House of Lords
Olympics and Paralympics: Competitors in Female Categories
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions, if any, they have had with the International Olympic Committee, British Olympic Association, or relevant governing bodies for British boxing, about reports of biological males boxing in the female category in the Olympics in Paris; and what discussions they have had with the relevant governing bodies about biological males competing in any female category of sport at the Olympics or Paralympics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
It is for international federations to determine the rules for their sports at the international level. The Government have had no discussions with the IOC, the BOA or the boxing authorities about gender eligibility in sport in relation to the highly speculative reports that my noble friend’s Question relates to and repeats. Our sports councils have produced guidance providing domestic sports bodies with a framework to set their own policies for who can participate in their sports.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I regret that Answer, which obviously means that the Government are not particularly concerned. While what happened in Paris affected women at the very top of their game, we will have fewer elite women if they have to compete against born men at grass-roots level. Whether in fencing, cricket, football or snooker, we are seeing British sports bodies dithering on whether it is fair or safe for born women to compete against born men, with all their inherent physical advantages. Can my noble friend the Minister discuss with all the sporting bodies how they propose to protect women’s sports at all levels, with regard to safety and fairness, to ensure that we develop a future crop of British female Olympians?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will repeat the reason why the Government have not had any discussions with the IOC, the BOA or the boxing authorities about this highly speculative report that my noble friend’s Question relates to: it is highly speculative, and we cannot discuss things just because there is high speculation in the media about issues.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is not prepared to have discussions with the Olympic committee, might she have discussions with her parliamentary colleagues who seem intent on practising boxing on the streets of our country in the early hours of the morning?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a matter that I assume is also subject to considerable speculation in the media and is, I suggest, a matter for a Commons Whip and not a Lords Whip.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that I was surprised to see this Question posed by my noble friend in the way it is on the Order Paper, based on an inaccuracy. Both the women who competed in the Olympics were born as women, lived as women and competed as women; neither identified as a different gender from that which they were assigned at birth. However, they were subjected to shameful, racist and prejudicial online harassment and media intrusion. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this House should not in any way add to the inaccurate and cruel speculation but should support the IOC’s stated ruling on this matter?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that it does not feel particularly helpful for your Lordships’ House to be debating a matter that is based on speculation rather than on fact. Ultimately, it is up to the international federations to determine the rules for their sports at the international level of competition. Olympic boxing was, in this instance, a matter for the IOC.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a very odd one. The IOC twice passed both these athletes, once when they were not going to win medals and once when they did. The body that raised the sanction against them has been thrown out as the organising body for boxing. Will the Government back the IOC over a body that, on review, was found to have had years of financial mismanagement, rule-breaking within the ring, and bad training for its judges and officials? Surely we are going to go with the IOC on this one.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not believe I have said anything to suggest that we would go against the IOC on this one. In relation to the international governance of boxing, a new international federation, World Boxing, was established in 2022. It now has 42 member national federations, including England, Scotland, Wales and a number of others from our like-minded coalition on the sports issues relating to Russia and Belarus.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the International Olympic Committee has been very clear that all the women who competed in the female boxing category at this year’s Olympic Games were born as women, lived their whole lives as women and,
“comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations”.
This is not, therefore, a question about trans athletes’ participation in competitive sport. I welcome the approach the Minister has taken. Does she agree that this is, rather, an example of an international governing body regulating its sport independently? Will she join me in sending congratulations to all the men and women who represented their countries at the Olympic Games this summer?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I wholeheartedly join the noble Lord in congratulating all those who were successful in their respective sports during the summer.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
I very much thank the Minister for her answers to the questions so far and the manner in which this debate has taken place. Does the Minister agree that we would need to see, through further research, an increase in the level of scientific understanding around gender and sporting participation and a building up of the scientific evidence base, so that sporting governing bodies, rather than a Government, are able to make informed decisions when balancing inclusion with athlete safety, rather than resorting to social media in these cases?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that social media is not an appropriate way of assessing athletes’ eligibility to participate in sports. Our sports councils have produced guidance providing domestic sports bodies with a framework to set their own policies for who can participate in their sports. Their guidance, which I read in preparation for this Question, is very pragmatic and based on where we are as a society. It was published after extensive consultation and a review of the existing scientific research. The guidance recognises that there need to be different solutions for different sports, and that the needs of all groups must be considered.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is this not all about fairness, safety and equality for women in sport? Does the Minister not agree that the only way that we can have real equality for women’s sport is for women in the different sports to be able to compete separately from men where they do not wish to compete against men?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The sports councils’ guidance recognises the need for solutions for different sports, reflecting the points that the noble Baroness raised. It found two diametrically opposed camps, as has been reflected in the Chamber today, on the inclusion of trans women. The guidance found that you cannot easily reconcile inclusion with fairness and safety in sport; it is more straightforward with male sport. The sports councils also recognised, as I feel strongly should your Lordships’ House, that society is changing. Simply keeping the existing arrangements in sport will not accommodate inclusion and will not serve anyone well.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of a United Nations study published in August called Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls in Sport? It calculated that, by March this year, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 division events across 29 sports were defeated by trans-identifying men, who took a total of over 890 medals from female athletes. Does the Minister think that this is fair?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not aware of that report. I will read it and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will take action to ensure that biological men cannot in future compete in sports in the female category, at the Olympic level and levels below?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I repeat that the sports councils’ guidance recognises that there need to be different solutions for different sports; it is not a matter of the Government dictating to the sports councils how they should address this. The sports councils and the sports themselves need to assess the situation, take into account the differences between the different sports and make appropriate recommendations for their own sport based on up-to-date research.
Employment, Education and Training: Young People
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the number of young people not in employment, education, or training.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are fully committed to supporting our young people through the universal credit youth offer, and have invested £7 billion to ensure places in educational training for every 16 to 18 year-old. We plan to improve opportunities for 18 to 21 year-olds through a new youth guarantee, offering training, apprenticeships and support into employment, alongside launching Skills England and a new national jobs and careers service.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. The north-east has the highest proportion of young people not in education, employment or training at 15%. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to offer targeted support to young people in regions of greater disadvantage?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to highlight both the regional differences and the correlation with disadvantage in identifying levels of young people not in education, employment or training—or NEETs, as they are rather horribly known. The problem needs early intervention and targeting. The Department for Education is supporting local authorities to identify young people who are at risk of becoming NEET, so that they can be supported to stay in education and training in the first place. My own department, DWP, is reforming careers support and introducing a youth guarantee so that, right across England, every young person, from 18 to 21, has the option of apprenticeships, employment or quality training. We have also convened a small advisory group, including the mayoral combined authorities, local councils and others to make sure that we pursue a mission to reduce the number of young people who are NEET in a targeted way.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, the charity First Star Scholars—I declare an interest as patron—works with children in care and has a success rate of over 72% of them obtaining GCSEs and 50% attending university. Care-experienced children usually under- perform, with less than 20% achieving GCSEs and just 6% progressing to university. Will the Government agree to meet with me and First Star Scholars to address this so-called care cliff to help reduce the number of care leavers not in education, employment or training and enhance educational outcomes for these vulnerable young people?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising such an incredibly important point. I have the pleasure of having responsibility in my department for disadvantaged groups including care leavers, and I would be delighted to meet her and talk about this further. For a brief outline, here are some of the things the DWP does to support care leavers in different ways: they get priority access to universal credit and budgeting support and help; care leavers in staying-put arrangements can claim benefits under their own steam until 21 in many cases; and, crucially, we have a second-chance learning scheme, which means that if you are 18 to 21 and a care leaver, you can claim benefits and still study full-time to catch up on education you may have missed earlier. There is a lot more, which I cannot wait to tell her about. I look forward to meeting her.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we are aware of the numbers, and the Minister is suggesting some action, but can she say how much research is being carried out to find out why NEETs are NEETs? What encouragement are the Government giving to such research?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
What a great question. It is really interesting. Some people are NEET for short periods, but we know that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people can be NEET for much longer periods and may have complex needs. Some young people are overrepresented in the long-term NEET group, including people with low educational attainment; children who are looked after, as I was discussing just now; children who are permanently excluded, or in PRUs or alternative provision; those with health conditions; and those with special educational needs and/or disabilities. We are trying to attach each of these things separately, as well as looking at this as a category.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister looked at other exciting things going on to try to get hold of these young people and make sure they get some training? Has she seen the examples of the professional league football teams that provide just this? They provide schooling and proper education and, alongside that, allow the young people—mainly young men, but also women—to come along and do some training with professional footballers. This has been very successful in places in the north, such as at Carlisle United, where we have a very successful scheme.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have not thought about it from that angle, but it is really interesting. I wonder whether it may be necessary for me to go and look more closely at what is happening. Do they do it for cricket as well? If so, I am definitely interested.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, the first secure school opened in May this year, with a new holistic offer for youth justice. It is designed to shift settings away from punishment and towards rehabilitation. What allocated support will be given to pupils and their families in the next stage of their lives after leaving?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
From my department’s point of view, we work quite closely with those who have been through the criminal justice system. For example, we have prison work coaches who can work inside not just prisons but young offender institutions, and we are working quite closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to try to make sure we can address the reasons young people end up going through the criminal justice system and then come out the other side and find it difficult to get into education, employment or training. If there is anything specific that she thinks we can learn from that, I would be grateful to hear more.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, young people experiencing homelessness experience unique barriers to entering the workforce. Apparently, 43% of young people who are homeless have had to turn down work because of the impact it would have on their benefits. Does the Minister recognise the challenges for this part of the community, and what are the Government doing to ensure that people who are experiencing homelessness can enter the workforce?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We are looking very closely at these issues—I also have responsibility in my department for people who are experiencing homelessness. We are doing a number of things in this space, and I recognise the problem the noble Baroness describes. I have recently met some of the charities working on this, looking at some of the interesting solutions that they have been offering in supported housing. From the other side, we were one of the departments that helped launch a new homelessness covenant for employers. I recently went to an event to celebrate its first year of operation, and it was brilliant to hear employers talking about what they got out of it, not just recruiting young people who are themselves homeless but understanding that, in many cases in their own workforce, people were at risk of homelessness, had experience of homelessness or were in very precarious situations. We all have a lot to learn about the range of experience that young people have in that space and what more we can do about it. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Youth Futures Foundation—an independent not-for-profit organisation—calls the number of NEETs a “crisis”. As we know, 66% fall into the economically inactive category. I acknowledge the need for better mental health support, but the head of the Government’s new Labour Market Advisory Board, who advocated for
“quicker, clearer and more effective”
sanctions in his advisory role prior to 2010, now suggests a universal income for those out of work and states that sanctions are not a priority. Can the Minister explain what is going on? Is this official Labour policy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not sure who the noble Viscount is talking about but, if he would like to speak to me afterwards, I am very happy to look into it. We want to try to reform support to make sure that every young person has the opportunity of either quality training, quality education or a job. That is our priority and that is what people need. Young people want to have a future and to get on in life, but they have to be given all the support they need to get to that point. We have a crisis among the young. We should not have as many young people between 18 and 24 not in employment, education or training as we have. This Government are determined to reduce that number.
Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the action the Government are taking. Does the Minister agree with me that employers can take a more active role in recruiting young people who are in danger of being not in education, employment or training for life —like her, I hate the phrase NEETs—into earn and learn opportunities such as apprenticeships and graduate training programmes? Will she join with me in encouraging more employers to sign up to schemes such as the incredible 5% Club, which now has 1,100 members and is employing 100,000 employees in earn and learn roles, harnessing their incredible talent to increase productivity and growth?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an excellent point and I thank him for flagging up the 5% Club to me. I am happy to commend the work that it does, and I will make sure I share information about the club with my DfE colleagues.
