much bite. It also potentially means that executives’ performance-related pay would be contingent on issues over which they might not have responsibility because they could be overridden by shareholders.
As I mentioned earlier, in response to an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 92 in my name in a later group, which would be a clear-cut prevention of payments to shareholders where there are potential issues of financial distress.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will tighten up the definition of performance-related pay in line with our amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions regarding matters we need to be considering in the rules for performance-related pay. As I previously noted, to rebuild public trust we are creating a new framework for supporting accountability. As part of this, Ofwat will be issuing new rules on bonuses, including standards relating to environmental performance.
I turn to Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. In recent years, public concern has been focused on water company bonuses, particularly in the instances where performance has been poor. Companies must work to regain their customers’ trust, including by holding those in senior roles accountable so that their remuneration better reflects the service that customers rightly expect. We are giving Ofwat new powers to issue rules on remuneration and governance to ensure that companies and executives are held accountable for failure and to drive improvements in performance. We are requiring Ofwat to exercise these powers to prioritise making rules to prohibit bonuses for underperforming companies.
Ofwat already sets expectations on executives’ performance-related pay. This measure will strengthen its existing powers to ensure that bonuses are not paid in any financial year in which standards are not met. Ofwat’s rules on remuneration will cover both financial bonuses and bonuses in kind, limiting any potential loopholes in the policy. We believe that performance-related pay can be an effective tool within the overall remuneration package and will incentivise leaders to focus on improvements that can transform performance. Remuneration committees for each water company independently determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their executives. We therefore do not propose to amend the requirement on Ofwat to make rules to cover total remuneration.
Amendments 6 and 28 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and ably introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. These relate to the consideration of environmental standards in the rules for remuneration and governance. In line with the general principles of regulatory independence, Ofwat will rightly be responsible for developing and enforcing these rules. However, the Government are clear that environmental standards are a vital component. Ofwat must, following consultation, provide that environmental standards have to be met by companies if performance-related pay is to be given to persons holding senior roles. Ofwat’s policy consultation, which we have previously discussed, proposes that bonuses will be prohibited if a company has had a serious category 1 or 2 pollution incident in the preceding calendar year.
The noble Lord, Earl Russell, asked for some figures. I can tell him that, since 2015, enforcement action by the EA and Ofwat has resulted in over £400 million in fines to water companies or money back for customers. I hope that noble Earl is therefore reassured that this new clause is unnecessary, noting that Ofwat must already include environmental criteria when designing the rules in relation to performance-related pay.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, giving us much food for thought. I thank the Minister for her response and I withdraw my amendment for the time being.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 8 in my name. These amendments are in a group looking at exemptions from the rules under Clause 1. My particular concern relates to the obligations being imposed by Clause 1, and indeed the rest of the Bill, on water companies where they may not and could not possibly be held responsible for the activities they are undertaking because the fault lies with others who are not currently within the remit of the Bill.
The purpose of these amendments is to reflect the fact that water companies should be held responsible under the terms of the Bill, in particular Clause 1, only for those activities within their specific responsibility. Clearly, for example, where there are missed connections between wastewater pipes and major developments, water companies should not be held responsible if they are obliged to fit these new connections into inadequate, antiquated pipes that simply cannot take the amount of waste coming.
The background to this very simple measure follows from the Pitt review—the noble Baroness will recall that I raised this at Second Reading—following the severe floods of 2007. I think it is worthy of note that Sir Michael Pitt is from East Yorkshire, which is more vulnerable to coastal flooding than just about any other part of the country. His 2007 review identified, for the first time, surface water flooding as well.
In connection with surface water flooding, the two most consequential amendments set out that mandatory construction of sustainable drainage systems in major developments should take place so as to contain floodwater and prevent it mixing with sewage through overflows into the combined sewers.
Further, and this is where the developers should have a responsibility and not the water companies, I ask the Minister to look favourably at ending the automatic right to connect, which has so far never happened. That one measure alone would mean that misconnections—whereby the existing infrastructure is deemed to fit the amount of wastewater coming from major new developments—would simply not happen in the future. Most of these developments are made up of four or five-bedroom homes with, dare I say, four or five times the amount of sewage coming out of them into inadequate Victorian pipes. Currently, under the planning rules, developers and local authorities deem those connections to be safe and refuse to put in appropriate infrastructure to ensure that a safe connection can be made. Were the water companies to be recognised in the planning application process as statutory consultees, on the same basis as the Environment Agency comparatively recently has been, those misconnections could be averted. The simple measure of making water companies statutory consultees, on the same basis as the Environment Agency, would help in that regard.
When she looks at these amendments in summing up, would the Minister agree to obliging developers to have sustainable drains fitted to take excess rainwater into a soakaway, pond or culvert to prevent it mixing with sewage water in combined sewers, which is currently leading to sewage overflows? It is not fair to make the water companies responsible for that. Were they to be statutory consultees, they would probably argue that the wastewater will not fit the pipes currently in place.
This has led to some very perverse sewage spills. I remember when I was in the other place there was a school in Filey that suffered £1 million-worth of damage to its swimming pool and, I think, the maths department. Existing developments had to be evacuated for six to nine months because of the public health aspect of sewage coming in. Precisely because a small development of only 30 houses was pumping out so much sewage, the rainwater when mixed with it had nowhere else to go and it went into the school and the existing developments. I am sure noble Lords could give other examples of this.
I ask the Minister to review the way in which highways currently contribute to pollution through rainwater running off the road surface, taking with it oil, brake fluid and other pollutants. When this combines with floodwater, it enters the combined sewers and then often goes into homes, causing huge damage and a public health disaster.
I hope the Minister will agree that water companies should be held responsible for those activities within their control but cannot be held responsible for circumstances which are outwith their control. These two small, tightly-drawn amendments would fit that purpose.
I conclude by asking the Minister this. If these amendments are not added to the Bill, what mechanism do the Government intend to use to ensure that water companies will be held responsible under the Bill only for activities under their direct control and not those under the control of others, such as developers and highways authorities, which are currently excluded from the remit of the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She raised some important issues, about, first of all, the way that surface water drainage is treated. As the Minister will know, surface water is combined with sewage water in the same pipes in many of our towns and cities, and increasing rainfall and development is putting pressure on that combined drainage system.
The other issue to consider, which the noble Baroness raised, is the pressure put on local authority planning services to agree to housing developments where the existing infrastructure is not appropriate to support them, with developers reluctant to fork out huge sums of money to pay for the additional drainage systems needed. The answer lies in empowering local authorities’ planning services to put conditions on planning consent which specifically require developers to build the appropriate infrastructure to support the development that they wish to build.
There is a related point. I am a local councillor; in my experience, where there is an issue of surface water, the planning services require underwater attenuation tanks to be built to hold that water until it can be released to the natural drainage systems, such as streams. However, the developers are very reluctant to do that, and are seeking to get around it in other ways. Surface water drainage issues and local authorities’ inability to enforce this is something that the Minister may wish to raise with her colleagues in local government when it comes to reforms of the planning system, as it will affect the Minister’s environment responsibilities. I agree with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I was not planning to speak this evening, and indeed I have to go shortly, but this debate raises broader issues.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that water companies should not be pursued by the authority for things which are not their fault and which they are unable to do anything about. However, this underlines the need to ensure that the new authority, whatever it is, is a very powerful authority.
As noble Lords may recall, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I suggested that we should have a combined regulator. That has been rejected so far, but we need a regulator that can take steps against not only the water companies but other bodies which make the water companies’ tasks impossible or extremely difficult, and which are themselves primarily responsible for the pollution, flooding or other damage caused by the water.
That applies not only to developers, although I think that developers are probably explicitly the worst in this context, but, as the noble Baroness has just said, to highways authorities and to discharges from agriculture. If there is a water authority that has to deal with the far end of the effects of these discharges or the inadequacy of the piping, that authority should have the ability to take such steps. At the moment, it is either the local authority that does that in terms of planning permission, or it is the highways authority, which pays no attention whatever to water run-off, frankly, or it is the various bits of agriculture regulation. But if we are concerned about making sure that we have less sullied water and no threat of flooding, which may well be caused by people other than the water companies, I would argue that at some stage the Government will have to consider giving powers to the new authority that cover those companies, or particular actions by those companies, as well as the water companies.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments, but I want to make one comment on the discussion, which has possibly strayed a little from the Bill. Dealing with surface run-off and, in particular, developers’ right to connect are outdated. I hope that the Minister will urge those involved with the review to have a serious look at this, because it is completely outdated, and with increasing development, not to mention climate change, it will only get worse. It needs tackling properly.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving this important amendment, which has caused a little bit of welcome excitement in the Committee. Both Amendments 7 and 8 seek to ensure that senior executives do not receive a financial penalty for failures that were not their fault or within their control, and we on these Benches feel that the noble Baroness’s amendments merit consideration by Ministers. The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, at the end also merits some consideration.
It is right that the Government should take steps to ensure that, when a water company fails to meet the standards set by Ofwat, the responsible executive is held to account. While it is right that company directors take responsibility for the successes and failures of a business, under the Bill, other senior officers, who may not be members of the board of directors, could be penalised under these rules. The argument that the relevant senior executive is held responsible, rather than an officer of the company who was not responsible for the decision, is a simple one. Rather than applying financial penalties to all senior executives, including those below board level, these rules should penalise only those who are responsible for the company’s conduct.
It is quite a long time since I last worked in industry, but I do not think that much has changed to this day. Who is responsible depends on the level of direct supervision by a more senior officer. At lower levels of a company, it is quite straightforward: the supervisor or the foreman has minute-by-minute relationships with the team under him or her, so they could be held responsible for faulty work or bad behaviour by their workers. But that is at the lower level. As you get higher up a company, the whole ethos changes. Executives are supposed to set objectives and delegate to their other officers how it is done. The CEO, or directors, tell officers under their command, “Here are your legal duties and these are the company objectives. Here are your own personal targets and objectives—report to me weekly, monthly or whatever on how you are progressing. Now, just get on with it”.
There is no direct day-to-day supervision, and the CEO has to trust that the senior officers below him or her obey the law, behave properly and do not cause the breaches that we are concerned about. It would be wrong to blame and reduce the pay of CEOs or directors based on a mistake by a person under him or her where they have no direct control. Of course, the exception would be in the extraordinary circumstances in which the CEO or executive director gave instructions to the worker to break the law or not to care about the rules. That would be a different matter.
Without these amendments, we are concerned that it may prove difficult to find professionals willing to take on senior roles at water companies if there is a risk they will suffer an unfair loss of performance-related earnings through no fault of their own. It is a basic principle of performance-based pay for employees below board level that it should be tied to their performance as an employee within a team. It would not be an effective incentive scheme if one individual or team were deprived of their performance-related benefits because of the behaviours of failures of another individual below board level. As we discussed at Second Reading, arbitrary punishment will not improve performance; it will only encourage people to seek employment outside the water sector.
If we are to deliver the improvements to the water sector that the British people rightly expect, we must attract more talent to the sector through a fair incentives and penalties regime. The Bill is a bit too broad and could permit rules to be applied to the sector by Ofwat that are unfair and ineffective. Furthermore, when a current bonus scheme, or contractual bonus, provides for the bonus to be payable on the achievement of certain performance conditions, and the performance conditions have been met, an employer is, in effect, obliged to award the bonus. In cases where an employer may grant discretionary bonuses, employers are required to exercise this discretion honestly and in good faith, not to exercise it in an arbitrary, capricious or irrational way, and not to breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
It concerns me that, should the Government choose not to include these amendments in the Bill, and individuals’ performance-related pay was docked for actions or responsibilities beyond their control or remit, it would put the employer in a position of complying with the requirements of rules created by Ofwat under this Bill but then acting contrary to these common-law and contractual requirements. That leads to a concern that this scenario could result in costly and time-consuming litigation, thus diverting funds which would otherwise be better spent improving our water and sewage systems. Therefore, I encourage the Government to accept these amendments so that, should a water company fail to meet the standards set by Ofwat, only the relevant executives are held responsible. However, if the Government are unwilling to put this on a statutory footing, we hope that Ofwat would be willing to enact these principles under its rules, which could be overseen by the House under Amendment 27 as an affirmative instrument.