On the broader point, the Government are encouraging employers to hire apprentices and host T-level placements, but also to develop closer ties with colleges and universities and to strengthen their links with, and have input into, local skills improvement plans. The noble Lord might be interested to know that we have begun work on a new foundation apprenticeship. The idea is to give more young people a foot in the door—it is a pre-apprenticeship apprenticeship, if you like—and to create clear pathways into work-based training and employment. Again, that is the first step on the way to a youth guarantee of a promise of educational training or a job for young people across the country.
Pensioners: Winter Support
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support pensioners this winter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that pensioners remain safe and healthy throughout the winter months. Thanks to the triple lock, most pensioners will see their state pension rise by over £1,000 during this Parliament. The lowest-income pensioners are entitled to pension credit, and winter fuel and cold weather payments to assist with heating and other costs. Additionally, all pensioners benefit from free flu jabs, transport concessions and community programmes to support mental well-being.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is all very well, but I want to raise a particular concern about pensioners living in rural and coastal communities. As the Minister may be aware, Age UK and Public Health England have been working in tandem to explore and understand the underlying issues, including loneliness, the digital divide, lack of support networks, poor house insulation and gaps in transport links, with attendant increased living costs. The withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance is a major blow to thousands of pensioners, many of whom are simply not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. What are the Government doing to ensure place-based financial support for those in this category, also bearing in mind energy costs rising in advance of this winter?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, on energy costs, the price cap has risen this year compared to last year, as the noble Viscount will know. However, it is £117 lower than it was last winter and the state pension, as he also knows, is £900 higher. I want to get the message out to pensioners that things may have gone up recently, but they are a lot lower than they were last year.
For rural or off-grid pensioners, energy support is provided by local authorities, DESNZ and devolved Governments. We are encouraging energy suppliers to do all that they can. The noble Viscount may know that the warm home discount is available to eligible low-income households, and the key thing is that it is paid through their electricity bill, so they do not have to be connected to the gas supply to get that help. There is even a specific scheme to support people who live in park homes to apply. There is also a home upgrade grant that provides grants for low-income households to upgrade the energy performance of the worst-quality off-grid gas homes in England by installing energy-efficiency measures and low-carbon heating.
On the broader point about placed-based support, the noble Viscount will know that the Government found the money to extend the household support fund for a further six months, so I would encourage any person in this situation to go to their local authority for local help.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the number of people on pension credit today?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Approximately 1.4 million pensioner households receive pension credit. We received around 74,400 pension credit claims in the eight weeks following the announcement about the winter fuel payment on 29 July—which is probably what has triggered the noble Baroness’s question. In the eight weeks after the announcement, there were 74,400 applications, while in the eight weeks before it, there were 29,500. That represents a 152% increase in pension credit claims received over that period. That period finished in the week starting 16 September, so more have come in since then and more will come in between now and the deadline of 21 December for when people can apply and still have their winter fuel payment backdated for this year.
Baroness Janke (LD)
A large majority of low-income pensioners are not on pension credit and therefore will lose the winter fuel payment, although they are living below the poverty line. What emergency measures have been put in place to support those pensioners? What are the Government doing to refine their targeting policies to make sure that full winter fuel support goes to all poor pensioners who are desperately in need of it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing would I mention once again is the household support fund. That is £421 million provided specifically for local authorities to support those in need, especially with the cost of living, such as food and fuel, so that is somewhere for people to go. We realise there is still a significant number of people who could claim pension credit, and if they get pension credit, they will get the winter fuel payment. It also opens up a gateway to other potential support with rent or council tax and passporting to a range of other benefits. We are running a campaign, and we will shortly be writing to 12 million pensioners. We will soon be writing also to 120,000 pensioners who get housing benefit who we think might be entitled to pension credit as well, so we are doing huge amount to make sure all that those in that space can claim it. The final point is that there are two bits to pension credit. The main bit tops up income to a certain level. There is also the savings guarantee, so people who have more savings and may think that they are not entitled to the slightly higher income could still be entitled to some pension credit. If they get any at all, they get the winter fuel payment, so please spread the word.
Lord Deben (Con)
It is not sensible to pay taxpayers’ money to people who do not need it—the Government are right on that. My worry is simply that those who apply for pension credit appear in many cases to find the bureaucracy difficult and not quick enough to deliver. Will the Minister assure the House that she will make sure that everybody who applies will get this in time and without bureaucratic delay?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
On bureaucracy, 80% of people now apply for pension credit online. You can apply online, on the phone or on paper, or you can get help from the DWP or a third-party organisation, but 80% apply online. That is by far the simplest and quickest way to do it, not least because you end up answering, at most, 48 questions and sometimes only 35, because lots of things you do not have to go through are taken out. That might seem like a lot, but it really is not—the experience people have is fairly straightforward. If you do not like doing it online, you can phone up and that is the equivalent, because the person on the other end just does it for you—you are on the phone and they are entering all the details. Some weeks, only 5% of people apply on paper.
On how long it takes to process it, as we are expecting an influx of applications, we have redeployed another 500 staff to work on processing. We know that there will be slightly longer times and are warning people who apply that it could take up to nine weeks, but I assure the House that if anyone applies in time, they will get the money. If that means that for a small number of people there will be a cashflow issue, I encourage them go to their local authority to apply to the household support fund to tide them over that gap.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I encourage the Minister to recognise that the winter fuel payments are being taken away from the very poorest pensioners. Those on pension credit are not the poorest; those who are entitled to it and will eventually receive it will also not be the poorest because they will get thousands of pounds extra, including winter fuel payments. Those slightly above that—it is estimated there could be 1 or 2 million—have no means of receiving the money that they will need this winter. There is no protection for them. The Minister talks about the reduction in fuel costs. Last winter and the one before, those pensioners received one-off cost of living payments. With a Budget tomorrow, it may not be too late to recognise that this is a mistake; it is going to cause serious harm to a number of pensioners and cost the Government and the NHS significant sums.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, nobody went out thinking that this is where we would like to be, but the noble Baroness knows very well the economic situation that we inherited, and she will know exactly why it was necessary to save money in year. I remind the noble Baroness that, by definition, the poorest pensioners are getting the support they need provided they apply; we will make it as easy as possible for them to do that. For everybody else, the Government have committed to sticking to the triple lock for this Parliament. That means that somebody on the new state pension will find that, over this Parliament, the value of that state pension will rise by £1,700, and the value of even the basic state pension will rise by £1,300. That is where the huge extra support will come from for the pensioners that she is talking about.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, with reference to the triple lock, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that a number of charities have been calling for a double lock on benefits for children; that is, that they should uprated in line with either earnings or prices. Given this Government’s commitment to putting children at the heart of policy-making, might this be considered for the future?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, obviously the noble Baroness will not expect me to comment on the Budget, or I would be back asking questions rather than answering them as quick as she can say “Chief Whip”. She will be aware that the work of the child poverty commission to develop a strategy will involve looking in the round at the challenge of child poverty in our country, including social security systems. It will be looked at in that context.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, to add to what my noble friend said regarding the levels of income that pensioners receive, the top rate for the state pension is £11,502. My neighbour has that amount. She is not eligible for pension credit. Can the Minister tell me whether she could she manage on £11,502 per year, and would £200 or £300 make a difference?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, of course, I recognise that there is a challenge out there for many older people who are struggling with the cost of living; I totally understand that. I also know that the noble Baroness’s neighbour is in a position where, a year ago, her pension was worth £900 less. The point I want to insist on is that, at a time of enormous financial constraint in the country, this Government are committed to putting in the money to maintain the triple lock throughout this Parliament. I am not saying that this is easy; I am saying that we have made a significant commitment, and we are going to stick to it.
CPS Guidance: Intentional Police Shootings
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Crown Prosecution Service on guidance issued to prosecutors on intentional shooting by police, and on the application of the evidential and public interest stages of the test to decide whether to prosecute police officers in the case of the discharge of firearms.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, charging decisions made by the CPS are rightly independent and made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidance to prosecutors. I have invited the Director of Public Prosecutions to review CPS guidance and processes in relation to charging police officers for offences committed in the course of their duties in order to consider whether any changes are desirable within the existing legal framework. The review will conclude by the end of the year.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I welcome the sensible decision to continue with the previous Government’s police accountability review, including the lessons-learned commitment. However, I would like to press the Minister on three issues. First, while I endorse the default presumption of anonymity in this small number of cases, an explicit and robust evidential test should be in place should a decision be made to deviate from this. Secondly, does he agree that it is imperative that these inquiries by the CPS and the IOPC are expedited in a reasonably timely and transparent fashion for the benefit of all parties? Thirdly and finally, will he undertake to ensure comprehensive and meaningful consultation with the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
In respect of consultation with all relevant stakeholders across the range of reviews that we are undertaking, we have taken the measures agreed by the previous Government and we have gone further, and the details of that were set out last week by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place. In respect of anonymity, the Home Secretary set out that that is a measure we are going to take; there will be a presumption of anonymity in those cases. Ultimately it will rest upon the discretion of a trial judge.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, first, will the Minister confirm whether the review that is taking place will include a review of the Sergeant Blake case and, if it does not, whether he would encourage the IOPC, the CPS and perhaps the courts to consider how that case was handled? Secondly, is that review going to consider what I regard as the excellent proposal yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Carter? Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides a defence to householders in certain circumstances when their property is invaded. Should not police firearms officers—not police officers in general—be given some kind of comfort and defence in law when they exercise on our behalf these very difficult decisions of challenging people with firearms who are otherwise so dangerous?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and I recognise the great experience that he brings to bear. The intended reviews will not look at individual cases but no doubt will look across the board to see what lessons can be learned. In respect of firearms officers, I echo the words of the Home Secretary and indeed of my noble friend Lord Hanson in this House last week: we in this House all recognise and pay tribute to the extraordinary risk that firearms officers take upon themselves in public service to defend and protect all of us.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Where a policeman has shot an unarmed man, allegedly in defence of another policeman, does the Minister agree that whether his action was objectively reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances should be determined not by other policemen, nor by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but by 12 ordinary people of diverse backgrounds, commonly called over 800 years “a jury”?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I do. However, it is worth pointing out to this House the enormous care and expertise that are brought to bear whenever a charging decision is made in a case about the discharge of firearms by a police officer. First, it is brought and dealt with by a specialist team within the CPS, trained in the area: the CPS special crime division. Secondly, decisions in cases concerning the discharge of firearms by police officers where a death arises are always taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions because that reflects the seriousness, care and attention given to such cases, and quite rightly so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, during yesterday’s debate he and the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made valuable points. The contention is that armed officers do not go out with the intent to kill; they go out with the intent to protect the public. Intent is an integral part of any murder charge, but by the nature of their jobs police officers are forced to make split-second decisions in reacting to circumstances. Will the Minister commit to looking at the laws in this area in order to protect officers and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, noted, to introducing defences similar to those available to house- holders when using force to defend themselves?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
My Lords, it is not the intention to review the law of homicide. It is the intention that the director will review the guidance that is given to prosecutors when considering whether or not it is appropriate to bring charges in such circumstances. Prosecutors will do that in accordance with the code; it is the guidance for that code that is going to be reviewed.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister give some context to this by providing us with figures for the last five years on how often firearms drawn by police officers in anger are discharged? How often does that result in injury or death to the victim?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
My Lords, it speaks to the enormous bravery of firearms officers and the skill with which they discharge their duties that such instances are very rare indeed. We should all, as I said before, be thankful to those officers for that care and skill, and for their levels of professionalism. I am afraid that I do not have the precise figures to hand, but I will write this afternoon to the noble Lord to provide him with those figures.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, building on the points that my noble friends have made, I wonder whether it is time to ask whether the guidance to prosecutors is really sufficient in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, in 2013 householders were given a special defence when they use force in the home where they honestly believe that the degree of force used is reasonable. Is it not time to ask whether police officers should be given some similar legal protection, perhaps with a new offence of excessive force rather than murder, and a more proportionate penalty, appropriate for police officers who put their lives at risk to protect us all?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I urge your Lordships to look at the comprehensive package of measures that the Home Secretary announced last week, which seek to take away the tension that may be thought to exist currently between, on the one hand, a lack of trust and confidence within some communities in policing but, on the other hand, a lack of confidence in those police officers in going about their daily duties. These packages of measures seek to show that there need be no tension between those two legitimate principles.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is all very well to say that there should not be any tension but, in fact, of course there is. One of the problems we have is that firearms on British streets are very rare. That is why a shooting has such a huge shock value to a lot of us. As the Minister has said, certain communities feel that they bear the brunt of police shootings, violence and, quite often, persecution. Does the Minister agree that transparency is vital? It should not look as though the whole system is closing off against those communities.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I entirely agree. We will see from the package of measures that many of them address the concerns that the noble Baroness has raised.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the Minister made a very good point, which is that we all ought to consider the package that is offered in the round. It is a comprehensive package, and not just about police firearms officers, but surely the group whom we have to consider are the firearms officers and what their view of it is. There are only about 3,000 of them in the 67 million of us. The military do not want to take on that responsibility and we have very few other options. Their representations really need to be taken seriously because should they change their minds about volunteering, we will all have a problem.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I agree. Any consultation will need to take account of all relevant stakeholders. When it comes to the use of firearms, that will most certainly include the views of firearms officers.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, for the benefit of the House, I thought it would be helpful to point out that we next have Questions on an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons for up to 10 minutes. The House expects questions, not speeches, from all noble Lords. We will then move on to three Oral Statements. In each case, when we move on to Back-Bench contributions, it is 20 minutes of questions, not speeches.
If we stick to this sound advice, as set out in the Companion, we will get more questions from more Members of the House to more Ministers. That is what we all want to see. This plea for brevity equally applies to my noble friends on the ministerial Benches here.
China: Human Rights and Sanctions
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, we are told that when the Foreign Secretary visited China, he raised British citizen Jimmy Lai’s sham detention, and we welcome that. Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary has still not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting. Yesterday in the other place, the Foreign Secretary failed to answer whether or not he would meet Jimmy’s son, so let me give the Minister another opportunity. Will Ministers meet Jimmy Lai’s son—yes or no?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
That is quite an easy one because my colleague, Minister Catherine West, has met Jimmy’s family on several occasions, both in opposition and since being appointed as a Minister. I also recall from reading the transcript of the Commons exchanges yesterday that the Foreign Secretary did indeed commit to meeting Sebastien Lai.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House of Commons
“this Government will set a long-term, consistent and strategic approach to China”.
That would be welcome. He went on, however, to criticise the previous Government in 2015 for what they termed a “golden era” of their relationship with China. Have the Government committed in their strategic audit of their relations with China, which I support, to include all the preferential trading agreements the UK has offered China? This includes financial services, where Chinese state enterprises which have some element of involvement in human rights abuses may be involved in preferential market access to British financial services. Will that review be public?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the China audit. I think the most helpful thing I can say at this point is that the audit will be thorough and cross-government; the whole of Whitehall and all departments will be included in that audit.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I am astonished that the Foreign Secretary did not offer a Statement to the House of Commons but forced an Urgent Question, which has, of course, limited our opportunity to ask questions as well. Is it because he understands that there are some western democracies that, in the recent past, have got their people out of Chinese Communist Party prisons, yet his kowtowing visit means that he came back empty-handed as far as Jimmy Lai is concerned?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I must disagree with my noble friend on his assertions and the tone in which he put his question. My right honourable friend David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, went to China because he wanted to raise these issues. Unless we engage with China, we do not get the opportunity to raise these issues. He raised the case of Jimmy Lai. He has called for Jimmy Lai to be released, as well he should. This is consistent with his position in opposition. He has gone further and made sure that every Minister in their engagement with China continues to raise on every occasion the case of Jimmy Lai. He should be released.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom consistently led on the situation of the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Last year, at the UN Third Committee and subsequently at the Human Rights Council, 51 member states, led by the United Kingdom, signed a statement. I note with some degree of disappointment that there was a statement presented this year at the same forum, where only 16 countries, the United Kingdom included, came behind an Australian- led permanent representative statement. What action will the Government take to continue to ensure the UK’s leadership on this important issue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will continue to lead on this issue where we can in international fora. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said, and we share his concerns on this. But, to reiterate, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang and the Uighur people in China last week, and he will continue to do so because our concerns have not changed since the change of Government. He will continue to raise those issues whenever and wherever he can.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I will ask the Minister about the situation for parliamentarians in this country who were sanctioned because of raising what was happening to the Uighur community in Xinjiang province. Two Members of this House—myself and the noble Lord, Lord Alton—and five Members of the House of Commons were sanctioned. I understand that that was not raised in the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with the leadership in China. Preserving our right to raise human rights issues, without feeling that there will be consequences for doing so, should concern this House.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend, as does the Foreign Secretary. These issues are raised. The sanctions against parliamentarians for things they have said are completely unwarranted and unacceptable. The Foreign Secretary met with Speaker Hoyle before his trip to China to reiterate that this was a concern to him. It is a concern to the Foreign Secretary and to all of us in the Government. It is inappropriate that parliamentarians in this and the other House should be sanctioned in this way, and we will consistently raise this with China.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that it is right to raise where Chinese behaviour is deplorable and to challenge China robustly, but should we not seek to switch the emphasis to a less defensive and more positive side? We can outsmart the Chinese by showing that our kind of liberal capitalism, when we reform it—it needs reforming—is vastly superior to anything they can deliver, and that freedom under the law and free speech are of more benefit to nations than falling under the Chinese hegemon, as they will find in time. If the security and prosperity of the developing world are the prime requirement, the Commonwealth contains six of the fastest-growing economies in the world—a very much better bunch than the dodgy deals of BRI and other arrangements with the Chinese, where countries just find themselves loaded with more and more debt. Is there not a more positive side to take, as well as raising these issues that have very properly been raised?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On this Government’s approach, we want a consistent, strategic and pragmatic relationship because we think that is the best way to make progress on some of these issues that are of concern to all sides of the House. The way that we are describing this is that we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, did the Foreign Secretary raise the appalling treatment of Tibetans, particularly the sacrilege by which some of their wonderfully famous and sacred sites are being destroyed? If this was raised, does the Minister know the answer?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am frantically looking through the read-out of the exchange to see a reference to Tibet. I assure the noble Baroness that the Foreign Secretary raised a number of foreign policy and security matters, particularly issues around human rights. As she would expect, you do not get an instant result in these sorts of exchanges—diplomacy is about consistency and it takes time. But we are now in a period where we want a consistent, stable and pragmatic relationship. For 14 years, the relationship has blown hot and cold, and we have not had that stability and consistency. So that is the approach we will see from this Government.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the Chinese state is not the first autocracy in the world and it may not be the most repressive, but it is by far the most technologically advanced. The ways in which the People’s Republic uses face recognition technology, surveillance technology and apps that monitor your phone is without precedent, as is the way it uses notionally private companies, such as Tencent, Weibo and Alibaba. Has the Minister’s department made any assessment of whether this kind of surveillance state could be exported; in other words, whether China’s allies and client states might be offered the package of a panopticon state to use on their own citizens?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are concerned about surveillance and threats to, for instance, BNO passport holders or others here in the UK, and we monitor that extremely closely. We take our responsibilities towards human rights, compromises of freedom of religious belief and other issues of privacy very seriously.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of China’s intentions to act aggressively in a military sense in the western Pacific? Do they agree that it is highly likely to come very shortly? What are we doing about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we take the issues of freedom of navigation on the high seas extremely seriously. These were raised with China by the Foreign Secretary, and we made our position on these issues very clear.
Independent Water Commission
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the independent commission led by such a respected figure as Sir Jon Cunliffe. However, after 14 years of criticising our government policy in this area, why did the new Government not have clear ideas of their own to fix this industry by the time they took office?
As has been discussed at Second Reading and in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, there is concern over the timetable for bringing forward legislation for a full reform of the water industry after this review is complete. Will the Minister make commitments on the timing of that legislation for noble Lords’ consideration when deciding whether to press their amendments that might increase the breadth of the Bill’s impact? The Secretary of State has given a commitment that the review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. In another place, it has been suggested that the review would not, therefore, lead to legislation that takes effect before 2029. Does the Minister agree?
It is reassuring to see the Government adopt our own previous policy of removing rights to bonuses for water company directors; however, will the Minister inform the House of the total amount of performance-related pay within the sector since privatisation and what percentage of total investment that is? Taking away bonuses will not change the finances of the water industry. It is most pressing to ensure that the industry is properly capitalised to undertake the investment programme that this country needs to deliver clean water at an affordable price. How much has been ring-fenced for that in the agreement between the Secretary of State, the industry and Ofwat announced on 11 July?
It was disappointing that only the last of the terms of reference addressed financial resilience at all. It is critical, given the parlous state of some companies in the sector and the need for investment to deliver clean rivers, lakes and beaches, that this issue is addressed quickly and effectively. My own amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill limiting water company leverage was not much liked by the Minister. What other measures are the Government taking to restore financial stability in the short term? It has also been reported that the Government will consider forcing the sale of water companies in England to firms that would run them as not-for-profits. Can the Minister confirm whether this is part of the Government’s review, and is she willing to give the House some examples of this kind of approach working elsewhere? For example, does she consider Welsh Water’s record in Labour-run Wales to be a good one?
It has been a source of much frustration to this House that there is a lack of accountability to this House for the actions and inaction of the regulators. We welcome the terms of the review to clarify regulators’ relationships with Parliament. Does the Minister agree that, when she is speaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the regulators, it might be desirable that they were more accountable to her and to this House?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and thank the Minister for this Statement updating the House on the launch of the independent water commission. There is much that we on these Benches welcome, most importantly that this Government, through the Water (Special Measures) Bill presently being considered by this House and the launch of the water commission, have given a clear signal that they are determined to try to fix our broken water system. The intent is a welcome step change, and I am thankful for it.
That said, there is a time for reviews and commissions and a time for calm, direct and decisive government action to fix systems that have been broken for far too long. The Government talk proudly about their longer-term approach, when the electorate is keen for more radical and immediate action. My friendly warning to the Labour Government is that the people who voted for them did so with the expectation that real action would be taken to resolve this mess, at scale and at pace. Labour has had many years in opposition; quite frankly, we expected the Government to be better prepared and to have come up with the necessary plans and answers by now that are urgently needed to fix these problems.