I want to comment on the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on surface water. I put it this way: if we were starting again from scratch a couple of hundred years ago, we would have designed a system whereby we never had rainwater from gutters or car parks running off into Mr Bazalgette’s sewage system—but we are where we are now. In an ideal world, two pipes would come into every house and, as the noble Lord suggested earlier, one would have clean water for drinking and the other water for flushing the toilet or for hose pipes. We cannot go back and do that now—but what we can do is look at new developments, and I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in that regard.
I understood that it is possible if one is building a car park, before one puts in the hardcore, to lay a whole series of ooze pipes and then collect all the rainwater run-off, so it replenishes the underground stream by putting the water back into the subsoil. That should be possible. Whatever it is, we need to look at new developments to ensure that surface water is not unnecessarily going into our sewage system. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has said.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, through provisions introduced by Clause 1, Ofwat will be able to issue new rules on remuneration and governance to ensure that companies and executives are subject to robust oversight and held accountable for failure. Among other things, these rules will ensure that executives will no longer be able to take bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability.
Amendments 7 and 8, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seek to ensure that these rules apply only in instances where the failure to meet the required standards is due to a failing by that individual and not another person. I start by reassuring the noble Baroness that, should companies meet their performance expectations, executives will rightly be rewarded. However, the changes proposed through Amendment 7, in particular, would make it more difficult for Ofwat to implement the rules on remuneration and governance in a meaningful way. This is because it would introduce an additional test to be met before the bonus ban could be applied, where a link between the specific actions of an individual senior leader and the performance failings of a company as a whole might be difficult to demonstrate.
Senior executives are also collectively responsible for the actions of the company and therefore should be held responsible for poor performance. However, having said that, Ofwat has stated, in the policy consultation it published last week, that, while it intends for the rules to apply to most performance-related pay decisions by water companies,
“there may be … exceptional circumstances where a payment should not be prohibited”.
For example, if an incident leading to a rule breach was clearly and demonstrably beyond the control of the company, this could be grounds for an exemption from the ban.
Considering the changes proposed by Amendment 8, we also consider it unlikely that individuals in senior roles will fail to meet Ofwat’s future standards of “fitness and propriety” due to a failing on the part of another person. The potential criteria proposed by Ofwat in its consultation to measure “fitness and propriety” include character, previous conduct, and knowledge. These criteria are specific to the individual, rather than the performance of the company, and do not obviously relate to acts by other persons.
I just want to mention an issue that the debate moved on to, around drainage and SUDS. We are going to be discussing SUDS further in group 8, so we shall talk about that then, but I want to assure the noble Baroness that we are engaging with officials in MHCLG, because it is really important that we have a proper discussion around planning and drainage as we move forward with development. I am very aware of the problems that surface water can cause in new development if it is not thought through properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, drew the Committee’s notice to the commission and asked whether it would be discussed there. I will draw the Committee’s attention, for interest, to part of the scope of the commission:
“Where housing, planning, agriculture and drainage interlink with strategic planning for the water system, these are in scope. ... The commission should have regard to how the water sector regulatory system provides the certainty around the provision of water infrastructure needed to underpin development plans, housing growth and sustainable development, while strategically protecting and enhancing the environment. This should include how regulation and planning for water infrastructure and for residential and commercial development can work together more effectively to anticipate and invest to provide for future growth, to quickly resolve and prevent issues where water and wastewater capacity constraints may otherwise inhibit necessary development (such as through their impact on requirements for water and nutrient neutrality)”.
So, although it is not entirely dealing with the issue around SUDS, I think it is something we need to explore further with the housing department, for example, and with local government. There is an opportunity to look at development and water within the scope of the commission. I hope that is helpful for noble Lords to understand.
I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness that the rules will be applied to individuals in a proportionate manner, and made clear why the Government consider these amendments to be unnecessary.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate in some depth these two amendments. I just clarify that the automatic right to connect is very different from SUDS and I do not think the noble Baroness addressed that point. I still have reservations, because I believe it is inappropriate in terms of Clause 2 to speak about pollution incident reduction plans when so many of the sewage discharges can self-evidently be found not to be the responsibility of water companies at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, so eloquently and appropriately recorded, these incidents are only going to increase as we see the number of major new developments of four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses increase.
Earl Russell
“(d) requiring a relevant undertaker to have arrangements in place for environmental experts to be members of a board, committee or panel of a relevant undertaker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Ofwat to create rules to compel water companies to place environmental experts on their board, committee, or panel.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to representation on water company boards. This is the third-largest of the 24 groups we are scrutinising in Committee, so it is clear that many noble Lords are concerned about these matters and have a number of ideas for discussion about how representation can be broadened, made more representative and more fit for purpose, and used as part of the wider toolkit to help ensure that water companies act appropriately and are held to account at all levels.
I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 9 in my name would require Ofwat to create rules to compel water companies to place environmental experts on their board, committee or panel. I find it extraordinary that water companies can be allowed to operate, selling a natural resource, where their actions are having such devastating impacts on our environment, yet they are still not required to have environmental experts at the highest levels of their corporate governance structures. To date, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that many non-executive directors on many water company boards have failed to bring significant added benefits for their presence. How do we expect senior leadership teams and the chief executive officers to have the necessary knowledge, senior accountability and the ability to have due regard in fulfilling their functions if environmental knowledge, expertise and challenge are not mandated at the most senior executive governance and decision-making levels? We have various rules and guidance in place for lots of other types of make-up, backgrounds and skills in other board structures, so why do we not have the environment as a condition? Is it simply that we do not value the environment in our decision-making at senior levels? I think this is something we should not allow to stand.
The environment and environmental decisions need to be at the very heart of water companies’ plans, decisions and actions. We must work to ensure that corporate governance is not able to use ignorance as an excuse for causing environmental damage or for failing to adequately prepare for the impacts of rapid global climate change. Our water companies need to have environmental concerns at the very forefront of their long-term thinking, plans and strategies, from issues such as drought and the impacts of extreme rain events and floods, to the projections and limits on abstraction and the need for new reservoirs. All these matters require environmental knowledge and challenge at the heart of water company boardrooms.
We also need community environmental experts sitting on water company boards—an idea my party included in our last election manifesto. As non-executive directors they could help improve accountability, transparency and community relationships, and provide an important interface that could help ensure that water companies take sewage spills seriously by ensuring that community concerns are raised at board level and that water companies take appropriate action and communicate it effectively with local communities. As environmental experts, they could hold community meetings and report back on action being taken by companies, improving information flows and accountability. Environmental governance concerns are at the very heart of the water companies’ business, and the case for requiring environmental experts to be included on their boards along with consumer representation is, in my opinion, very strong. I kindly ask the Minister to lend government support to this amendment and to give a response from the Government Benches to these ideas.
I have added my name to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell. This is another simple “may” to “must” amendment and would require Ofwat, as part of its rules on consumer representation, to require water companies to place consumers on their board, committee or panel. It would require Ofwat to direct water companies to perform certain actions if it considers them to be contravening rules under new Section 35B. New Section 35B(2) sets out that Ofwat must exercise this power to issue rules that achieve specific effects, but the power in new Section 35B(1) provides only that the authority “may” issue such rules. As the Bill is written now, it is not at all clear that it is incumbent on the authority to use the power specified in the Bill to lay such rules. In our opinion, it is necessary that the Bill clearly states that the authorities have a duty to lay out such rules. I call on the Minister to support this amendment to make certain that the Government’s own intentions are clear and well defined so that they can be enforced as they should. What is the Government’s thinking on when the initial rules might be published?
Finally, Amendment 24 would require Ofwat to direct water companies to perform certain actions if it considers them to be contravening rules under new Section 35B. The Bill says:
“If the Authority considers that a relevant undertaker is contravening the rules, the Authority may give the undertaker a direction to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction”.
All these clauses concern rules on remuneration and governance, including performance-related pay. If the authority does find that a relevant undertaking is contravened, the rules in the Bill do not say that the authority must give a direction. As written, it is not at all clear that it is incumbent on the authority to use the powers specified in the Bill. Why do we have the rules in the Bill if there is not also a clear requirement for breaches to be enforced? Left as it is, the clause leaves a get-out-of-jail-free card for the authority to not give a direction, even where the evidence of a contravention is clear.
Other amendments in this group include one from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which requires the regulator to engage formally with civil society; one from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which requires CEOs of relevant undertakers to have regular meetings with relevant consumer and environmental panels; and one from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on the governance structures of the authority. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 16 in my name. I underline at the outset that this is not about putting people on the board; if that is a misapprehension, I want to dispel it. Civil society has been at the forefront of raising issues around water pollution, including monitoring pollution incidents, and, frankly, it has done a better job than the regulators, which have been playing catch-up ever since.
There is an unbalanced and sometimes adversarial power relationship between civil society, water companies and the regulator, and this has given rise to numerous complaints about a lack of transparency—for example, companies deliberately adopting a very narrow definition of “environmental” in order to reject and bat away inquiries from civil society and others. This amendment would require the regulator and water companies to engage with civil society on a regular and formalised basis to agree actions and to record these actions publicly.
This achieves two things. It addresses the disbalance between civil society, the water companies and the regulators and will be an important means to increase transparency, including detailed public transparency as to what is going on, what the regulators and water companies are being challenged on and what actions are planned. It is very easy to underestimate the importance of this. In a previous role I had, we were handing over large sums of money to organisations and one of the stipulations was that they had to publish on their own website exactly what actions they had committed to. This made life very easy for us, because the media then held them to account against those actions. I suggest that a formal process where these things are recorded properly and publicly will be of great assistance to keep the water companies and the regulators up to the mark. Without a formal process of that sort, the relationship will remain distant and most likely adversarial. Therefore, I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment or produce one of her own from the government side.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 21 and 23 in my name. In effect, they both seek to amend new subsection (6) on page 2. The main point of my amendment is that I believe it does not lead to effective governance of a board of directors if sectional interests are represented directly on the board. It is much more effective and likely to have more influence if a specialist panel is created to advise and meet the chief executive. I cannot understand why the Government’s clause refers only to the views of consumers. It seems essential—I agree in various ways with the noble Earl, Lord Russell—that environmental interests are similarly represented on a panel. It could be a separate panel or one representing both consumer and environmental interests; I think it would be better to have two panels.
The real point is that I have never seen a board work effectively where there is a sectional interest represented directly on the board, with one or two members of the board speaking only for that particular interest. It makes it very difficult to reach a consensus on a board. Most boards work by consensus, and there has to be a collegiate atmosphere on any board. Where a particular interest is represented, be it environmental or consumer, that is less likely to lead to effective management of the board of that company.
I would like to persuade the Minister to delete from new subsection (6) “board” and “committee” but leave in “panel”, to include consumers and environmentalists on those panels and, importantly, that those panels should have regular meetings with the chief executive to exercise real influence over the conclusions of the board when it next meets on that subject.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, this group of amendments deals with a common theme of representation on water company boards but has several different facets.
Amendment 22 in my name would ensure that it is for the boards of water companies, rather than Ofwat, to decide in which forum—board, committee or panel—the views of consumers should be represented. As we have heard, Clause 1 includes provisions intended to establish consumer involvement in corporate decision-making. New subsection (6) provides that this
“may include a requirement for persons representing the views of consumers to be members of a board, committee or panel of”
the water company. While I support the principle of strengthening the voice of consumers, this should not be through a highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach.
In this country we do not have different categories of director, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, reminded us earlier. Non-executive directors may have specialisations, but they are chosen for their wider skills and ability to make a comprehensive contribution. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, just made a similar point. Those representing consumer interests may not wish or be equipped to sit on corporate boards, with all the responsibilities and liabilities that entails. It should not be for Ofwat to require that such people sit on the boards of water companies but should be left to the companies to decide which forum best suits their requirements, whether that be board, committee or panel.
Providing similar flexibility was effective when companies enacted the workforce engagement mechanism under the UK Corporate Governance Code’s requirements. A very small number of companies appointed a director from the workforce, largely for the considerations I have mentioned. Some established a formal workforce advisory panel, and a greater number appointed a designated non-executive director for workforce engagement. Each company chose the mechanism best suited to its circumstances, and the system has worked well.
Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, extend the provisions of this clause to environmental experts. It will be for your Lordships to decide how widely to draw the categories of relevant interest, however represented, but the principle in the latter amendment of representation other than at board level is very much in line with the rationale behind my amendment. I shall listen with interest to the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their Amendments 82 and 100 respectively. However, they would represent a radical departure from accepted standards of corporate governance and company law, so I would hesitate to support them.
My earlier dose of optimism is becoming somewhat jaded. A recurring theme seems to be emerging in the Minister’s replies: everything is for Ofwat to decide. That displays a touching and, if I may venture, possibly naive belief in Ofwat deciding wisely on many matters that are not within its competence as an economic regulator. Concerns have been expressed on all sides about its past record. Surely it should be the role of this House to take more responsibility on itself and give much more direction and guidance to Ofwat on how it should exercise the significant additional powers this Bill gives it—or, as in this case, remove the key choice from Ofwat and give it to the companies, within a defined framework imposed by us.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 82 addresses a major question that the Bill does not address: why do water regulators fail? After all, they have been at it for many years—at least 35 years, some of them—yet they continue to fail. No proposal in the Bill addresses that. They continue to fail because they are isolated from the lives of the people affected by sewage spills, high customer bills, low investment and water simply leaking away.
The regulatory bodies are generally made up of former Ministers and executives. Someone who has done a stint at a water company disappears to Ofwat; Ofwat’s former chief executive is now director of a water company. There is a revolving door. These people have a world of their own which does not connect with that of the people directly affected by their activities. For any regulatory system to be effective, it must represent a plurality of interests, but our regulatory system and bodies are closely aligned with corporate interests. They are, in essence, captured. If this capture is not there—and is not the reason for their failures—then someone will have to explain why the water industry is in a mess and why the guiding hand of regulators has not been able to put it on a path to recovery, good practices or good behaviour.
The Bill seems to propose consumer panels, which are, in essence, toothless: they have no social constituency to report to because they are not really elected by anyone but simply co-opted on the basis that someone knows somebody and brings them in; they are not required to report to any constituencies; they cannot easily object to the practices of the regulatory bodies; and they can simply be bludgeoned into silence and just go along because that is the norm. We have heard that these amendments somehow propose something unusual and therefore we have to be bludgeoned into silence and simply go along, because tradition is oppressive and that is what we have to do.
My amendment calls for direct representation of elected representatives of employees and stakeholders on the board of the regulatory authority and to give them power to vote on executive remuneration. That would be the ultimate sanction when they disapprove of how the regulatory body is safeguarding or protecting the public interest. If they cannot vote on executive remuneration, they will simply be a shadow. The amendment seeks, in essence, to democratise regulation. I know that democracy is not very fashionable these days, so if the Minister opposes this democratisation of regulation, it would be helpful to know how the Government will check cognitive capture of regulatory bodies, because no other solution is being offered by anybody. If we were to expand on this, in the next group I could lay out a complete framework of what else needs to be done, but this is simply to test and, I hope, elicit a response from the Government.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 100. The issues of water pollution and the supply of clean water to everybody are ones I clearly care a lot about. But this Bill is just papering over the cracks. If we are going to paper over cracks, we could at least try a radical departure; perhaps we could try to bring some democracy into the regime.
I take issue with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I have chaired a board and it was extremely successful. Part of that was because I invited people who thought very differently on to the board. We had 20 members or so. It was called London Food and we were tasked with writing a report for the Mayor of London on a sustainable food strategy for the city. It was successful, I would argue, partly because of my charm—obviously —but also because we had extremely good reports from every single aspect of food and food supply for London. We had a member from the City who was obviously a Conservative, we had an organic farmer and so on. We had a huge range of people, but we agreed on the strategy and we came to some very useful conclusions. This is what we need: we need some democracy in the systems that try to keep us safe.
Honestly, given the scale of the challenge that the water industry faces at the moment, in trying to make a system work that has proved not to work, we need to ensure that there are some new voices that can represent other parts of society that use the water system and care very deeply about it. We should also involve the people who actually do the work. My amendment brings in people from the workforce.
At the moment, the CEOs and senior staff are more focused on delivering dividends than they are on delivering a quality service, so having worker representatives on the board would provide a constant voice for those whose job it is to provide a service. The regulators have been captured by the industry they are meant to be keeping an eye on, so they are almost useless. This system should not be a national scheme but one based on the geography of the water systems themselves.
I am a believer in democracy and this would be an extremely useful way of making sure that a crucial industry for our society has some resonance with people out there. I am sure that this would be welcomed by the majority of people, just as I am sure that the Minister is aware that polls suggest a majority of people would prefer public ownership. Failing that, however, let us get the public in there, talking and being listened to.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments, particularly those placed before us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. To the last speaker I have to say that there is a fundamental difference between chairing a committee to produce a report and running a business, which is what the water company has to be. She is absolutely right, however, that this Bill does not properly address the fundamental problem that we have two regulators and they have failed to produce a co-ordinated programme for the water industry.
I speak as somebody who knows a bit about it because, until 10 or 11 years ago, I was chairman of a water-only water company—so do not blame me about sewage as I never had anything to do with that. However, I do therefore know a bit about water companies. It was always impossible to meet the requirements of both the Environment Agency and Ofwat. Ofwat was under pressure from the Government to keep bills down and the Environment Agency, perfectly rightly, was saying that we should do more for the environment. As chairman of a water-only company, I was interested in doing something about the pollution of the water sources right from the beginning instead of having to clean them up, which is a very stupid way of dealing with it. Ofwat, however, would never allow one to do those things, whereas the Environment Agency was much more sympathetic.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, we spoke earlier about the issue of two regulators and I will not go back over that. However, I will talk a little more about the presence of people on boards. I think there is a middle ground here—obviously beautifully set out in my amendment. To extrapolate a little from that, I agree that directors in a company have specific responsibilities which would not sit comfortably with having a consumer representative as a member of the board. That is clear and right.
These companies, however, are not just profit-making companies which represent shareholder interests; they are monopolies providing a service to the public for which they achieve a reward. That is an important distinction to make. For that reason, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that avoiding groupthink and having challenge on a board is a very useful thing. However, I would not go so far as to make them directors, for all sorts of legal reasons that others have already expounded.
It pains me to disagree marginally with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I do not like panels, because they become ghettos that the unfortunate member of board who has to interact with them dreads going to—but they go anyway, they go through the motions and then they come back. I far prefer something more formal: a regular cycle of meetings with representatives of civil society, which are going to be challenging and sometimes uncomfortable but which end with recorded actions that are made public. Otherwise, it becomes just a token exercise and a ghettoisation into panels. I will not try to emulate the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but the representatives of consumers or environmentalists can be listened to but not heard.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been one of the really interesting groups in the Bill. I am not certain that any of us—from any party, in any amendment—has the complete solution. There are questions about whether a one-size solution fits all. In any case, there is a lot for all of us to go away and think about. These are crucial issues that go to the heart of what we do, how water companies operate, how they are accountable and how people who are impacted by them can feed in to and influence what they do and how they operate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his contribution. I fully support him on the role of civil society. It is particularly important that we all acknowledge, as he did, that we would not be here without the role of civil society. I have an amendment in a later group to encourage the Government to work more with civil society in monitoring the environment.
I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his comments on the need for environmental representation. I am not quite certain where I agree on that debate; I will go away and think about it some more. I have also been on a board, and to be honest, it was one of the most difficult things I have done in my life. That was even on a good, well-functioning board. Sometimes, if you are in a difficult situation, even with good people who work together, things can be very difficult.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, for tabling his amendment. The board should decide on its own make-up and we should not dictate to it. Perhaps there is some kind of compromise here between the Government setting guidelines for what needs to happen, while perhaps allowing some freedom within the way that it is organised and monitoring the outputs that come from it. Maybe there is something we can all work on there.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for his contribution. It is a bold move, indeed, and I am not entirely certain that I agree with that kind of prescriptive democracy. I think that it is better to allow things to be inclusive, as opposed to dictating that they must be in their make-up, but again, I will think about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about bringing some democracy into the regime. I certainly think we need that, and that the environment needs a proper, formal voice. I take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the need to watch the environment. If we do not do that, and if nobody has that responsibility or role, then that protective piece that needs to happen will not be there.
I think our areas of agreement were the need to broaden representation to include the environment and community, the need for diversity, the need for boards to work well, the need for constructive challenge to operate and to be brought to these companies at the highest level, and the view what we have now is not working, so we need to go away and find something else.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 100. The water authorities in Berlin and Paris are publicly owned and have stakeholder-elected directors. In most European countries, large companies have stakeholder-elected directors in them, as either a substantial proportion of the unitary board or a German-style two-tier board where one board is supervisory, and the other is executive. On the supervisory board, directors are directly elected. There are plenty of precedents for stakeholder-elected directors on company boards, and in many ways the UK is an outlier.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the amendment. I want to speak in support of Amendment 22, from my noble friend Lord Remnant, as well as Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
My noble friend is right to note that the decision whether to be on a board, panel or committee is the job of the company rather than any kind of external regulator. By allowing the company to make that decision, it can decide based on its own business needs. If this was left to Ofwat, not only could it lead to a situation where the board, panel or committee did not fit well into the company structure but it might harm relationships between those forums and the board of the company.
It seems unlikely that a regulator would ever have access to all the information needed to make decisions on how a company’s decision-making systems should be structured, and it is surely the responsibility of the company itself to ensure that it has the right processes in place to make the correct decisions according to its needs. Indeed, as we have heard from many noble Lords, it is clear that the regulator has failed to get important decisions right in the past, to the detriment not only of companies but of the environment. Yes, of course, the regulator should have its role in holding companies to account for their decisions, but the moment regulators are involved in decision-making, it surely takes some responsibility for those choices too.
We are concerned that having consumer representatives on the board or their being involved in any decision-making within the company creates a blurring of responsibility. There is already the risk of some confusion, given the role of regulators, but they are at least experts in the industry and well informed about their roles, acting within well-defined parameters.
I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on sectional interests and the effective working of a board. Consumer representatives on a board lay themselves open to the responsibilities of being a company director and in some cases a director of a listed company. Do the Government really want such consumer directors to be open to fines or prosecution for failing to deliver accounts on time, trading while insolvent or even insider dealing? It is not clear to me as the Bill is drafted that those consumer representatives could not also be subject to fines or prosecution by the regulator. If a consumer representative proposed an action that led to penalties from the regulator, how could they not be responsible?
Turning this around to the perspective of the existing board and management, if consumers are part of decision-making, then it is conceivable that they could cause or prevent an action by the company that created regulatory breaches and punitive action. How would this coexist with the responsibilities and liabilities of professional managers and board directors? How could this not create liability for the consumer representative?
My comments about consumer representation apply equally, if not more, to the environmental experts proposed in Amendment 9 by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I understand and applaud the sentiment behind the amendment, of environmental representatives representing the stakeholder that has no natural voice, the environment. However, environmental campaigners already have a strong voice. There are obligations already present for companies, and others may be imposed through amendments to the Bill. I also agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that environmental representatives, alongside consumer representatives, should be limited to panels.
Allowing the company to decide the forum in which such representatives take part would benefit both sides of the agreement. If the company has taken this decision, then it becomes clear that the company, its managers and employees remain jointly responsible for decisions. I am not clear from the Bill exactly how the Government intend that its proposals should work. Both my noble friend Lord Remnant’s Amendment 22 and Amendments 21 and 23 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have considerable merit. While there is a contradiction inherent between them, both are good solutions to creating the involvement of consumers that the Government want.
I thank all noble Lords for their involvement in this spirited debate. I ask the Minister to explain exactly how she sees consumer involvement working in practice under the Bill. I also ask that she give serious thought before Report to the amendments that I have addressed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has come across clearly that there is no agreement about who should sit on the boards. We want to rebuild trust in the water sector, and to do that we are giving Ofwat new powers to issue new rules on remuneration and governance.
I turn first to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The powers on remuneration and governance outline a requirement for Ofwat to set rules on companies for including consumers in decision-making. We feel that it is appropriate for Ofwat, as the independent regulator, to determine how this is implemented. Water companies have a range of legal environmental obligations that they are required to meet, and actions related to these obligations will already be informed by specialists in the company.
We believe that introducing requirements to include environmental experts on company boards would take the focus away from involving consumers in water company decisions, which do not have the same level of legal requirements as the environment does. Environmental issues should already be a key consideration in water company decision-making. Importantly, my officials in Defra have worked to secure agreement with companies to update their articles of association, to place both customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions. I hope that this clarifies to noble Lords that the Bill ensures the prioritisation of consumer representation on company boards and that they feel able not to press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting debate. There is more for us all to think about on these matters. I share a slight concern with the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, that the Government are looking back to Ofwat for a big, expanded role, even though there have been failures in the past. We will come back to the idea of expanding representation in further debates on the Bill.
For us, and I think for others around the Committee, the environmental aspect is important. I hear the Minister’s reassurances that there are new powers on Ofwat. I will go away and look at that, and I thank her for her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
South Asia: Minority Faith Communities
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the situation of minority faith communities across South Asia, and the role of the United Kingdom in safeguarding the freedom of religion and belief in that area.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I rise to bring to the House’s attention the extremely pressing issue of the treatment of religious minorities across south Asia. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are speaking in this important debate this evening.
Despite the region’s rich diversity, tapestry of faiths and historical commitment to pluralism, religious minorities often face discrimination, persecution and unequal treatment, and are regarded by many as marginalised citizens. The challenges they face are immense, from social exclusion and legal inequalities to violent attacks and, tragically, murder. This threatens not only individuals’ rights but the very fabric of these societies and their ability to go about their daily lives.
I recall the words of the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam, as he was known, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his historic speech on 11 August 1947. As Pakistan was established, a new dawn was heralded, and he said:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan … we are all … equal citizens”.
These powerful words embody the founding vision for a state where freedom of religion and equal citizenship were seen as fundamental principles. Mr Jinnah’s message highlights the ideal of an inclusive society where freedom is not merely a privilege but a guaranteed right for all. Indeed, in the early days after Pakistan’s birth, we saw the esteemed jurist Sir Chaudry Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi Muslim, appointed as the first Foreign Minister of the county. Indeed, in 1960 Justice Cornelius—a Christian by faith—served as the Chief Justice of Pakistan for almost eight years.
Yet, despite these noble intentions laid down at the birth of the nation, the reality for many minority faiths, not just in Pakistan but across south Asia, tells a tragically different story.
First, on Pakistan, women and girls from religious minority communities, including Christians, Hindus and Hazaras, are disproportionately likely to experience gender-based violence. Indeed, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan itself reported around 1,000 cases of forced marriages and abductions of religious minority girls in the province of Sindh in 2018.
I also draw to the particular attention of the House the plight of the Ahmadi Muslim community in Pakistan, of which I myself am a member, whose situation starkly illustrates the discrimination faced by religious minorities in the region. Ahmadis are effectively excluded from the democratic process. They are not permitted to vote or stand for Parliament unless they self-declare that they are not Muslim—what kind of constitutional choice is that for any citizen? The denial of political representation leaves them without any voice in the very system that is meant to protect their rights, and they are the only minority, unlike other minorities in Pakistan, who cannot vote for mainstream parties as part of the general electorate.
Since the introduction of discriminatory laws in 1984 under the then leader, General Zia, 277 Ahmadi Muslims have been murdered simply for their beliefs, and 220 mosques have been destroyed. Saying the simple greeting “Assalamo alaikum”, or “Peace be upon you”, used by one Muslim to another, results in a three-year prison sentence.
These actions against Ahmadis and the environment being created embolden extremists, who also target Christians and Hindus. The mob attacks on Christians in Punjab’s Jaranwala district in August 2023 were particularly vile, resulting in the torching of 25 churches. I was grateful to the then caretaker Foreign Minister of Pakistan, who acted to set up a compensation and support scheme for those targeted. Can the Minister say what the current situation is on compensation and accountability?
The previous Government took action on the egregious abuse of human rights—I was involved, and indeed acted on this—but this needs to be stepped up further. The human rights sanctions regime, which was set up in 2019, is there to ensure that we stop such extremists, stopping them from travel and freezing their bank accounts. This sends a very strong message to those who seek to discriminate against minority communities. Can the Minister update and confirm that the Government will continue to work with Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place to take this forward?
Briefly, on Bangladesh, the recent removal of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from power has further exacerbated the ongoing violence and unrest in the country. Like the Tehreek-e-Labbaik in Pakistan, an extremist organisation being emboldened through the political system, we now see the rise of groups such as the Hefazat-e-Islam—which, ironically, means “The Protection of Islam”; its actions far from demonstrate that noble principle—which sees the deposing of the former Prime Minister, who, to her credit, resisted the call of extremist right religious groups, as free season to attack minorities. The political instability has led to an increase in targeted violence against religious minorities, who are often the first to suffer in times of upheaval.
The Hindu population in Bangladesh, a significant religious minority, has been facing an alarming rise in violence. It is worth noting that of course a majority of the Hindu population supported the former Prime Minister, whose removal has left them even more vulnerable to attacks. Other communities, including Ahmadis, are seeing their places of worship and mosques being targeted and calls from Hefazat-e-Islam for them to be banned.
Briefly on India, during my time in office as the Minister for Human Rights and South Asia, I regularly raised issues of the rights of minority faiths and communities, and we had a constructive dialogue with India. Let us not forget that the rights of minorities are safeguarded under law in India’s own constitution. Can the Minister update the House about the current situation, particularly in Manipur, following the communal tensions early this year, when tribal tensions manifested themselves in extremists trying again to use the religious divide?
Finally, I turn to the United Kingdom’s leadership on freedom of religion and belief. A brief bit of history: it was in 2018 that, working with many Members across your Lordships’ House and the other place, I presented a proposal for a Prime Minister’s envoy on freedom of religion or belief. Starting something from scratch in government is difficult, and I am grateful to the then DfID Secretary, Penny Mordaunt, for providing financial backing, for the strong support of Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary at that time, and to the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead. Indeed, the UK was recognised for its leadership in this regard. I was honoured to be appointed the first envoy in this respect in 2018, and more recently we have seen Fiona Bruce, the former MP for Congleton, so ably lead this agenda with immense passion and principle, as well as leading on the International FoRB Alliance. The United Kingdom also hosted the international FoRB conference in London in 2022.
I also highlight the significance of the global report of Bishop Philip of Truro, set up in 2019—he is now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester—and I praise the efforts of the then Foreign Secretary, now shadow Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, which address specifically the issue of persecution of Christians and other minorities around the world.
In south Asian countries, Christians continue to experience widespread discrimination, legal restrictions, social marginalisation and violence. The rise of nationalist ambitions in south Asia has contributed to the perception of Christians and other minorities as a threat to societal cohesion, further marginalising these communities. I say again to the Minister that I hope that this issue is being prioritised in our engagements across south Asia.
In Sri Lanka, we witnessed a rise in attacks on both Christians and Muslims in 2017, including assaults on churches and acts of intimidation. Through the previous Government’s position of the special envoy, along with the valuable support of communities, parliamentarians—most notably the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who cannot join us this evening, and the honourable Member for Strangford, Jim Shannon MP—and diplomats from across the FCDO we led on this agenda. The UK took a strong position, working with the United States, our European neighbours and other nations. Ensuring the continuity of this important agenda under Prime Minister Starmer would not only expand the UK’s influence but provide much-needed relief to those seeking protection.
The Truro review highlighted the necessity of placing the special envoy’s role on a permanent footing. I hope that the Minister will update this House. There was a Private Member’s Bill in this respect, which passed all stages in the other place but, because of the election being called, could not be taken forward here.
I will finish—I recognise that cough very well, as I was a Whip once. I implore the Government: this is an important agenda, so please do not lose time in which to act. I have said repeatedly that, when we stand up for others, it is the greatest test of our own faith and belief.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for bringing this short debate to the House.
I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention the plight of the Sikh community in Pakistan. As we all know, after the partition of India in 1947, most of the Sikhs living on the Pakistani side moved to the Indian side, but a very small number of them decided to stay in Pakistan. It is estimated that there are around 50,000 to 60,000 Sikhs living in Pakistan at this moment. The Pakistani constitution is very firm that every minority faith should be treated equally and is entitled to the protection of the law.
After the 1947 partition, most of the Sikh historical places of worship, the gurdwara—such as the birthplace of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh religion —ended up on the Pakistani side. As your Lordships can imagine, there is always a steady stream of Sikh religious pilgrims making their way to Pakistan from the UK, North America and other countries. The Pakistani Government very kindly always issue visas for these religious pilgrims. Last February, my wife and about 50 others, in a group from UK, had the honour of making this pilgrimage. It was something that she had always wanted to do, and she found the experience most fulfilling.
At every gurdwara, my wife stopped to talk to the female workers about their lives and experience of living in Pakistan. I have to say that she was upset and disappointed to hear some of their answers. They said that they were treated by the locals as second-class citizens, and that at school, their children were taunted as non-believers. They are an easy target of local religious fanatics. They are constantly under pressure to convert to Islam, with forced marriages and the conversion of underage girls. Quite recently, in the Peshawar area, 12 Sikhs were killed. There is a controversial blasphemy law which affects most of the minority communities. There is a general feeling of lack of security for them. Like I said, the Pakistani constitution is quite firm on equality for all faiths, but sometimes what happens on the ground and in the small villages is quite different from what the law says.
Sikhs mostly keep a low profile in this monolithic Muslim country. There have been reports of Muslim mobs attacking gurdwaras. The UK Government describe Pakistan as an
“important regional and strategic partner”,
with a relationship based on
“culture, shared history, diplomacy, development, security, trade, and the economy”.
In 2023-24, the UK provided about £42 million to Pakistan for development. Given our close relationship with Pakistan, it would not be unfair to ask it to provide extra security for its minority Sikh community, given that our new Labour Government’s policy states that they will champion the freedom of religion and belief for all.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for his stalwart work in this area, his deep commitment to religious freedom and what he has achieved. It is very good that he will continue his commitment to this cause. It is also very good to have the Minister in her place, as I know that she will be equally committed to this.
I have a concern for all minority faith communities in south Asia. I also have a concern about freedom in its wider aspect and not just freedom of religion, for there is serious anxiety about academic freedom in India and the pressure being applied to those who do not support the Government.
However, my main concern in this debate will be with the Dalits, the former untouchables, a great number of whom are Christians or Buddhists. These Dalits suffer not just as members of a minority faith community but as those who are regarded as ritually unclean and to be shunned. This remains the ugliest form of discrimination in the world today and continues to blight India’s life. I couple the Dalits with the Adivasi, the ancient tribal people of India, who also suffer badly, not least in the loss of their ancient lands. Dalits suffer all over south Asia but, because of the shortage of time, I will focus on India.
There are multiple ways in which Dalits suffer, and one is their vulnerability to human trafficking. Multiple studies have found that Dalits in India have a significantly increased risk of ending up in modern slavery, including in forced and bonded labour and child labour. This is particularly true in the textile and brick-making industries, in which a large number of Dalits are employed, very many of whom are children.
Multiple studies show that Dalits experience discrimination in the area of employment. There are very few Dalits in senior positions in the professions; the vast majority are employed in servile positions, including manual scavenging, where it still exists.
The Government of India have a policy of positive discrimination for minority groups, but Christian and Muslim minorities are excluded from this. This is a clear example of how being a religious minority and a Dalit reinforces oppression, especially when you realise that some 76% of Christians belong to a disadvantaged group.
The most egregious harm to the Dalit community is in the criminal justice system. In recent years, a number of Christian Dalit villages have been attacked by mobs. There has been a failure by the police to prevent this, and then great difficulty bringing charges against the perpetrators, followed by long delays in bringing them to trial.