The water industry is a mess, and the sewage scandal was a critical issue at the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are determined to put the protection of our precious natural environment at the heart of everything we do. In 2023, water companies dumped 54% more sewage into our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounts to 464,000 incidents and 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Meanwhile, water bills are set to rise by some 40%. We are clear that we would abolish Ofwat, create a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority and replace the failed private water companies with public benefit companies.
The Government have taken a different policy direction. My worry is that the magic trick of making Ofwat fit for purpose, securing investment while keeping consumer water bills low and protecting our environment lies way beyond the measures contained in the Water (Special Measures) Bill and that, when further legislation finally arrives, it will be too late. I welcome the Minister’s engagement, but I call on the Government to work with all sides to make the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill more radical and robust. Our environment cannot wait while Labour decides on the real systemic reforms that are the only solutions to this crisis.
Only 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. With the commission taking at least a year to consider evidence and report back to government, and with further legislation only then to be prepared and debated in Parliament, the radical change required appears unlikely to be implemented before 2028-29 at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge a growing sense of concern on all sides of the House that the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill are not enough to fix the problem and that further legislation derived from the conclusions of the water commission will just not arrive in the urgent timescales required.
The 30% by 2030 target for protection of nature is coming up urgently. How will this review help support that process? My understanding is that the water review will not report until 2025, which leaves a short timeframe for making the necessary changes and requirements to meet our targets. Further, if we find after the Water (Special Measures) Bill is passed that problems in the water industry persist and we are still in the gap before the water commission finishes its work and is ready, are the Government prepared to put forward additional urgent legislation to help fix any remaining problems?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions on the Statement made in the other place recently. Both noble Lords mentioned the fact that we had been in Opposition for 14 years— I would suggest that is probably one of the reasons why the water industry is in such a mess. It is a little bit rich of the Opposition to say that we should have sorted it out when we were in Opposition.
In answer to a few questions, the review will be reporting in the first half of next year. It is not that long until next year; it is only a few months away. The idea is that the review will develop new legislation that will make water companies and our water infrastructure fit for purpose for the future.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his broad support. He talked about urgency. It is important to point out that we came into government at the beginning of July. On 11 July, my honourable friend the Secretary of State made a Statement to the House on the agreement he had already reached with water companies and Ofwat to ring-fence money earmarked for investment so it could not be diverted to shareholder payments. On 9 September, we introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill that we are considering in the House. Yesterday, the review was announced—so we are pretty well cracking on with this as an urgent action going forward.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister agree with me that the failures in the UK water industry derive from extractive financial engineering, which in turn led to poor investment in infrastructure, which in turn led to the environmental failures that have become so publicly known? All these things should have been picked up by the regulators far sooner and acted on. Will the commission focus on that aspect?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The commission will focus on regulation, among other things, and I urge noble Lords to input into that part. Clearly, regulation is an area of particular concern. We need to look at how it was possible for water companies to have managed to get into such appalling debt; the commission will want to look at that very carefully.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I said yesterday in Committee on the Water Bill that I very much welcome this review and congratulate the Government on having instituted it. Perhaps I could probe the Minister on a particular point about the structure of regulation. In the other place last week, the Secretary of State said:
“The Commission will conduct a root-and-branch review of the water sector’s regulatory system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 280.]
However, in the press release, among the listed objectives of the commission are:
“Better regulation: rationalising and clarifying requirements for companies … Empowered regulators: ensuring regulators are effective in holding water companies accountable”.
I hope that within the scope of the commission is the question of whether the structure of regulation is correct, in that it is divided principally between Ofwat and the Environment Agency, and whether it would not be more appropriate to have a single regulator for such an important group of monopoly companies.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My understanding is that the whole structure of the regulator and anything around how effectively it has been working will be open for the commission to discuss. My understanding is also that we are not committed to any particular structure going forward and that the commission will look at the whole thing right across the board.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure the House on the scope and delivery of the commission? I very much appreciate that this commission is being established and that it has got such a wide remit. It very specifically says in the account of the scope and delivery that the commission will be asked to work within the framework of the UK carbon budgets and the targets of the Climate Change Act, but it does not give a concomitant assurance that it will also have to meet the requirements of the Environment Act, including the legally binding biodiversity targets in particular. Can the noble Baroness reassure us on that matter—that it will be part of the remit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that it specifically refers to the UK carbon budget framework and the Climate Change Act. We discussed this very briefly in the Water (Special Measures) Bill yesterday during the environment amendments. The biodiversity targets set within the Environment Act are certainly ways to deliver the changes that we need and I suggest that anything that is currently in law is something that the commission would be discussing.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will pick up the point that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made about regulators. While we welcome very much the independent water commission and what it will look at in its scope, last week the Secretary of State introduced another review by Dan Corry of the Defra regulatory framework, which will report before the independent water commission. I did not want to think that that might preclude any of the broader structural issues that we know need to be addressed in the water industry. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what relationship will there be between the Dan Corry review of Defra’s regulatory framework and the independent water commission?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a really good question. I have met with Dan Corry and spoken with him about this. He is doing a very broad overview of everything; it is not limited to the water industry. His review is entirely separate from any work that the commission is doing. If there is any overlap on the effectiveness of the water industry regulators, I am sure that it will be fed into the commission as part of its discussions.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the water commission’s terms of reference are full of motherhood and apple pie statements. They promise to protect customers and the environment, but matters such as flooding, agriculture, waste, the pricing formula, profiteering and the failures of privatisation are beyond the scope of the inquiry. Such constraints mean that the review will not be comprehensive. Can the Minister explain why the Government have handicapped the commission from the outset?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government have not handicapped the commission; they have given the commission a clear target, overview and scope. Where housing, planning, agriculture and drainage interlink with strategic planning for the water system, they are in scope. In some circumstances, that could include, for example, agricultural run-off or housing development—it just has to be within that scope. Having said that, just because the other areas that my noble friend referred to are not in scope of the commission, that does not mean that the Government are not taking them very seriously or not continuing to do further work on these issues.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the review and, in particular, the appointment of Sir Jon Cunliffe, who, in his time regulating financial services at the Bank of England, proved his thorough understanding of regulatory frameworks. My point is about scope and timing. We are told that an advisory group will be established to inform him and that he will refer to, and consult with, expert stakeholders. After that, the commission will also publish a general call for evidence to bring in a broad range of other views, which I assume is the public part—I see the Minister nodding, so presumably there will be a public consultation. My question therefore is: does she sincerely believe that six months is adequate? This review is profoundly important and pulls together so many different strands, as others have mentioned, so it is more important to get it right than to get it on the record quick.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness said, Sir Jon Cunliffe is an excellent choice as chair, and we are very pleased to have him. He is already looking at who could be part of the advisory group—that is taking place—and who the broader advisers will be. We want to have it open to the public and consumers, because it is important that they too have their say. Now that we have the chair appointed, we are, as a matter of urgency, getting the other members of the advisory group in place and getting the other people involved who need to be involved, including the public, as quickly as possible.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the pollution through sewage overflows into our waterways is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with urgently. Here is the problem: the water companies have their price review—their five-year plan, if you like—to be agreed at the end of this year for the next five years. So, unless the Government are able to influence the scope and size of the agreement of investment in our wastewater pipes and treatment works, nothing will happen—well, not enough will happen —in the next five years. The danger is that the Government are putting this off until 2030. That is not acceptable. Can the Minister reassure me and many others that this will not be the case?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness is aware, the commission will not do anything that will impact on PR24—the price review that is due to report at the end of this year. I point out that this price review is £88 billion, as Ofwat has proposed. That is the largest investment that we have ever seen going into infrastructure. The Government were very keen that we had a really good infrastructure deal for PR24 so that we can start putting right some of the things that so badly need attention at this very early stage.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, like everybody, I very much welcome this report. However, point 12 says that the Government are specifically ruling out looking at agriculture at the moment. Given that the public really worry about pollution and, particularly in the west of England, that so much pollution in our rivers and reservoirs comes from agriculture, when will the Government look at this? Will any further legislation come through separately from Defra to look at the waste that comes from chicken farms that affects the River Wye?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The situation in the River Wye is the most dreadful example of what can happen when you get too much run-off from agriculture. We are looking at what needs to be done around the River Wye in particular, but we are looking more broadly at how we manage pollution from agriculture. I met my colleague Daniel Zeichner, the Minister for Farming, only earlier today, and we discuss these issues on a regular basis. Although agriculture is in scope only where it interacts with water regulation, that does not mean that we are not serious about tackling the problem. It is a huge part of this; I think that over 40% of pollution in our rivers comes from agriculture. It is very much high on the Government’s agenda.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I urge that the commission takes a serious and practical look at resourcing. The Environment Agency has had its budget halved in the last decade, and it is pointless producing complicated recommendations if they are not going to be resourced—something which we as legislators do far too often.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Resources and enforcement are a crucial part of ensuring that any legislation is delivered.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has indicated how quickly the Government have sought to address this issue, but they very quickly announced the intention to develop 1.5 million new homes across the country. We are all aware that there are development deserts across the country, particularly catchments affected by the nutrient neutrality rules on phosphates and nitrates. I have also heard that the Environment Agency has declined a number of major developments, including around Oxford and Cambridge, due to lack of available water to supply those new developments, as well as lack of suitable sewerage to remove waste. Will the commission focus, and how quickly will it be able to do so, on the limitations that the poor performance of our water companies is placing on the Government’s ambitious agenda for economic and housing development?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Earl heard, the commission has a very wide remit. I ask him to feed in anything like this that he feels it should be giving attention to. On housing and nutrient neutrality, we have ambitious housing targets, and Defra and the MHCLG are working together on how we can protect the environment and look at what needs to be done in the area of drainage. On water shortages, one of our manifesto pledges, and something we are very keen to work on, is the introduction of new reservoirs. We have not had new reservoirs for over 40 years in this country, and it is absolutely critical that we move forward on that.
Middle East
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“After over a year of horrifying violence, civilian suffering has increased, the conflict has widened, and 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 humanitarian 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, overturning 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 life-saving 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 honourable 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 honourable friend the Member for Lincoln, Hamish Falconer, joined the Lebanon support conference in Paris. Today, my right honourable 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”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Israel’s response to the missile attack launched by Iran earlier this month was proportionate, precise and targeted. On these Benches, we hope that this will now mark the end of these escalating exchanges between Israel and Iran, and I reiterate the sentiment of my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in urging restraint.
I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with regional counterparts, encouraging restraint in the face of escalation. Does the Minister know what discussions are being had with our partners regarding a co-ordinated approach to achieving a peaceful resolution?
However, we should not underestimate the malign influence of Iran in all this. It has made it very clear that it intends to destroy Israel’s right to exist, and its funding of Hezbollah shows that that intent has not changed.
There have been continuous rocket attacks in northern Israel by Hezbollah. No country in the world would allow this action to go unchecked. Hezbollah is not only violating international law by launching rockets and missiles at Israeli towns and displacing tens of thousands of Israeli citizens but doing so in flagrant breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which clearly calls 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 Minister agree that Hezbollah must comply with that UN Security Council resolution as a precondition to ending this conflict? Additionally, have His Majesty’s Government had any discussions with the UN regarding the implementation of that resolution?
On Gaza, as the Foreign Secretary said, some 100 hostages remain in captivity, including Emily Damari, a British national. This is utterly unacceptable and I am sure that the entire House joins me in calling on Hamas to immediately release all remaining hostages, especially Emily, of whom we are all thinking at this time.