As many as 422,799 crimes against Dalits and 81,332 crimes against Adivasis were reported between 2006 and 2016. Over that decade, the crime rate against Dalits rose by 25%. Cases pending police investigation for both marginalised groups rose by 99% and 55% respectively, while the waiting time in courts rose by 50% and 28%. At the same time, conviction rates for crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes fell by two percentage points and seven percentage points.
The recent gruesome report of the beheading of a Dalit minor girl in Tamil Nadu for rejecting the advances of an upper-caste male once again throws the issue of caste discrimination into sharp focus. Women from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and violence due to the intersection of caste and gender.
This violence has become increasingly common across India over the last years and the audacity with which it is conducted suggests a complete absence of fear of consequences. Following on from this, human rights defenders advocating against caste-based discrimination and violence are at risk for defending the rights of Dalits and adivasi communities. They are often charged with a whole series of matters that have nothing to do with breaking the law. They face a diverse range of attacks and harassment from state and non-state actors, and police officials are very often those most at blame and seem to think that they can carry this out with impunity. Will the Government press the Indian Government to overhaul the criminal justice system so that Dalits and religious minorities can have proper access to justice? At the moment, it is failing minority communities very badly.
I will end by referring to something outside India, and that is the blasphemy law in Pakistan—which has already been mentioned. It has been used to terrify totally harmless Christian and Sikh villagers. As a result, some people have been on death row for years. Too often what happens is that there is a village dispute over something, and, as part of this, a perfectly innocent Christian or Sikh is accused of denigrating the Koran; they are charged with blasphemy, locked up and have to wait for years on death row. What steps are the Government taking to persuade the Pakistan Government to abolish this truly abhorrent law?
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for securing this important debate. I also commend the work of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester, who works tirelessly on the issue of freedom of religion or belief. He expresses his regret that he could not be here to contribute to today’s debate. It is an honour to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, who ordained me as a deacon in Oxford nearly 20 years ago.
As outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of religion or belief is a foundational right. A denial of FORB is often a warning sign for challenges and human rights troubles to come. The UK must therefore continue to reaffirm its commitment to FORB, particularly concerning regions where increasing threats to this foundational right are present. South Asia is home to a rich mosaic of religions. However, the religious diversity in this region is being undermined, and I draw your Lordships’ attention to just two countries by way of illustration.
The first is Pakistan. I am particularly concerned about the misuse of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws that continue to target minority religions, often resulting in mob violence and extrajudicial killings. Ahmadi Muslims are a major target for prosecutions under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, as the noble Lord has already pointed out; I want to acknowledge the repression and persecution that his own community has suffered and still suffers from inception.
Second is Sri Lanka, a country I have visited and where the previous diocese I held episcopal office in, the Diocese of Leeds, has a formal link with the Anglican church. I wish to highlight the targeting of minority-religious groups, particularly by state authorities. Government policies reflect the Buddhist nationalist movements present within the country through the limitation of the ability to freely worship by creating discriminatory registration processes for places of worship. For 40 years, the prevention of terrorism Act has been used to arrest without charge, detain for indefinite periods of time, and torture Muslims and Tamils. Human Rights Watch expressed its concerns earlier this year regarding the proposed anti-terrorism Bill that is currently being considered to replace the prevention of terrorism Act. Instead of repealing the Act, that Bill would further weaken the legal grounds needed for security forces to arrest individuals without warrants and continue to permit lengthy pretrial detention.
I stress that while today’s debate focuses on the region of south Asia, safeguarding freedom of religion or belief is not a regional issue but a global responsibility. This debate shows the need for the UK to have a permanent Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, as the noble Lord pointed out in his opening speech, ensuring that the UK’s commitment to this issue is turned into action. The appointment of a special envoy must be seen as a matter of urgency. The UK has already missed a significant opportunity to maintain its leading international role in this area by not having a special envoy in place to attend the international ministerial conference on this issue in Berlin earlier this month. I add my voice to those asking the Minister when such an appointment will be made.
Only through tangible action will the UK maintain its reputation and critical role in ensuring the protection of human rights across the globe. This is an opportunity for the UK to regain lost ground in its capacity to command respect and hold a voice in the international sphere. In a global context where many minority groups are under threat, this should be seen as a matter of urgent concern.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmad for tabling this debate and for his many years of work on freedom of religion or belief while he was a long-serving and tireless Minister. I had the good fortune of working with him while he was Minister in various guises: as a special adviser, a Back-Bencher and as a fellow FCDO Minister. I have seen first hand over those years his work in the area and witnessed his significant efforts in his time as Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief and his years as Minister for Human Rights and South Asia. He has been a great advocate for the UK at international forums and a strong supporter and promoter of policies aimed at protecting the rights of individuals to practise their faith without fear of persecution. My noble friend is greatly respected across your Lordships’ House, and indeed internationally, and rightly so. I agree with him on the importance of the special envoy role and the implementation of the Truro recommendations, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on those points.
Noble Lords before me have set out many of the concerning issues facing minority-faith communities across south Asia, and my remarks will have a particular focus on the vulnerabilities faced by women and girls. South Asia is home to over a billion people and has a rich mix of cultures and faiths; sadly, that diversity can also lead to tensions and minority-faith communities, whether they are Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims or adherents of indigenous beliefs, often find themselves at risk and face discrimination, violence and marginalisation. As my noble friend set out, these challenges are exacerbated for women and girls, who bear a disproportionate burden in general, and particularly in times of conflict and social upheaval.
Religious-minority women can often face dual discrimination not only due to their faith but because of their gender, and UN experts have expressed concerns about the rise in abductions, forced marriage, and conversions of underage girls and young women. This highlights the precariousness of women’s rights within minority communities. We have seen some attempts to pass legislation to stop those abhorrent acts, but sometimes, in the view of religious opposition, the proposed legislation has been shelved.
In countries that have experienced a rise in nationalism, we have seen that minority women often face and experience heightened vulnerability. They can face violence, harassment and social ostracism, and that intersection of gender and religious identity complicates their struggles, making it essential that their specific experiences and needs are acknowledged in discussions about rights and protections.
We also see instances of religion-based rape and sexual violence in south Asia, and such acts often occur within the context of communal violence, political tensions or societal discrimination. These incidents can be used as tools of oppression, particularly among marginalised groups during conflicts or riots. Even in countries where there have been efforts towards gender equality, religious-minority women continue to face challenges such as property disputes and limited access to education. The United Kingdom has an important role to play in addressing these injustices, and that aligns well with the new Government’s focus on partnerships.
With its historical commitment to human rights, the UK can leverage its influence to promote policies that specifically protect women and girls from minority faith communities. That includes advocating for the repeal of discriminatory laws and practices as well as supporting initiatives that empower these women to become advocates for their own rights. Our impressive programmes on girls’ education can be targeted to those who do not have the same opportunities as the rest of the population.
Another effective approach would be to enhance support for organisations that focus on women’s rights within minority communities and, by funding programmes that provide legal assistance, education and vocational training, the UK can really help empower women and girls to challenge the discrimination and build more secure futures for themselves and their families. There was previously an FCDO programme specifically looking to support women’s rights organisations. Can the Minister say whether that work will continue to be supported by the new Government?
The UK is also well positioned to facilitate dialogue among faith leaders and communities, emphasising the importance of gender equality within religious contexts. By promoting interfaith discussions on women’s rights, the UK can help foster environments where diverse beliefs coexist and the voices of women are heard and respected. An ideal place to have these discussions is at the various international ministerial freedom of religion and belief conferences that have been hosted by the UK and others. As we have heard, the last meeting was held in Berlin earlier this month, but, sadly, like the recent G7 Development Ministers meeting, for the first time since these meetings started, the Government were not able to send a Minister to attend and officials represented the UK instead. I fully appreciate there has been a plethora of international summits and meetings recently, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, that is another good reason to appoint a freedom of religion and belief envoy.
Finally, the UK should lead by example at all relevant international forums, advocating for the inclusion of gender and religious freedom as priorities in foreign policy discussions. That involves not only highlighting violations but recognising and supporting countries and organisations that promote both gender equality and religious tolerance.
Before I end, as I think I have time, I must specifically raise Afghanistan and the yet more deeply distressing restrictions for women in that country. On top of everything else, we hear this week that adult women are now forbidden from allowing their voices to be heard by other women. In announcing this, the Taliban emphasised that women must refrain from performing Islamic prayer or reciting the Koran aloud when in the presence of other women. There is sadly no freedom for women there—of religion, of belief or at all. I appreciate the complexities and the difficulties of getting any assistance to the women of Afghanistan, but can the Minister offer any hope of how the Government will approach the challenge of making a difference for women there?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for securing this debate on such an important subject. I also acknowledge my noble friend’s background and experience as a long-serving Minister, most recently as a Minister of State at the FCDO.
International religious freedom continues to be a serious concern in a global landscape in which authoritarianism is increasing and polarisation and extremism are proliferating. I pay tribute also to the work of the Religious Freedom Institute, based in Washington DC, which has led the way in supporting legislators across the globe in their work on raising awareness of the importance of freedom of religion and belief. It is challenging to know where to focus attention during a debate on safeguarding religious freedom in south Asia. There is a litany of concerns and abuses in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India, but I will focus on India, where Mahendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP has presided over a severe decline in the nation’s record on human rights and religious freedom.
Anti-conversion laws are a major blight in the south Asian context. By their very nature, they undermine the essence of religious freedom. Half of the anti-conversion laws in India were enacted under the Modi regime, prohibiting religious conversion by force, allurement or fraudulent means. Some states require either prior permission or an advance declaration to be obtained before conversion. The broad prohibitions also cover proselytism, though the sharing of one’s faith is an integral aspect of religious practice in Islam and Christianity, among other religions. Furthermore, five states have enacted anti-conversion laws that include provisions prohibiting conversion for the purpose of marriage. The ambiguity found in these laws enables their misuse against people from minority faith communities.
Police data shows that, within nine months of Uttar Pradesh’s ordinance criminalising unlawful religious conversion in November 2020, hundreds of people had been arrested in connection with conversion cases. In addition to the structural violations of religious freedom, India has witnessed extraordinary societal persecution, exacerbated by woefully insufficient responses from the Government. The situation in the Indian state of Manipur is distinctive and devastating in its scale and levels of violence, and the ongoing injustice suffered by the Kuki-Zo people. In May 2023, the violence instigated by Hindu nationalist factions from the Meitei tribe, fuelled by hateful propaganda and misinformation, resulted in hundreds of people being murdered, hundreds of places of worship being destroyed and tens of thousands of people losing their homes and livelihoods. There were reports of lynchings, beheadings, people being burned alive, torture, mutilations, abductions and the rest. Although multiple factors underpinned the violence, including long-standing ethnic and tribal tensions, without doubt Christians have been targeted. There is also evidence of violence against Christians within the Meitei tribal community itself, with a number of churches being destroyed.
The Indian Government have failed to provide the levels of support needed and to respond appropriately to these tribal tensions. The number of internally displaced people who are residing in around 320 relief camps is horrendous. There is a lack of medical support and people are sick and dying. With these troubling issues and incidents in view, the UK Government must use the full range of diplomatic tools at their disposal to challenge the serious shortcomings of the Indian authorities and encourage timely, comprehensive support for all those who have suffered persecution.
My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, while Foreign Secretary, stressed the need for a focused international response. However, to engage with confidence and efficacy on these and other issues around the world that fall into the same category, the Labour Government must develop a deep knowledge and understanding of religious freedom, going beyond unsophisticated assumptions. They need to recognise and respond to the gravity of the problem and its implications. This will mean restoring freedom of religion or belief as a foreign policy priority, sufficiently resourcing the FCDO’s engagement, and establishing a special envoy on a statutory footing.
It is very disappointing that the latter has not been done. I was extremely disappointed, personally, to receive that reply to my Question on that issue from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, last week. As has been mentioned, just this month, the German Government hosted the annual International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief without a British Minister being present.
The British Government, using their pre-eminent reputation for soft power, are at their best on the world stage, speaking up for the world’s disenfranchised, vulnerable, oppressed and persecuted, working with skill and determination to resolve injustices and improve conditions for human dignity and flourishing. For the Christians of Manipur, the Ahmadis of Pakistan, or the adherents of so many other faiths who suffer because of their beliefs and religious identities in south Asia, and throughout the world, this UK Government need to be more committed and more resolute to act.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmad for bringing this important subject forward for debate. It has been an excellent, albeit brief, discussion by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Ahmad was always a champion on this issue in the Government, during his time as a Minister in the FCDO. I want—like the rest of the House, I am sure—to commend him on the excellent work he did on this and in other areas, particularly as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict.
South Asia is home to a rich tapestry of cultures, languages and faiths. Yet, sadly, as my noble friend said, recent trends across the region indicate an alarming rise in discrimination, persecution and violence against many religious minorities. From the discrimination faced by Hindu, Sikh and Christian minorities in Pakistan to the ongoing challenges for Muslims and Christians in India and the persecution of Buddhists and Hindus in Bangladesh, these communities are under increasing pressure. They are often denied their fundamental rights to worship freely, to practise their traditions and, fundamentally, to live in peace. For decades, the UK has promoted the principles of tolerance, inclusivity and religious freedom. I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to continue that excellent work.
In the latest of a series of detailed reports on the state of global religious freedom, the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that six of the seven countries in the region of south Asia enforce “high” or “very high” governmental restrictions on religion. The sole exception, Sri Lanka, is also, sadly, now moving to higher levels of government restriction. Six of those seven countries also experience “high” or “very high” social hostilities involving religion, including terrorism and other forms of faith-based violence. Worldwide, only in the Middle East can higher levels of religious persecution be found. We have seen the level of conflict now happening in the Middle East, and these signs from south Asia are extremely concerning.
On these Benches, we believe wholeheartedly in individual liberty, and an essential part of freedom is freedom of belief. Can the Minister inform us what steps are being taken by His Majesty’s Government to ensure that people of different faiths, or indeed none, are continuing to be protected in south Asia?
In Sri Lanka, Sinhala Buddhist nationalists perceive religious minorities to be a threat to the religious identity of the state. Extremist Buddhist organisations such as Bodu Bala Sena have launched massive campaigns calling for the restriction of minority rights, particularly those of Muslims. Pakistan too features an alliance between religion and the state. The most obvious way the Pakistani state, in collaboration with religious extremists, attempts to quash religious pluralism is through its draconian blasphemy code, which bans defamation against Islam. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle outlined some of the dreadful consequences of that law. In India, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, which uses religious identity as a basis for citizenship, has also led to increased religious hostility and sectarian conflict. Arguably, interreligious tensions have never been higher in India than they are today.
Some may say that these issues are of no consequence to the United Kingdom, but they would be wrong. We are delighted to live in a pluralist society but, as the events of this summer have shown, the societal fabric on which Britain is built can sometimes tear.
In conclusion, I call on His Majesty’s Government to do all they can to ensure that the rights of minority faith communities continue to be protected and that freedom of religion and belief remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy efforts in south Asia. We know that none of these issues is easy, but the lives and dignity of millions depend on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for securing this debate on such an important topic. In the light of his heartfelt introduction, I pay tribute to his previous leadership and activism on this agenda, including but not only when he was a Minister at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and heartfelt contributions. This is a topic unlike any other in the portfolio of any Minister; it is something that I think we all feel to our fingertips. Freedom of religion or belief is something that, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, closed with, we enjoy in this country, and we are grateful for that. It is a right that we wish to see extended across the globe, but, sadly, the situation—and not just in south Asia, as the noble Lord pointed out—is not a good one.
The Pew Research Center’s latest study revealed that global government restrictions on religion hit a new high two years ago. This is why we must continue to champion freedom of religion or belief—or FoRB, as we call it—for all, and challenge threats to it wherever they occur, including in south Asia.
Given the devastating ongoing conflicts around the world today, respecting freedom of religion or belief and promoting interreligious dialogue can build trust between communities and contribute to securing sustainable peace. That is the work that we wish to see extended everywhere we can. However, as noble Lords have made clear through their contributions, sadly that is lacking in too many places today.
Across south Asia, many countries have seen a rise in incidents of violence and discrimination directed towards minority communities. This is deeply concerning. We have heard today examples and stories of hideous abuses. In Pakistan, in addition to the accounts we have heard from noble Lords, there have been at least four targeted killings of Ahmadi Muslims this year alone. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, for sharing his family’s experience of Sikh communities in Pakistan; his insights are of great value to this House.
In September, in Pakistan, two men were killed by law enforcement officers in separate incidents of violence relating to allegations of blasphemy. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, raised the blasphemy laws, and we are grateful to them for bringing them to our attention. As noble Lords may know, in May, a large mob violently assaulted a Christian man and his family in Punjab, on accusations of blasphemy. An elderly man died in hospital a week later as a result of his injuries. Elsewhere in south Asia, recently enacted and proposed legislation in Sri Lanka risks limiting fundamental freedoms too. Sadly, the list of examples is far too long.
The situation is troubling, to say the least. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed us in the direction of data from the Pew Research Center. He told us that three of the 19 countries that scored very high on the Government Restrictions Index are in south Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Maldives. He also told us that three of the seven countries that scored very high on the Social Hostilities Index are in south Asia: India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can see that Pakistan and Afghanistan are among the four countries globally classified as having among the highest levels of both government restriction and social hostilities involving religion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, asked me to offer her some hope on Afghanistan. I am not sure that I am able to do that this evening, and she will understand why, but I am grateful to her, as I am sure all noble Lords are, for bringing her concerns to the debate this evening. She rightly asked me about women and girls. We know that in conflict and religious persecution it is often women and girls who bear the brunt. I reassure her that the programmes we have on gender-based violence and raising awareness of the harms of early and forced marriage are continuing. I hope that we can continue to have her support for those.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, asked about the Bishop of Truro and his work. The Bishop of Truro’s 2019 review provided recommendations for FCDO support for freedom of religion or belief. In 2022, as she will know, an independent review assessing the department’s implementation of the recommendations was largely positive. I think some of the credit for that may go to the noble Baroness—I am not sure—and certainly to the noble Lord. With this concluded, we are going to look ahead to build on it and on the work that the previous Government did in this area.
Recognising that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, this Government continue to champion freedom of religion or belief for all, across the world. It is our firm belief that no one should live in fear because of what they do or do not believe in. Across south Asia, the UK is taking action. The Government regularly raise the importance of religious tolerance and freedom of religion or belief, including at the highest levels. To give just one example, Minister Falconer recently underlined its importance when he met Pakistan’s human rights Minister in September.
Through our programmes, we are directly supporting communities and affected populations and addressing drivers. In Sri Lanka, the UK Integrated Security Fund is working to strengthen social cohesion, countering hate speech and, which is also important, documenting cases of intimidation and attacks against religious minorities. In Pakistan, our accountability, inclusion and reducing modern slavery programme supports policy development and community empowerment to protect marginalised groups. Bringing together community and faith leaders, it promotes interfaith harmony and has reached over 35 million people with information and awareness about rights and government services. The John Bunyan Fund continues to support projects around the world that specifically aim to protect and promote freedom of religion or belief.
Listening to and, when we can, championing the voices of affected communities remains for this Government, as for the last, of the utmost importance. In India, the British High Commission in New Delhi and our network of deputy high commissioners across the country regularly meet religious representatives and have run projects supporting human rights. We have hosted ministerial level round-table discussions with various religious representatives.
I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Jackson, about Manipur. The situation is incredibly serious, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson said; it is complex, and we understand that. We are going to continue to monitor it very closely through our deputy high commissioner in Kolkata. It is appropriate to say that we send our deepest condolences to all those affected. I commit that we will continue to raise our concerns directly with the Government there, including at ministerial level.
I take this opportunity to reference Nepal. We regularly interact with an interfaith group of different leaders, including representatives of believers in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism and Om Shanti religions. We support the Tibetan Buddhist community, who face discrimination, and ensure that that is visible and impactful.
Noble Lords referenced Bangladesh. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and others said, there has been a great deal of political upheaval in recent months in Bangladesh. The UK will continue to engage with a wide range of civil society and other stakeholders to understand fully what is happening and their concerns. We will continue to support freedom of religion or belief through our development programmes there.
As noble Lords will know, we also work multilaterally. We are an active member of several alliances working to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief, including the Article 18 alliance. These coalitions of member states work to advance this cause around the world. Just this month we have taken several measures. FCDO officials participated—I take the point that it was not a Minister; I believe it was when the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who has ministerial responsibility for this, was at CHOGM, but ordinarily he would very much have wanted to be there—in the international ministerial conference in Berlin, which was focused on freedom of religion or belief and AI.
We also delivered a statement at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference on freedom of religion or belief and fundamental freedoms, given how crucial human rights are to the organisation’s comprehensive view of security. Last week the UK was pleased to participate in an interactive dialogue with the UN special rapporteur in New York, discussing connections between freedom of religion or belief and peace, which is the focus of her recent report. Earlier this month we co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution that extended the mandate of UN special rapporteur Richard Bennett to monitor and report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, including the situation of minority groups, for another year.
The Whip is coughing at me, but I do not want to sit down without answering the point about the special envoy. Noble Lords will probably notice what I have said the last few times I have been asked about this. Their support for the position is noted. I do not have anything new to add today, but I am sure it will not be long before I have something more to say. I assure noble Lords that the torch from the previous Government has been received and we will continue to carry it forward because it is such an important issue.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Monday 28th October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 17-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2024)
Lord Cromwell
“(d) requiring a relevant undertaker to assess and report regularly to the Authority on actual or planned financial structuring of the undertaker, including debt levels, coverage of the associated commercial strategy and any associated risks.” Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires that financial engineering becomes a regular focus area for timely reporting in order to assist in regulators’ understanding and alert them in good time to risks or distortions.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 13, which we discussed earlier, seek to address the problem that lies at the heart of what went wrong with our water industry; the regulators were simply outsmarted by PE financial engineering, either because they were not paying sufficient attention to what was going on or because they just did not understand it. Regulators have either lacked or failed to deploy the skills needed to assess the impact and purposes of financial engineering introduced by corporate investors.
Amendment 10 addresses that shortcoming directly by requiring water companies to report regularly, not only on any financial restructuring or structuring but on the strategy lying behind it and any associated risks. This will ensure that such activities have to be made overt rather than, as hitherto, taking place under the regulators’ noses but apparently below their radar. I beg to move.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that Clause 10 does not appear to envisage a role for Ofwat. The amendments in this group are not really related to each other. As such, I shall confine my remarks to Amendment 86 in my name and I shall be brief.
Under the “Special administration orders” section of the Bill relating to the insolvency of water companies, Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify a water company licence in order to recover any shortfall in costs for the Government from its consumers. New subsection (4) extends this recourse to all other companies in the sector.
I hope the Minister will tell me that I am mistaken in my interpretation of what this new subsection is designed to achieve. Does it not force good companies and their blameless customers to bail out failed companies? Can this possibly be justified? It has been a recurring theme of this debate, supported by the comments of many noble Lords, that the sector is in critical need of substantial investment to raise standards across the board and deliver the service that consumers and the general public so rightly expect. Any suggestion of collective punishment for the financial woes of others is to be resisted.
The consequence of imposing an unquantified and unquantifiable potential liability on the sector will at best push up the returns required by investors to inject capital into the water companies, inevitably increasing costs to consumers. At worst, it risks making the sector uninvestable. That is surely not the intention of new subsection (4), but it may be the consequence. My amendment would remove that risk, and I hope the Minister will support it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will address my comments to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree with him that financial restructuring of companies has led us to where we are now, with Thames Water potentially on the brink of collapse—who knows who is going to have to fund the huge injection of capital that has apparently now been agreed. Other water companies are heavily indebted. Ofwat, which is after all the economic regulator, did not query, question or challenge those decisions made in the early years of water company privatisation.
The consequence is that anything the Government now attempt to do is basically closing the stable door after the horse has bolted—and raced to the other side of the world—because the companies are where they are. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that any future restructuring ought to be put under the microscope of the economic regulator, the current situation is leading us to a potentially very grave position, which the Government are trying to address with the other financial clauses in the Bill. I read the clause referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, as being directed pointedly at a particular water company.