In light of these most recent developments, can the Minister confirm whether the Government will look again at their disgraceful decision to suspend some of the licences for the sale of arms to Israel? I take this opportunity to again ask the Minister whether the advice of the Attorney-General required Ministers to suspend these licences. I would be grateful for an answer this time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this Statement, but the hostages have still not been released. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks and an element of those from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
Only a day ago, 90 people were killed in northern Gaza, in an area by the border where I was in the spring, having been told that the IDF planned to have completed military operations by this February. What is the UK’s estimate of the balance between civilians and combatants who have been killed in Gaza to date? Does the Minister agree with me that, if the IDF are responsible for bulldozing civilian areas to make them uninhabitable in some form of buffer zone, it is a war crime? Will the UK Government be clear in stating that to the Israeli Government?
Will the Minister also advise his counterparts in the Israeli Government that it continues to be unacceptable to impede aid? According to the United Nations, a paltry 448 UN co-ordinated humanitarian movements have taken place in the three weeks in October. Of those 448, 268 were denied access or impeded by the Israeli Government, so will the Minister be clear that further obstructions of aid are contrary to both international humanitarian law and the mandate on the Israeli Government to secure aid within Gaza?
According to the IOM, we have seen 834,000 displaced Lebanese. This is now more than the 815,000 Syrian refugees resulting from that terrible conflict, and more than 400,000 Lebanese have now gone into Syria. It is perfectly clear that this is a security risk not only to the region but to the people of Israel. Will the Government take action on the evacuation orders? What is the Government’s legal assessment of their compatibility with international humanitarian law? The Minister was right that many people have been actively displaced up to 10 times, but what is the Government’s legal view on evacuation orders, which continue to be used?
Do the Government endorse the position of the International Court of Justice, which has stated that areas within both Gaza and Lebanon that are education facilities must be protected? Some 90% of all education facilities in Gaza have been destroyed by the IDF. That is why on 7 June the UN notified the Israeli Government that Israel is now on the blacklist of countries that harm children in conflict. Does the Minister agree that there should be no impunity for these actions, including the West Bank violence?
The Minister said that the Government were taking steps. May I suggest two steps that are practical and will send very clear signals? The first is that there should be no impunity for those facilitating violence in the West Bank or contravening international humanitarian law, and, if they are part of the administration of the Israeli Government, they should be open to sanctions too. The Minister has heard these Benches call for the sanctioning of two extremist Ministers in the Israeli Government. I do not expect the Minister to state whether sanctions will be imposed, but can the Government confirm that there is no immunity from British sanctions for those in a government role? Secondly, I hope the Minister will state categorically that the UK should not be trading in any goods that are from illegal West Bank settlements. Will the Government now put in place the legislative measures to ensure that those who are committing human rights abuses in the West Bank are also not profiting from trade with the UK?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I welcome the contributions from both noble Lords. Let me say from the outset to the noble Lord opposite that Israel has an inherent right to self-defence, and Israel’s strikes on Iran were in response to Iran’s reckless ballistic missile attack on Israel on 1 October. The response was measured and restrained and focused on military targets that we understand were responsible for the production of those ballistic missiles, but the priority now must be immediate de-escalation, and we urge all sides to exercise restraint. Iran should not respond. As the Foreign Secretary told the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday, we must avoid this conflict spiralling out of control into a wider regional war. It is absolutely essential that we do that.
To address the humanitarian situation, I think the Statement made clear our concern about that. Certainly, the Prime Minister raised this with Prime Minister Netanyahu on 19 October, and the Foreign Secretary reiterated concerns, particularly about access to humanitarian assistance; I think the Statement made that absolutely clear. We are concerned that the continued breach is affecting international humanitarian law, which is why we took steps on the position on the sale of arms. I do not know why the noble Lord opposite keeps repeating the same questions, but we did take clear advice under the facilities we have on the supply of arms, and it was a decision taken properly and in accordance with the policies of the United Kingdom Government. The exceptions that we took were precisely those I have repeated before in this House.
On our position on the so-called settlements in the West Bank and the attacks on Palestinian villages, we have made it clear that those settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. We are concerned by ongoing IDF military operations in the occupied West Bank, as well as attacks on Palestinian militants. We have taken sanctions under our global human rights regime against those who have been committing these breaches, and we will take further action if necessary. We certainly condemn the unacceptable language by Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Israel should clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions, but, as the noble Lord knows, we will not comment on any future sanctions.
I want to stress that we are absolutely committed to ensuring an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages and the immediate proper restoration of humanitarian aid. We will take all possible steps to ensure that our message is clear to all parties—the people of Gaza and particularly of Israel—that it is the people who need protection.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I am proud to say that I have been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel for many years and I still am. I strongly support the attacks on military targets in Iran, but I cannot possibly defend—I totally condemn—the decision the Israelis now seem to have taken to ban UNRWA and its activities in Gaza. Will the Government consider, with the Americans and our western allies, more attempts to intervene directly in the delivery of aid to the citizens of Gaza? We tried this, unsuccessfully, once before when the Americans tried to establish a place to unload cargoes on the coast of Gaza. The Netanyahu Government plainly take not the slightest notice of representations or arguments about international law. It is only direct action by the western powers that can avert the very real risk of widespread famine among the civilian population that now seems to be imminent.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord has said. We of course condemned outright the passing of this legislation, but we have not seen it implemented yet. That is why we are taking all steps to ensure that the Israeli Government know not only the United Kingdom’s position but that of all our allies. That is why the Foreign Secretary joined with others including Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan and the Republic of Korea to make a joint statement making this position absolutely clear. We are calling on the Israeli Government not to implement this legislation and to ensure that UNRWA can continue to fulfil its responsibilities under its UN mandate to support humanitarian assistance. We will make that known as strongly as possible.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords went on a parliamentary trip to Kerem Shalom, and we saw for ourselves the much-needed and vital aid that was not able to be delivered. The lorries were piled up on the Gaza side. Much of that aid has been stolen under the nose of UNRWA by Hamas, to be sold on the black market thereafter. Does the Minister agree with me that UNRWA is responsible for less than 13% of all aid in Gaza? As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has indicated, there are other routes for delivery. UNRWA is not fit for purpose. The Hamas leaders Fatah Sharif Abu Al-Amin, who was killed in Lebanon, and Mohammad Abu Itiwi, who was also killed, were both members of UNRWA, which UNRWA recognised.
On a positive note, I agree with the Minister’s last statement about our mutual desire for peace in the region. In that respect, what are the Government doing to facilitate a new civil government in Gaza? That is the only way forward for the area.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This Government, like the previous Government, are taking a consistent approach to UNRWA. It is an essential body that can deliver aid into Gaza, and we have released £21 million to do just that. Failure to ensure that UNRWA can continue its work will lead only to greater harm and damage to civilians, so we are absolutely committed.
In terms of the future, the important thing to remember, which we have all stressed, is that the future of the Palestinians and of the Occupied Territories is a matter for the Palestinians to sort out. We will, of course, give every possible support to the authorities, particularly the Palestinian Authority, to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the eventual Palestinian state under a two-state solution.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Carrying on the theme, if, as UNICEF says, you are a child in Gaza lacking access to education, that impacts on your mental health, safety, development and future prospects. What does it say to those children that their one lifeline, UNRWA—which does far more than just provide aid; it provides health and education—is to be banned? What contingency plans might be put in place to start education as quickly as possible should the Israeli Government go ahead with their ban on UNRWA activities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said, our immediate steps are to ensure that the law passed by the Knesset a few days ago, which we condemned, is not implemented and to continue to ensure that there is proper support through UNRWA. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has made it clear that there is a mandate to support the Palestinians. We will go back to the United Nations to ensure that there are the means to deliver the necessary support.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt and to be clear, there is support for UNRWA from all Benches around this House. I was delighted to hear the Government say that UNRWA has an indispensable role in assisting the Palestinians. My question would have been that asked by the noble Baroness opposite. I have seen the extraordinary work that UNRWA does, in very difficult circumstances, in providing education for children who are themselves in very difficult circumstances. It is more than a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. Is the Minister able to say anything further about UNRWA’s range of activities, which I am sure the British Government would want to support?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear my noble friend. I have visited many UNRWA facilities; I have seen schools and health centres and how they deliver. I believe that it is an essential mechanism for delivering support. During the last Government’s suspension of financial support for UNRWA, we were channelling funds to other NGOs to try to mitigate that. It was clear from the statements of the last Government that that would never be sufficient to provide the necessary support that UNRWA gives. It is the responsibility of the United Nations. We will raise it again and support the Secretary-General’s call.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, the previous Government, when faced with challenges on land crossings, made sure that we worked with other partners on land, of course, and on sea and air. I implore the Government to look at innovative solutions to the situation in north Gaza, including with Jordan. My question is specific to the peace process and picks up the point made by my noble friend that peace is inevitable—indeed, it was Menachem Begin who coined that phrase—and war is not. To bring an end to this, what is the update —I have asked this before—on the latest peace negotiations between Qatar, the United States and Egypt to bring this awful conflict to a close? A plan is currently being put forward by former Prime Minister Olmert and former Foreign Minister of the PA Nasser al-Kidwa. What consideration has been given to it? In the absence of anything else, it is worth looking at.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree. In the discussions in Doha, there is a process that we are giving support to that we hope will result in the return of hostages, which is the mechanism to opening broader peace talks. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right. On access, when I asked him a similar question about other routes, including sea and air, I recall him saying that they can never make up for the huge amount that is required and the border crossings required. He and I have worked well together in the past, and I will certainly continue to take his advice. He is absolutely right.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and his support for UNRWA. The United Nations has described what is happening in north Gaza as showing a blatant disregard for humanity and the rule of war. Given that Gaza and the West Bank are illegally occupied territories, I welcome the Government’s view that UNRWA should be allowed to continue. However, should the Israelis seek to implement their ban on UNRWA—which would be a further catastrophe for the Palestinians, on top of many already—what action will the UK Government take to make sure that this does not happen and that the rules of war prevail?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat what I have said before. UNRWA is operating on a UN mandate, agreed by the Security Council. If the Israelis insist on implementing that ban, the appropriate action will be to work with our allies back at the Security Council.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
The Minister mentioned sanctions. Would those sanctions be imposed entirely nationally or in co-ordination with allies? More generally, do His Majesty’s Government make any assessment of the effectiveness of the sanctions that have been imposed, and do they report on those assessments?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say repeatedly that sanctions are effective only if they are actioned in conjunction with our allies. The United States has imposed sanctions on those people—I hesitate to use the term “settlers”—in the West Bank who are determined to undermine and commit violent acts against Palestinian villages, and we have done the same. I agree that we need to work in concert with our allies. These sanctions under the global human rights regime are aimed at individuals, to show that their behaviour is totally unacceptable and that they would not be able to travel or do certain other things globally. We do look at their effectiveness, working with our allies, but they are not designed in quite the same way as sanctions against a state; they are against individuals.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the Red Sea crisis? He will be aware that, this month, after a lull, a couple more vessels have been attacked by the Houthis: the tanker “Olympic Spirit” and the container ship “Megalopolis”. So far, 80 ships have been attacked. This has caused huge disruption to international trade, and many shipping companies have now diverted vessels from the Suez Canal, at great expense. Can the Minister say something about the role of the Royal Navy and what has been done to speed up the time it takes to service and refit destroyers and frigates?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
That is the sort of question that I would expect from my noble friend Lord West. The noble Lord raises an important point about the Red Sea. I have initiated government debates in this House on important subjects, because it is important that we hear views from across the House. That is why I initiated a debate on Sudan, which has a huge impact regionally. This afternoon, we have a debate on the Horn of Africa and exactly the issues that the noble Lord raises. I hope that he will have an opportunity to stay and participate in that debate. We need to hear views about how we can respond. The important thing in the whole region is to ensure stability, stop escalation and ensure that the free routes through are maintained. This is not just about the impact on the United Kingdom; it impacts on global trade. It is an essential route.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just mentioned the term “stability”. The inevitable result of war is destruction, and we have seen massive destruction, particularly focused on Gaza. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, much of Gaza is now a wasteland filled with millions of tonnes of toxic rubble. In order for a ceasefire, whenever that happens, to be converted to peace—they of course are very different concepts—ordinary Palestinians have to be given something to fight for, to live for and to live in. Although it is not the direct responsibility of the British Government, would it not be a sensible idea for our Government to do everything they can to come up with an internationally agreed programme of reconstruction of Gaza at the first possible opportunity to prevent it becoming an incessant breeding ground of terrorism?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. We want to ensure that there is a clear pathway to peace. The eventual objective of a two-state solution, with two states living side by side, requires those two states to be secure and viable. It is important to lead the international community in the cause of ensuring that an eventual Palestinian state is viable, that we are able to restore dignity to the Palestinian people and that they have homes, schools and hospitals that will enable them to live in peace with their neighbour.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, this morning there was what was described as a massacre of around 115 people—I am sure the Minister will have read the dispatches on this—in a residential block of flats with over 100 people sheltering in it. There are people still trapped there because the Israeli Government have disbanded the civil defence volunteers who were digging people out with their bare hands. So there were still people buried there this morning when we were getting up and having our breakfast. People were being bombed in their homes.