I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I suppose it is better to change the situation now than leave it as it is, but what has happened already is unfortunate.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 92 is very simple. Had it been in place when the water companies were privatised, it would have prevented the aggressive financial engineering that has led to the financial distress we see regularly reported in the press, which has provoked much anger in this House and elsewhere over the years.
Before I address Amendment 92, I will briefly comment on Amendment 10 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It coexists neatly with my amendment, allowing regulators to be better informed on issues with the financial structures of the companies they regulate, and to be aware of future problems. I am pleased that the noble Lord has moved this amendment, and I broadly agree that the regulator should have better information about the financial structuring of water companies in the interests of protecting their viability and preventing circumstances in which they become overleveraged.
I will speak to the dangers of overleveraging and the problems we have as a result of the weakness of the regulator, but we on this side of the Committee are interested in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which takes a fairly moderate step towards having a better-informed regulator. That said, it may be possible to go further, either by reforming the way the regulator works in the water sector or, as I propose in Amendment 92, by implementing statutory rules on borrowing for water companies and taking effective steps to prevent capital being taken out of companies that are overleveraged. We need to make the water sector attractive to investors so that they bring more capital into it to fund investment in cleaner and better water infrastructure.
I add my whole-hearted support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Remnant. It seems grossly unfair that a company that has behaved responsibly should be penalised by the actions of another in the sector. I am aware of precedent in the financial services sector, but that is to protect the integrity of the financial system, which is in all participants’ interests. In this case, each water company is a unique entity whose actions have little or no impact on others. Without this amendment, one bad actor could contaminate the industry.
I add my concerns about the wording that my noble friend Lord Remnant seeks to remove from the Bill. This new subsection as drafted applies the duty to render “relevant financial assistance” to any other company that holds, or held, an appointment under this chapter. This seems to me yet another example of retroactive effects that are littered throughout the Bill and which we will discuss in later groups. Could the Minister explain to the Committee what the Government’s intention is with this retroactive element in the Bill? Will there be a maximum period of time since the relevant company held an appointment for this duty to apply to it? This seems to us to be a concerning power, and we would seek clarifications from the Minister on both the unfairness at the core of this subsection and its retroactive element. I thank my noble friend Lord Remnant for introducing his amendment, and hope that he continues to make progress on this unfairness which exists in the Bill as drafted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put forward amendments relating to the financial management of water companies. I will start with Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Ofwat has a core duty under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to ensure that companies can finance the proper carrying out of their statutory obligations. Ofwat already monitors the financial position of water companies and can take action when companies need to strengthen their long-term financial resilience. However, we recognise that some companies will need to take further steps to strengthen that financial resilience. Ofwat has required further assurance from these companies about their financial resilience into 2025 to 2030 and beyond, and the annual monitoring financial resilience report is due to be published this autumn and will provide a publicly available assessment of the financial resilience of each water company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that we met and discussed these concerns previously. Clearly, the commission that we have talked about a lot today will look at performance and resilience, but I am very happy to discuss this with him further as we move forward through the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, I emphasise that there is a high bar for the introduction of a special administration regime and the Government do not expect to have to use this power. A special administration regime will be required only when there is evidence that a company is insolvent or in serious breach of its statutory duties. The noble Lord’s amendment is to Clause 10, and Clauses 10 and 11 are designed to introduce new powers for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify water company licences to cover any shortfall that results from a SAR. Government funding may of course be required to cover the costs of a special administration, and these clauses mean that the Government will be able to recoup any taxpayer money spent during a SAR that cannot be covered upon exit from the SAR, either by rescue or by transfer. I wanted to make that clear. Of course, in the unlikely event that the power in the Bill is used, it allows the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to decide, subject to consultation, the rate at which the shortfall is recovered. I hope the noble Lord is therefore reassured that any intervention would be considered very seriously and as a last resort.
I turn now to Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Water companies are allowed to raise debt to fund the delivery of their services and it is for companies to decide their financial structure. At sensible levels—that is the key point—debt can be an appropriate way to fund essential investment. Sustained investment in the water industry will continue only if the shareholders of companies can expect a fair return. This amendment may therefore threaten the ability of companies to attract investment if limits on borrowing are imposed.
I reassure the noble Lord that Ofwat already has appropriate powers to prevent dividends where they would threaten financial resilience. I appreciate that the noble Lord has extensive experience in this area, but I hope he understands why we cannot accept this amendment, because it is vital that we ensure companies are able to finance their functions. If he would like to send in more information about this, I would be very happy to receive it and have a look.
Finally, I once again highlight that the new independent water commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, will review the current water industry regulatory framework to ensure that it attracts investment and supports financial resilience for water companies. I once again thank noble Lords for their suggestions and input into this discussion on the financial management of water companies.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank everyone who has participated in this. I think we are all concerned about financial engineering of one sort or another. It is not only borrowing, but that is clearly an important part of it. I am sorry that the amendments have not passed muster, but I look forward very much to further discussions with the Minister, as she offered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(iia) meeting relevant standards issued under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Sustainable Drainage),”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate Amendments 11 and 12 in my name in this group, on flood and water management. The amendments relate to Clause 1 and, in particular, tie the environmental standards which the department has set out in the Bill to those specifically meeting relevant standards issued under Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. So it is the same provision to come in two separate places.
I am very grateful to the Minister and members of the Bill team for meeting me prior to Committee to discuss this. I invite the noble Baroness to accept that this amendment and the provisions in Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 are Defra legislation, so I would like her department to take ownership of this. She is aware of my desire and passion that we implement the provisions of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act as a matter of urgency. Defra itself has explained that Schedule 3 provides a framework for the approval and adoption of drainage systems, a sustainable drainage system approving body within unitary and county councils and national standards on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems for the lifetime of the development. Schedule 3 also makes the right to connect surface water run-off to public sewers conditional on the drainage system being approved before any construction work can start. That goes to the point of ending the automatic right to connect that we discussed in a previous group.
Wales has already applied Schedule 3 and has done a report on how it has been implemented. It is not entirely perfect and there are ways in which it could be improved, but we have been yo-yoing on this under successive Governments and it now falls to her Government and her department to really run with this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right to try to urge the adoption of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act through this Bill, but she is right that there was an expectation that it would be implemented this year. Given the new Government’s determination to expand the construction of housing as quickly as possible across the country, this schedule is pertinent and relates to the water services Act. We ought to try to address it, through this Act or not. The Minister’s heart is in the right place on this one, so now she has the levers of power I am sure that she will pull the right one.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments, which rightly seek to tackle the issues of flooding and drainage. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 set out standards for water companies regarding the reduction of flood risks and created more power for local authorities to be able to take action to protect their local areas.
When in government, we tightened restrictions on water companies to protect our countryside, and we are pleased that this work is being continued. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, government investment has better protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion. Since 2015, Conservative investment has protected over 900,000 acres of farmland, rightly putting the needs of rural communities first.
In 2020, we built on this further and announced a doubling of capital funding into flood defences in England, to a record £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. As the Committee will understand from these steps, we had a strong record of investment in flood defences and water management. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to improve on those Conservative measures to protect communities across the UK from the harms of flooding.
Much of our debate on the Bill has so far focused on the corporate structures and financial management of companies in our water industry. It is right that we consider these issues in depth and seek to put the right incentives in place to deliver better outcomes for the key groups and interests that we should be aiming to protect under the Bill; namely, consumers, employees of water companies and the protection of our environment.
While the majority of the public debate around our water sector focuses on the damage that sewage overflows do to our waterways, my noble friend Lady McIntosh is absolutely right to take this opportunity to consider the dangers of flooding and to seek to ensure that water companies put this issue front and centre. We on these Benches certainly understand the issues of sewage contamination in our rivers across the country and would like to solve this issue to preserve the nature and wildlife that this has serious impacts on. We also recognise the horrendous impact that floods have on many communities because those water companies have not done enough in terms of flood management.
The first impact most people experience when water management is poor is flooding on roads and on other key transport links. However, in serious cases—such as the 2007 summer floods and the floods of 2015-16—this can result in threats to lives and livelihoods, enormous costs to the economy and massive devastation for the people affected. I am not sure if the Minister is politically old enough to remember the terrible Carlisle floods a few years ago, but it was horrendous to drive through Carlisle and see thousands of homes with abandoned furniture outside, which was soaked through. In my own constituency, just south of Penrith, at Eamont Bridge, houses had been flooded to a depth of about three inches, but with osmosis, the water had been sucked right up the walls and everything had been destroyed. So, flooding seriously impacts people’s lives.
Reporting on those two exceptional examples together, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the 2007 summer floods cost the UK economy £3.2 billion, while the 2015-16 winter floods cost the economy roughly half of that, at £1.6 billion. These examples alone demonstrate the importance of improving water management to protect our communities from flooding.
That said, it is not only the extreme examples that demonstrate the importance of managing flood risks. As anyone who is involved in farming or other rural affairs will tell you, 2024 has been a very wet year, with many communities facing difficult challenges with flooding. In April 2024, England as a whole received 150% of the long-term average rainfall for the time of year and the north-west was particularly wet—as the noble Baroness and I will testify—with, as my notes say, the wettest April since records began in 1871. I can also tell noble Lords that it was also the wettest August, with one dry day this year.
This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that it is not just people’s homes that rely on a good water system but our food supply—people’s livelihoods rely on it too. That is why my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is right to bring this point forward for debate as the Bill makes progress.
When flooding and poor water management affect our rural communities, invariably this has a knock-on effect on agriculture and, in turn, consumer costs. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported that fresh food inflation increased to 1.5% from 1% just in August as the wet weather affected British production of salads and soft fruits, while storms in the Atlantic delayed imports of more exotic fruits, driving up prices.
No Government can control the weather—thank goodness; farmers would like to control it of course, but each would want to control it differently—and no water company can entirely mitigate the impacts of wet periods on our agricultural output. However, good water management is very important when we are faced with unusually poor conditions.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments to the Bill. I know many farmers will be pleased to hear their concerns about the impacts of poor water management are being discussed in your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Government may not be inclined to accept these amendments, we on this side of the House see this as an important opportunity to ask the Government to please keep the issue of flooding and water management high on the agenda, in light of the very serious impacts it has on people across the country, in both direct damage to their homes and communities and the secondary impact it can have on food prices for all of us.
I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister might consider bringing tougher flood mitigation duties for water companies into the Bill. As we have heard constantly, the Government intend to bring forward much wider reforms in the coming year, but, as we approach winter, many families up and down the country will have concerns in the backs of their minds about the risks of flood, in light of the continued failures in our water sector.
Will the Minister take this forward and look at possible improvements that can be made to the Bill now? I hope the Government will listen to the important points raised by my noble friend tonight and consider these carefully before Report.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments relating to Ofwat’s duties. I will take Amendments 11 and 12 together.
As I have previously noted, public trust in the water sector has been severely damaged, and the number of serious pollution incidents is increasing, yet companies are still paying out millions in bonuses. To rebuild public trust, we are creating a new framework to support accountability, including the new rules relating to remuneration and governance. As the independent economic regulator of the water industry, Ofwat will be responsible for developing these rules.
However, the Government are clear that environmental standards are a vital component of performance. As such, the Bill requires the forthcoming rules to include standards that relate to the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has mentioned the devastation that flooding can bring; I reassure him and other noble Lords that I completely understand why it is so important for us to tackle flooding. I live in a house that has been flooded—living in Cumbria, you are always aware of these issues.
With regard to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 specifically, while the Act includes provisions relating to sustainable drainage, it does not prescribe or define any environmental standards capable of being applied in this context. It would therefore not be appropriate to include reference to standards in this legislation within Ofwat’s rules, as Ofwat does not have any functions or expertise in relation to the technical requirements prescribed under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, suggested that Defra should take ownership of delivering this. The issue we have is that it also impacts directly on development and developers, which is why the Government are currently working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess how best to implement their ambitions on sustainable drainage, while also being mindful of the cumulative impact of the new regulatory burdens on the development sector. At this stage, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that process.
On this basis, the Government do not accept either of the amendments from the noble Baroness. However, I would like to say that the noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to her concerns. As she said, we have discussed this previously. If she is willing, I suggest that we look to arrange a meeting between herself, myself and MHCLG, in order to discuss this further, where she can clearly explain her concerns to both departments—Defra and MHCLG—that have responsibility for moving forward on this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have spoken, and in particular for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and, from a sedentary position, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, as well as my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He referred to the flooding. I was actually a candidate—at a very early age—for Workington in 1987. I went back and visited as a shadow Minister during the severe floods of 2007 and 2009, so I am well acquainted with the pressures faced by Carlisle, Keswick and Cockermouth. It was very sad to see that many of the residents felt that they could not afford to take out insurance in those floods.
I will add that it is not just flooding that concerns me; it is the surface water going into the combined sewers taking the sewage from the new developments that do not have mandatory SUDS that is causing the problem.
I would like to take up the Minister’s offer. It would be good to have the meeting before Report, because I would be prepared to come back with these amendments then. Alternatively, if the department wish to come forward with even better amendments that achieve the same end, that would be very welcome.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the new rules from overriding existing employment contracts.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 14, I will speak also to my Amendment 15.
As I mentioned in an earlier debate this evening, there are a number of areas in this Bill where its effects are retroactive on existing agreements, but the Bill fails to set out the exact limits of these powers. On these Benches, we have been clear at every stage in the passage of the Bill that we want to see tougher measures to hold water companies to account and to ensure that we have better outcomes for consumers and our environment. However, it would not be right for us to approve this Bill because it has a worthy goal, without scrutinising those areas where it is deficient. We have already spoken about Ofwat’s failures, and noble Lords across the Committee will surely admit that there are improvements to be made to the way that Ofwat itself works. Giving unclear levels of retroactive powers to the regulator is not something that should be accepted by Parliament, and we will scrutinise the Bill very closely on its retroactive impacts.
My Amendment 14 seeks to remove the lines from Clause 1 that seek to empower Ofwat to void existing agreements, including employment contracts. The Bill gives Ofwat the power to issue these rules without proper scrutiny, and in this part of the Bill we see how powerful those rules can be. Retroactively overriding employment contracts may be necessary for the Government’s objective to implement a blanket set of rules on remuneration for senior officers of water companies, but it is surely not an acceptable way to go about regulating the sector. I ask the Minister: what message does it send to a talented person working in the water sector today, as they build their career, to see measures such as this retroactively changing the rules of the game? We on these Benches fear that many talented people may choose to pursue a career outside the sector, for fear that the Government may yet again move the goalposts retrospectively.
I have intentionally tabled my related Amendment 15 separately, to probe whether the Government are willing to move at all on the retroactive impacts of the Bill. Amendment 15 seeks to remove the part of Clause 1 that enables the retroactive deprivation of performance-related pay under the rules. It is surely not right to implement rules now that have effect from the beginning of the year. Our concern is that the lines in the Bill that we seek to remove allow the Government to renegotiate unilaterally an employment contract that has been freely entered into between a third-party employer and a third-party employee. While it is customary that employment legislation often does just such a thing, there is very limited precedent for picking on one class of employees in one particular sector.
This is a very unfortunate precedent to set, which opens the door to a Government inserting themselves into employment contracts across other sectors to achieve the outcomes they want. That smacks of overreach. Should we seek to remove performance-related pay from software company managers if their software crashes; from insurance industry executives if we do not like their handling of claims; or from airline executives if their flights are late? I am sure that there may be some noble Lords across the Chamber nodding their heads that the Government should be doing just that; however, that is completely against the Government’s claims of being business-friendly. No competent executive would ever want to work for a UK-based company were these kinds of rules to be brought in.
Our amendment does not suggest a better alternative but simply suggests that the current method is unacceptable, and that the employed and the employer also need to be cognisant of the law and agree that these contracts be amended or replaced with agreement to reflect the intent of the Bill.
There is also the issue, which my noble friend Lord Remnant may address in greater detail in his comments, of interference in multiyear contracts, where portions of that payment may already have been earned and yet could potentially be prohibited under the Bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Explanatory Notes provided to the House by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Paragraph 79, under “Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights”, says:
“Provision relating to remuneration of water company executives is also not considered to result in ‘deprivation’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as the provision relates to future income. Such income will only constitute a possession once it has been earned”.
I suggest that income in prior years in multiyear contracts has already been earned, just not yet paid. Therefore, I question the Minister on how compliance with the ECHR can be guaranteed in this case.
My amendments are, by their nature, probing. Given that they address an election manifesto commitment, they are designed to produce convincing answers from the Government on how these issues can be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that Amendment 26 in my name falls into the same grouping as those in the name of my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra. Although I very much regret that your Lordships’ time is having to be spent on potentially amending proposed legislation that has retrospective effect, it gives me the opportunity very much to support the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Roborough in support of Amendments 14 and 15.
It cannot be right retrospectively to override contract law with respect to employment contracts freely entered into by company and individual in line with relevant legislation and regulations in force at the time. Similarly, to the extent that, today, pay can be recovered from senior individuals under malus and clawback provisions in listed companies’ remuneration policies, such a draconian power can rightly be exercised only in extremely limited circumstances known in advance by the individual. The proposed exercise of the pay prohibition in the Bill retroactively goes way beyond accepted remuneration practice, and unacceptably so.
On my own amendment, I will not repeat the general arguments made by my noble friend against the principle of retroactive or retrospective legislation. I am no lawyer, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I perhaps erroneously use the terms interchangeably. The offending principle, though, remains the same. The general rule in this country, and indeed in most modern legal systems, is that legislative changes apply prospectively. If we do something today, we feel that the law applying to it should be the law in force today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it.
The Bill proposes that the provisions about performance-related pay apply from the financial year beginning 1 April 2024. We are currently some seven months into that financial year, and the Bill will not be enacted for some months hence. In effect we are talking about backdating the provisions for the best part of a year. The remuneration arrangements entered into between senior individuals and their employer will have been agreed under remuneration policies agreed by shareholders well before April for them to take effect from 1 April 2024. It surely cannot be right, whatever the merits of the Bill, for its provisions subsequently to alter those arrangements and the remuneration paid, or to be paid, under them.
Few things concern investors more than retrospective legislation, and listed companies will need to consult with and seek approval from shareholders on changes to remuneration policies at their AGM. Requiring retrospective changes risks companies breaching shareholder-approved remuneration policies. More fundamentally, it will undermine investor confidence at a time when they are being asked to fund a record investment programme.
My amendment would simply change the date from which the performance-related pay provisions come into effect from a historic 1 April 2024 to a mildly prospective 1 April 2025. Is that really too much to ask, to avoid breaching a fundamental legal principle? I do not think so and I hope that the Minister will agree with me.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have stuck with us this evening and carried on the debate. We know that the public have been clear that they want to see change and that where performance is poor, executives should not receive large salaries or bonuses.
I will start with Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The conditions of existing employment contracts may not align with Ofwat’s new rules. Our concern is that Amendment 14 may prevent Ofwat being able to apply its rules even when performance has not met the required standards. On Amendment 15, it is also right that where companies breach Ofwat’s rules on performance-related pay, Ofwat should be able, if it considers it appropriate, to require the company to recover any payment made in breach of the rules. Linking pay to performance should incentivise decision-making, resulting in improved outcomes for customers in the environment. I reiterate what I said earlier: should companies meet their performance expectations, executives can still be rewarded. So I hope that the noble Lord will understand why we will not accept his amendments.
I turn to Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. This legislation will ensure that Ofwat is able to implement rules on performance-related pay in the current financial year. However, I listened really carefully to the speech that the noble Lord just made introducing his amendment. I would really like to understand his concerns better, so I wonder whether he would welcome further discussion on this matter so that we can look at it in more detail. I would very much appreciate it if the noble Lord was prepared to do that. But currently we are not going to accept the amendments as we feel that they would prevent meaningful implementation of the rules.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. We respect that this is an election manifesto commitment and therefore needs to be in the Bill in some form, but my noble friend Lord Remnant and I would both like to discuss further with the Minister, if possible, how we can help to improve this part of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(5A) Rules made for the purposes of determining standards of fitness and propriety mentioned in subsection (2)(b) must include criteria that help the undertaker to assess—(a) whether persons have the knowledge, skills and experience to perform the specific role that they are intended to perform;(b) whether, in assessing a candidate for a position within the management body of the undertaker, the management body as a collective possesses adequate knowledge, skills and experience to understand the undertaker’s activities;(c) how relevant and important any matters which suggest a person might not be fit and proper are;(d) whether appointed persons on temporary absence continue to meet the standards of fitness and propriety.(5B) The criteria in subsection (5A) are to be treated as guidance and may be applied in general terms when the undertaker is determining a person’s fitness and propriety.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will attempt to be brief, in view of the hour.
Amendment 19 provides a clear definition of the criteria that will be used in determining whether someone is fit and proper to hold a responsible role in the water industry. As currently drafted, there is no definition and, as such, it is likely that everyone consulted would have their own different definition of what “fit and proper” might look like. There is precedent in another industry for such a test, which was undoubtedly in the back of the drafter of the Bill’s mind, in the financial services industry. My amendment is an edited version of the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of a “fit and proper person”. As I was previously a senior manager in an investment management business under the FCA’s senior manager regime, I have first-hand experience of this test.
Even as laid out by the FCA, there was considerable debate about the application of the tests. I also question whether Ofwat is really the right place for such an assessment to be made. In the financial services sector, it is for the member firm to make its own determination and express its view to the FCA when seeking to register a new employee. The FCA could then query that view and potentially overturn it. Should Ofwat be required to do this, it is likely to use less professional help and real-world experience in forming that view and will require dedicated infrastructure to process applications. If the undertakers are responsible, overseeing those applications becomes relatively straightforward.
This may not be a long debate, with only one amendment, but it is an important amendment to consider when giving effect to the Government’s intentions in this Bill. In providing clarity to the undertakers, what is intended by this provision? I am most interested in the Minister’s response and hope that, if she is not happy with my amendment, she might set out who she considers a fit and proper person and how that will be communicated to Ofwat and the industry. I am also most interested to hear why the Bill’s proposal for how to implement this is different from the financial services industry, despite a reasonably long and moderately successful record within that industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, how nice to have a quick last group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for introducing the last group of today with his Amendment 19, which seeks to specify the criteria to be covered by the rules on fitness and propriety, ensuring that senior leaders meet the public’s expectations.
I have mentioned Ofwat’s consultation on remuneration and governance before, and I would just like to confirm to the noble Lord that this consultation references similar criteria to those proposed by his amendment. Ofwat’s consultation seeks views on whether it would be appropriate to include a concept of “ability” in the new test, defined as an individual having adequate knowledge and understanding of the duties of the undertaker. Ofwat has stated its intention to design a fit and proper person test with criteria that will improve public trust and company culture in the water sector, having considered how other sectors are regulated around these same principles. I hope this captures the noble Lord’s concern that standards of fitness and propriety will need to be relevant and encompass concepts of knowledge and understanding. Of course, we feel that Ofwat’s independence is an important part of the trust that companies have in the regulatory regime.
The noble Lord asked why we felt Ofwat should be setting these criteria. We think it is right that Ofwat has the opportunity to consult on these criteria and that companies then have the opportunity to respond and perhaps propose different criteria. It needs to be a situation where Ofwat can then tailor these fitness and propriety standards to the water industry, rather than having prescriptive standards set out within the primary legislation. It is important that Ofwat’s independence is clearly upheld, because it will support its ability to hold senior officials to account for their actions.
Ofwat also notes in its consultation that the 16 largest water companies have a licence condition that requires them to meet the four objectives of its board, which are leadership, transparency and the governance principles. These objectives include the requirement for boards and board committees to have the appropriate balance of skills, experience, independence and knowledge. I hope the noble Lord is content that this is already being looked at; I hope that he will look at the consultation and therefore see that his amendment is no longer necessary.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, and it is certainly very helpful. Perhaps something I could have brought out more in my initial comments were the concerns over accountability. When I look at the FCA’s senior manager regime, and the fit and proper tests, none of that is here—nowhere is there any accountability to Parliament. We will take the Minister’s comments away and give this further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.