These scenes are shocking. I hear loud and clear this Government, the Prime Minister and others across Europe saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. Of course it has, but what about the Palestinians? Who is defending the civilians in Palestine? In Gaza right now, they have no one. They are bombed in tents in camps and being starved. I want to ask about the hospitals and all the health facilities that have been systematically destroyed. Just this week, it was reported that in the remaining hospital in the north the staff have been arrested and cleared out, so it is not functioning. What action is going to be taken to ensure that health facilities are going to be made available to these people?
Israel has kept out journalists and we see only the footage that appears on social media, so we wonder what it is hiding. What steps can this Government, along with our allies and partners, do to ensure that health facilities are available to those who are horrendously wounded and to all the children and amputees who are suffering terribly as we talk about Israel defending itself? Is it defending itself against these children? I do not think so. I think the general public in this country and beyond want to see some action.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
You can heckle me all you want. You know I am right.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that I think everyone across this House is concerned about the situation in Gaza. Even friends of Israel have expressed extreme concern about those conditions. I have been a strong defender of the right of Israel to exist. There are a number of people in the region, including organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that do not want Israel to even exist, and that is a major problem. However, the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people themselves, are not the perpetrators of this and cannot be held to be responsible. Therefore, we have a responsibility to defend them and to ensure that the disastrous attacks are properly addressed.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of medical support. As the Foreign Secretary’s Statement said, we have given additional funding for UK-Med to run field hospitals in Gaza, so we are putting those field hospitals in. We are funding UNICEF to provide life-saving aid to vulnerable families and, earlier this month, we announced £1 million for the Egyptian ministry of health to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. On 17 October, we agreed to match up to £10 million of public donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Middle East humanitarian appeal to provide life-saving aid, including medical supplies, shelter and clean water.
The plight of sick and injured people in Gaza is deeply distressing. Israel should engage with its partners to urgently establish sustained, safe and timely passage for patients who need medical or surgical interventions not available in Gaza. We are negotiating to ensure that people have that access to medical treatment.
Fiscal Rules
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, over the next 24 hours the Chancellor is likely to break promises that she made to the British people in the run-up to the election, and I am in no doubt that that was always going to be the plan. This is why the Treasury team magicked up a fictional black hole—a black hole which, rather incredulously, contains spending decisions made by the current Government. This fictional black hole will be invoked once again at the Budget Statement tomorrow, to act as a fig leaf to cover tax rises which will put more juice into the phrase “taxing people until the pips squeak”. It is an audacious strategy, given its utter predictability, but my concern is for the people and businesses across the country who are just trying to get by and who will bear the brunt of Labour’s tax plans.
Tax rises are only part of the plan. The second part of the Chancellor’s plan is to increase borrowing—but how could she, given the fiscal rules? These are the fiscal rules that the Chancellor explicitly said she would not change. She stated that she would not “fiddle the figures” to get different debt figures. She confirmed that an incoming Labour Government
“will use the same models the government uses”.
Now the Chancellor has performed a screeching U-turn and broken her promise not to—in her words—fiddle the figures. The Chancellor has announced a £50 billion change to the UK’s fiscal rules; she announced this important change at a conference in the United States, not to Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that the announcement at a conference in the United States was made in haste to reassure the bond markets?
More worryingly, the country currently has new fiscal rules but no knowledge of what they actually are, because the Chancellor has failed to outline any details of what that new rule change involves. She also chose to make this announcement without an accompanying OBR report. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will remember that the very first Act passed under this Labour Government was one which gave more power to the OBR to scrutinise the Government’s actions. Does he agree that these actions with respect to the fiscal rules do not abide by the spirit of what was in that first Act passed under this Government? We are left in a situation in which the UK does not have an operational definition of public debt. Can the Minister explain what definition of public debt the Government are currently providing to lenders?
There is a debate to be had about whether these changes to the fiscal rules make things better or worse, but what is absolutely clear is that fiddling with the debt rule does not magic up free money. Indeed, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has specifically warned that changing the UK’s debt rule to allow for higher borrowing is not free money. The IFS has cautioned that the Government’s new fiscal rule will cease to be a constraint on borrowing. Can the Minister explain how much new borrowing the Government intend to take on under these new rules, and how much the annual interest cost of that debt will be?
I have no doubt at all that this is all part of a plan dreamt up long before the general election, and the next episode in this sorry tale is to be released tomorrow.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches have long called for vital investment into infrastructure, not least to fix our crumbling hospitals and schools, to tackle the failings and gaps in our transport system, and to deliver the affordable housing needed by so many. Infrastructure investment, including private investment, must be scaled up to drive sustainable economic growth across the nation, including the green energy revolution. But fiscal responsibility remains crucial.
These Benches have argued before for the use of the public sector net fiscal liabilities as the appropriate measure to sit behind a borrowing rule, because it allows productive investment to be considered separately from day-to-day spending. I tried without success to persuade the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, to look more closely at this issue during the Conservative Government.
Changing the measure also means reshaping the borrowing rule and the guard-rails to make them appropriate to that new measure. This Statement so far offers only the vaguest language, so I hope very much that we will hear a proper discussion of the rules and the guard-rails tomorrow in the Budget. Will the draft charter for budget responsibility, which I understand should contain much of that, be among tomorrow’s documents?
There also seem to be a number of referees to oversee the rule and its implications, from the OBR to the national infrastructure and service transformation authority, an office for value for money and the NAO. How does this fit together and what oversight will be before Parliament?
We cannot have a repeat of the Truss mini-Budget, which nearly wrecked the public finances with £40 billion in unfunded tax cuts. Does the Minister agree that the Budget must be credible to the markets, the interest burden on our public finances must be tackled and, at the same time, we must make good our infrastructure deficit—investing to fix hospitals and schools but also driving economic growth? None of it is easy, but all of it is necessary.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions.
Let me start by setting out the context in which our fiscal rules will be set. The Budget that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will present tomorrow will be driven by this Government’s number one mission: to deliver sustainable growth after a decade and a half of stagnation. That growth can only be built on stable foundations, so the first and most important task in the Budget will be to turn the page on 14 years of instability and uncertainty, which have deterred investment and undermined business confidence.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the importance of fiscal responsibility—that is why the fiscal rules are so important. They will set the basis for stable fiscal policy, prudent management of day-to-day spending and responsible investment for growth. That commitment to responsibility and stability requires us to address in tomorrow’s Budget three challenges.
First, there is the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere, helpfully reminded the House about, which we inherited from the previous Government, and the vast majority of which will persist into future years. Secondly, the compensation payments for those who have suffered because of the infected blood and Horizon scandals were announced by the previous Government but never budgeted for. Thirdly, the state of the UK’s public services means that they cannot survive a return to the austerity that has done so much damage over the past 14 years, including by holding back growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, mentioned our manifesto commitments. Our manifesto set out in our fiscal rules that
“the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues and debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast”.
Our manifesto also said:
“These rules allow for prudent investment in our economy. This represents a clear break from the Conservatives who have created an incentive to cut investment; a short-term approach that ignores the importance of growing the economy”.
To deliver on these manifesto commitments, the Government’s fiscal rules will do two things. First, and most importantly, the stability rule will mean that day-to-day spending will be matched by revenues, as committed to in our manifesto. We will meet this rule within this Parliament. Given the state of the public finances and the need to invest in our public services, this rule will bite hardest. Alongside tough decisions on spending and welfare, the Chancellor has been clear that this means that taxes will need to rise in tomorrow’s Budget to ensure that this rule is met.
The Government’s second fiscal rule—the investment rule—will deliver on our manifesto commitment to get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. That will make space for the necessary increases in investment in the fabric of our nation, and it will ensure that we do not see the falls in public sector investment that were planned under the previous Government. The plans that we inherited would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in over 10 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, seemed to confirm that that would still be the Conservatives’ approach. That cannot be right. If we continue on this path of decline, we will continue to miss out on the opportunities of the future, and other countries will continue to seize them. To rebuild our country, we must increase investment, in partnership with the private sector. The UK lags behind every other G7 country on business investment as a share of our economy, and the IMF has been clear that weak investment and low productivity are holding back growth.
We must create the conditions for the private sector to invest, by stabilising our economy and introducing reforms to planning and skills. At the recent International Investment Summit, we saw £63 billion of new private sector investment committed to our economy, creating nearly 38,000 new jobs. The Government must invest alongside business, through expert bodies like the new national wealth fund, multiplying the impact of public money. However, there is also a significant role for public investment. For too long, we have seen Conservative Chancellors cut public investment and raid capital budgets to plug gaps in day-to-day spending. The result of that approach is clear for all to see: hospitals without the equipment they need, our schools literally crumbling, sewage in our rivers and growth held back. We cannot continue on this path of decline. We need to invest more to grow our economy and seize the huge opportunities that exist in digital, tech, life sciences and clean energy. To do this—to grow our economy, free up more money, invest in capital and meet our manifesto commitment to remove the incentive to cut investment—the Chancellor has said that, in tomorrow’s Budget, we will change the Government’s measure of debt.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, it is of course important that every pound of taxpayers’ money that is spent gets value for money and delivers returns for the taxpayer when we invest in capital projects. So we will put in place guard-rails with the National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility, enabling them to validate the investments we are making to ensure that we deliver value for money, and give markets confidence that there are rules around the investments we can make as a country.
The Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details of our fiscal rules, in tomorrow’s Budget, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the OBR—and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, helpfully reminded us that the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget failed to commission one. In our Budget, we will turn the page on the past 14 years, fix the foundations of our economy and restore economic stability to our country. We will invest to rebuild Britain and begin a decade of national renewal.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, we used to have a rule of Budget purdah in this country for the very good reason that it prevented market speculation in the run-up to the House of Commons hearing the Budget details. Every Chancellor who followed me in office has steadily weakened that and, this year, we have had three months of absolutely absurd semi-debate, with hints, leaks and suggestions from the Government being debated. It began by ruling out any question of raising the four most basic taxes that everybody previously turned to when they needed more revenue, because they share the burden more fairly across the country. This has now accumulated with the Prime Minister deciding, two days before the Budget, that he will take for himself a popular announcement—to some of his Cabinet colleagues and Back-Benchers—that he will ease the fiscal rules on which the Budget is based.
Fortunately, this nonsense has so far had only a slightly dampening effect on investors and markets, but it has had an undoubtedly dampening effect on business activity for the last two or three months. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider returning to Budget purdah in future years? If this circus is now to be the pattern for every Budget throughout this Parliament, then, sooner or later, we are going to have market speculation and a financial crisis of the kind that followed Liz Truss’s Budget.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is far more experienced in these matters than me, and I have the greatest respect for him. He mentioned three types of activity. The first one he mentioned was the manifesto commitments we gave: he mentioned the major taxes and he is absolutely right. In our manifesto, we committed to not increasing taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT. I think it is perfectly right that we do that and specify that in our manifesto. He also mentioned speculation. There has been huge speculation ahead of this Budget around specific taxes which at this Dispatch Box, on multiple occasions, I have been unable to comment on, and I think he will understand why. As for announcements being made ahead of a Budget, that is a perfectly routine thing to do, and it is right that Parliament then has the opportunity to scrutinise those at the appropriate moment.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the Government’s Statement, but we have to recognise that so many fiscal rules have come and gone in recent years that the credibility of the macroeconomic framework has been severely dented. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the investment rule will apply to a specific year and not take the form of a discredited five-year rolling period where fiscal virtue is for ever deferred? Does he agree that what matters more than any rule is whether the Government have a credible plan for promoting growth and for stabilising and ultimately reducing the country’s debt in relation to national income?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Once again, I address a noble Lord who has far more experience in these matters than I do. I agree with a huge amount of what he says. I think that stability in fiscal rules is incredibly important and that they should not change particularly frequently—perhaps at the point when Governments change. I am tempted to agree with a lot of what he said, but unfortunately the Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details about fiscal rules that he asks for, in tomorrow’s Budget, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the OBR.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is quite wrong when she suggests that the Chancellor has just announced her change in fiscal rules? They were proposed in her Mais Lecture in February, if one keeps up. Does he also agree that the fiscal rules implemented by Mr Hunt were yet another component of the irresponsible economic policies pursued by the Conservative Government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with both points made by my noble friend. Our fiscal rules, as he says, were set out by the Chancellor in her Mais Lecture and set out again in our manifesto. Everything that we have said subsequently is consistent with what we said in our manifesto, and I think that the policy of the Opposition is the reason our country is in the state it is in. It is why growth has been held back and why our critical infrastructure is basically on its knees.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am a little confused. The Chancellor said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules, because that would be fiddling the figures. Was she right then and wrong now? Can the Minister explain why we are having this Statement at all, ahead of the Budget? Why is it not part of the Budget consideration? Is it to distract attention from the fact that the Government are basically fiddling the figures and, in fiddling the figures, committing us to borrow more money to pay the interest on the money that has already been borrowed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I have huge respect for him, so I hate to say when he is wrong, as I think he is in his first point. We were extremely clear that we would change the fiscal rules to the new ones that we set out, first, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, in the Mais Lecture and then in our manifesto, which said:
“This represents a clear break from the Conservatives who have created an incentive to cut investment; a short-term approach that ignores the importance of growing the economy”.
We were crystal clear that we would change the fiscal rules. On the second point, it is perfectly reasonable that, when the Chancellor is at the IMF, she sets out her policies in this regard.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for this Statement; the real meat will come tomorrow. I also thank noble Lords opposite for reminding us of their gross irresponsibility and refusal to accept any responsibility for this situation. When you have fiscal rules that distinguish general expenditure and investment in one way or another, you need a clear definition of investment. The problem is that pinning down such a definition is difficult in practice. When we on the Economic Affairs Committee took evidence from Joseph Stiglitz, he drew attention to this, instancing the possibility that spending more money on nurses would count as investment towards the sort of growth we need in the economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend makes an extremely interesting point. I am grateful for his support for what I have set out and will take away his point to give it further consideration.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Chancellor can fiddle figures all she likes to allow more borrowing, but that will simply lead to more interest payments, in excess of the £100 billion or so that we already have, which will lead to great damage in the market. The change of fiscal rules on borrowing is apparently to fix an alleged black hole, so would the Minister care to comment on the highly respected IFS director Paul Johnson’s statement that:
“The numbers may be a little bit worse than they thought at the time … but the overall picture over the next four or five years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election”?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to talk about the £22 billion black hole left to us by the previous Government. He has done that in the past and I continue to be grateful to him. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility said at the time of the July statement that it did not know about this black hole at the heart of our finances; it established an independent review into it which will report in due course. I think there will be plenty more information on the £22 billion black hole in tomorrow’s Budget for the noble Lord to peruse.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, changes to the fiscal rules are welcome, as our devolved Governments need a new fiscal settlement. The Barnett formula has no legal standing, and the convention can be changed by the Treasury. Are there any plans on the horizon to replace the Barnett formula? If so, would this be a needs-based formula to ensure that wealth is redistributed fairly?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not aware that the Government have any such plans, but I hope that tomorrow’s Budget will include good news for Wales.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, the new policy on investment that has been announced will be widely welcomed on this side of the House as giving an opportunity for the public sector, in partnership with the private sector, to raise the dismal rate of growth that we experienced under the last Government. Will my noble friend not let noble Lords opposite get away with the total unsustainability of their fiscal plan to cut public investment from 2.6% of GDP to 1.9%, which would have had disastrous consequences for growth and public services?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that point and for his support for what we have set out. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the record we inherited. As he says, the UK lags behind every other G7 country on business investment as a share of our economy, and the plans we inherited from the previous Government would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in over 10 years. Nothing we have heard so far today suggests that they think there is anything wrong with that.
My noble friend also drew attention to the importance of partnership with the private sector. To rebuild our country, it is vital that we increase investment in partnership with the private sector. As he says, we must first create the conditions for the private sector to invest by stabilising our economy and introducing reforms to things such as planning and skills. The Government must invest alongside business, through expert bodies such as the new national wealth fund, to catalyse more private sector money. As we have been discussing today, there is also a significant role for public investment to play.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, when I was Chief Secretary, working with the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, every single spending department that presented its plans to me described them as “investment”. There is often a very good case for saying that spending more on nurses or teachers is going to help productivity more than building new hospitals or schools is. Does the Minister agree with me, and indeed with the noble Lord opposite, that without a really tough definition of what investment means, this will turn out to be just an increase in public spending?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It may surprise the noble Lord but, yes, I absolutely agree with what he says. That will be a vital part of the guard-rails we set out in the Budget tomorrow.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, borrowing to invest in genuine projects that will improve the productivity of the country obviously makes sense, but if the Government are going to look at the fiscal rules again, will they consider when and how they will account for unfunded public sector pensions? At some stage, the country needs to know about those obligations too.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness says. As I have said already, the Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details of our fiscal rules, in tomorrow’s Budget.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister was first talking about the so-called black hole, it was £21 billion. Does he accept that this is actually less than 2% of total government spending? It is almost inconceivable that anybody with their head screwed on properly in the Treasury could not find savings to that amount.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to talk about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that was covered up from the British people, from this House and from the OBR, which has confirmed it by establishing its independent review. It was always £22 billion, contrary to what the noble Lord says. If he would like to come up with £22 billion of savings, I would more than like to hear them.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s goal in announcing these changes is to increase capital spending. The Minister made reference to putting in place additional process to assess the viability of that capital spending, yet we already have extensive process that can be immensely costly, with organisations such as the Infrastructure and Projects Authority going through public spending and public capital projects with a fine-toothed comb. Exactly how does he think adding additional process to what is already there is going to speed things up, given that the Government are determined to deliver capital projects more quickly?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting the guard-rails that will be set out tomorrow, when further details will be set out in the Budget.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord corrected me and said I had made a mistake in saying that the Chancellor had said that she would not alter the fiscal rules, because that would be fiddling the figures. On 9 October 2023, in interviews around the Labour Party conference at that time, that is exactly what she said. She stressed that Labour would not alter the fiscal rules to fit its spending goals, as doing so, in her words, amounted to “fiddling the figures”. What happened between October 2023 and the Mais Lecture to change her mind about the unwisdom of fiddling the figures?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Nothing changed. There is a slight misunderstanding here. We have always been very clear that we would change the previous Government’s fiscal rules. The Chancellor was referring to the fact that we would not change the fiscal rules we set out—and we have not. The fiscal rules that we are delivering absolutely fit our manifesto commitments, and I do not understand the lack of understanding on the Benches opposite. The
“stability rule will mean that day-to-day spending will be matched by revenues”,
exactly as we committed to in our manifesto—that is a direct quote. In addition, the investment rule will deliver on our manifesto commitment to get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. Both those things were set out in our manifesto, both were set out in the Mais Lecture and both will be delivered in tomorrow’s Budget.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Labour Party manifesto was, in essence, just smoke and mirrors? There are smoke and mirrors surrounding not only the fiscal rule—I am still trying to understand his sentence about changing your own fiscal rules, but I will leave that there—but what a “working person” is. When one writes a manifesto, one does not do it such that one can get things round the British people; one should do it with clarity. I suspect that there is a certain lack of clarity in the Labour Party manifesto.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness that she struggles to understand the concept of keeping manifesto commitments. She will see in the Budget tomorrow that we will keep every manifesto commitment we made to the British people.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the party opposite made six or seven changes to the fiscal rules between 2010 and when it left office, and never really explained how that worsened the public finances?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend.
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 View all Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 21-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (25 Oct 2024)
Lord Moylan
“30D Management of rail services in Greater London(1) The Secretary of State must make a statement in each House of Parliament on the impact of shared responsibility between Transport for London and public sector companies awarded a contract under section 30(1A) under the management of Shadow Great British Railways, for the provision of railway passenger services in the Greater London area within three months of the day on which the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 is passed.(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include an assessment of how the provision of any services procured by Transport for London under section 30(1A) can be managed in a manner that is consistent with the remit of Shadow Great British Railways.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a statement assessing the impact of shared responsibility for railway passenger services in Greater London following the changes in the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, a great deal was said earlier in Committee about the achievements of Transport for London in improving passenger rail services in London, predominantly through the London Overground system. It would be wrong and unnecessary for me to repeat that; any noble Lord who wishes to see it summarised can read the excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who explained it all extremely well.
When it comes to London, the Bill has a huge lacuna at its heart: the mayor. The office of the mayoralty was established by referendum, and it is not to be treated with contempt. I may surprise noble Lords by saying that I had an increasing regard for the first mayor, Ken Livingstone, who defeated his Labour opponent to become mayor in 2000. We bonded over our joint opposition, on which we worked together, to Gordon Brown’s disastrous PPP for London Underground. That brought us together, and he always treated me with great courtesy and kindness. He started London Overground, and it was his success in winning the Olympic bid that secured for Transport for London a huge amount of investment in the capital’s transport, which was transformative.
How do this Government treat his successor? On 9 July, immediately after meeting the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the immediate wake of the election, the mayor said:
“What’s clear from listening to Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer today is they are really keen to devolve more powers not just to London but to other parts of the country. You will be hearing in the course of the next few weeks and months examples of those additional powers”.
Well, here we are, a few weeks and months later, and what do we hear? But he said something else on 9 July:
“One of the things that was confirmed from the meeting this morning is once those franchises end and are brought into”
the Department for Transport,
“they will be talking to mayors like me about which of those railways we can take over. I’ll be lobbying for once those franchises end, those commuter trains that come into London for us to have that”.
That was the position of the mayor and, as far as I know, it remains unchanged.
But the truth must have dawned on him when he read—if he has by now read—the letter sent very courteously by the Minister on 18 October to noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, in which he said in unequivocal terms:
“The Government has no current plan to devolve responsibility for operating further national railway services to local authorities”.
I take it—of course, he could contradict me on this—from that and from the tone of the debate earlier in Committee that he includes London and the mayoralty among those local authorities.
So, what is he actually offering? The Mayor of London will have the ability to agree national and regional services with Great British Railways, to be run by Great British Railways, and earlier in Committee, the Minister gave an example of how that might work. Again, I am not reading this from Hansard, but I think my recollection is correct. He told us that he was already in discussions with the Mayor of Greater Manchester about how the mayor could purchase services, I presume from Network Rail at this stage—as we know, Great British Railways does not exist as a legal entity, nor does shadow Great British Railways have any legal substance—which could even be branded with the Bee Network logo, which is the characteristic mark of local transport services in Manchester and of the buses operated by the mayor.
It is worth dwelling on this for a moment. I think I can say—it is very much up to the Minister to correct me—that, had this been put to the Minister when he was commissioner of Transport for London, he would have rejected it out of hand. The Transport for London brand is of huge value, and it goes to the reputation of Transport for London in a very intimate and direct way. There is no way that he, or I think the mayors he served under, would have accepted that services operated by a different operator altogether could have been travelling with the TfL brand on them, over which he had minimal control. Some noble Lords may say, “But doesn’t that happen already? He has private companies operating services in London with the TfL brand on them”. But they are of course operated on a concession basis, and they are very tightly controlled by Transport for London. Transport for London remains in control of its own brand. It is a question of the power relationship.
But what is the power relationship going to be between the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Great British Railways if the services it offers are branded with the Bee Network—which, I admit, does not yet have the global brand recognition that TfL, with its logo, its merchandising, its map and so forth, has? None the less, the Bee Network is an important brand for the people of Greater Manchester. What power is the mayor going to have if those services are operated in a way that is shoddy or objectionable or fails in some way? I will not speculate on the way, because we can all imagine it, whether it is timeliness, frequency, reliability, cleanliness or any of the other standards that have a direct and immediate impact on passengers. Of course, he will have no power at all, partly because he has nowhere else to go. He is simply a mayor, while this is Network Rail. It is huge and he is relatively small.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as I said last week when we debated a group of amendments about devolution of the railway, this is an issue that is dear to the heart of the Liberal Democrat Benches. We like nothing more than debating subsidiarity: what level is the most appropriate for different services and different decisions. I was not sure why it was felt that Amendment 47 was so significant that it needed to be debated separately rather than as part of the wider debate on devolution. I am still not 100% clear following the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Understanding how the public ownership of the railway will fit alongside London’s concessions for the overground, the Elizabeth line and Merseyrail, is something that I hope the Government can expand on as they develop their planning around Great British Railways. It is not ideal having this legislation in isolation from the larger Bill which we expect next year. I hope that the Minister can offer some warmer words today about future devolution, not just the limited existing devolved lines. We absolutely believe that our devolved institutions need to be able to run services in a way that serves the needs of local areas and local communities and integrates them with other public transport, rather than Whitehall taking back control. In London, devolution has enabled joined-up thinking on not only wider transport strategies but housing and economic regeneration, alongside an additional level of accountability and increased responsiveness. As we have already heard, Manchester is on the brink of its own equivalent to the overground, expanding its Bee Network to cover rail services.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that devolution is part of the future of rail in this country and that this legislation will enhance the current situation rather than detract from it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add a few words to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness. I, too, get confused about what the Government’s long-term objective might be for devolution. There was an attempt a few years ago —I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was in charge of the railways then, or London—to extend the network down to the south or south-east somewhere, and the Department for Transport opposed it for very many reasons that were probably quite good. All these issues will need discussing when we start talking about Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham and other big places.
I hope my noble friend can give some idea of who will be in charge of setting the fares; who will be in charge of running the timetable; what the access charges might be for the trains on the track—assuming that GBR will still be running the track; who controls it, and who can get decisions changed if they do not like it. In other words, who is in charge? It is very difficult to have a debate without knowing some of these basic facts. Whether it is a concession, or a franchise, or run by GBR, I hope that my noble friend can give us some further thoughts on where he thinks this is all going. If he cannot do so tonight, when will we hear a bit more so we can have a proper debate about the regional element with, I hope, lots of consultation?
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, in seeking some clarity and assurances about transport in London, as a result of the Government’s plans to renationalise our railways. Before doing so, I will remind your Lordships’ that I am the Leader of the London Borough of Bexley, which is an outer London borough, so many of my experiences are driven by that.
It would be helpful if the Government could set out the intended relationship between them and the Mayor of London and Transport for London, should the renationalisation go ahead. Will the mayor and TfL’s powers be impacted and, if not, who will advocate for those in outer London or, indeed, outside London? The recent introduction of the Superloop showed how the Mayor of London and TfL do not understand the needs of outer London, especially in places like Bexley, Bromley and Sutton where there is no Underground infrastructure. The original TfL proposal was to take the Superloop to Bexleyheath station, where it would have been difficult to turn around, instead of taking it to Abbey Wood, where the recently completed Elizabeth line is now operational.
Your Lordships will know that Sir John Armitt of the National Infrastructure Commission will tell you the value of linking up transport options—that is what we sought to do. Fortunately, TfL did agree to our suggestion, and there is now a cross-borough connection linking the main transport hubs—that is, apart from Bexley Village, where that discussion continues. The lack of any Underground stations—something that the first Mayor of London tried to find in Bexley—also means a dependency on cars, especially with a high percentage of elderly residents. The mayor’s introduction of ULEZ charges, as well as the threat of road user charging, is therefore very unpopular and, again, shows a lack of understanding. This introduction also impacted those who live outside the London borders so, if the mayor and TfL have greater powers over the train infrastructure, who will advocate for those who live outside London but use services in London?
I recall being a commuter in the days of nationalised train services. It was great fun jumping off the trains before they reached the platforms. While you can argue that technology and change would have brought about some of the improvements that we see nowadays, there is no guarantee that Governments of all colours would have invested the money to make those changes.
There is a lot to be said for holding to account through contracts and performance reviews. As we know, investment in transport can bring about housing delivery. That has definitely been the situation in Abbey Wood post the Elizabeth line, which is why we want the original business case to take the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet to be completed. We know that it will bring about regeneration in Bexley and elsewhere, and bring about some of that housing delivery that London desperately needs.
Another case of opportunity missed is the Docklands Light Railway. The Mayor of London and TfL are proposing to extend the DLR across the Thames to Thamesmead town, which is a dead end. Our suggestion is that, if it were extended to Belvedere, it would not only link to Southeastern trains but, with a quick change, to both the Elizabeth line and Thameslink services—coming back to Sir John Armitt’s point. We know that the Government will need to invest, but who will determine that priority?
In addition to future planning of services, there is also the question of accessibility. If the proposals go ahead, who will determine when we get step-free access at Erith, Falconwood and Albany Park stations?
I am afraid that I have posed more questions than answers, but they are legitimate questions that need to be answered if the residents are to be protected from the Mayor of London. I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 47, which addresses the interaction between Transport for London and public sector companies. There are three points I wish to make.
First, if, in future—as the Minister knows all too well, having sat in on these conversations—the Mayor of London wished to build an entirely new part of the network and go for, let us say, Crossrail 2, what would be the Government’s position on that? Would they allow London to retain its independence and choose between public and private or insist, not least because projects require significant government funding, that the Bill takes effect across all new infrastructure and future services in London?
Secondly, and linked to that—as again the Minister knows all too well—infrastructure in London requires the private sector to play its part and contribute at least to help unlock wider renewal and regeneration. I referred to Crossrail, of which, from memory, London businesses paid about 40%. Has there been an analysis of the Bill’s impact on the ability to raise funds from business? I imagine that the Minister will say that that is a matter for the mayor, but there surely must be wider read-through from the Bill to the country far beyond London.
Thirdly, I wish to seek clarity from a policy point of view. My noble friend’s amendment exposes a real problem with the entire premise of the legislation. After all, it does not merely address what the relationship will be between one entity inside London and another that falls outside, which takes precedence. In the main, the amendment demonstrates why London is an anomaly that undermines the coherence of the Bill and the credibility of the whole policy. Ultimately, we are having the debate on this group because London is exempt from nationalisation.
As we heard repeatedly in Committee, part of the agenda for reform is to try to bring all the transport network together and make it less fragmented, yet London is exempted from this for whatever reasons. I make this point because, with this Bill, we are enacting a two-tier system. Choice is gone, and we are strengthening or at least reinforcing fragmentation. I can almost sense the response from the Benches opposite. It will be, as we heard before, that their manifesto talked about this, but it talked about public ownership, not the retention of freedom of choice in London.
Next we heard—not today, sadly—that public opinion polls said that people want nationalisation. When we heard this the other day, the only thing that struck me in my mind was this: are we really governed by public opinion? The other day—it might have been yesterday—there was a poll in which, I am afraid, our illustrious Prime Minister had fallen behind and was now more unpopular than Rishi Sunak. Does Labour, as it believes in public opinion, now believe that Rishi should be the Prime Minister?
Next is that the capital is so important, and that is indeed correct, but Liverpool is granted these freedoms too. Next it will be that I want to level down the capital —not at all.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment but perhaps from a slightly different perspective to his, given his—and indeed the Minister’s—track record, which had a strong focus on London. I believe it is very important to ensure that there is a clear explanation and, frankly, that there are detailed rules about how the interaction takes place around the London boundary, simply because there is a democratic issue here as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made reference to the attempt by the mayor to take control of the Southeastern franchise some years ago. I blocked that, for two reasons. First, there was a significant level of opposition outside London to that transition taking place—the sense that the mayor should not be running services that cross into Kent, Surrey and so forth—including strong opposition from local MPs. Secondly, there is the issue of fragmentation: who operates which depot, how do you divide the franchise in half and so forth? It is important to maintain a system that is simple and as easy to run as possible.
None the less, there is and will always be an issue around how the mayoral responsibility for services that cross the boundary interacts with services operating under the control of shadow Great British Railways and subsequently Great British Railways, how they interact and work together, and how the whole system is managed. While I do not support my noble friend’s level of enthusiasm for devolution because I worry about fragmentation, it is none the less important in this new world to have very clear guidance, rules and methodology about how the system in London will operate with the system that crosses paths with it around the London boundary and, indeed, into the termini in London.
I think my noble friend has put forward an important point here. Although we have a slightly different perspective on this, I very much hope that the Government will adopt this proposal, because I think it is the right one.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that this is a short Bill, simply to bring back the national railway operations into public ownership. This is a popular policy with the public, absolutely necessary to making the railway run properly, and a necessary precursor to a more major Bill next year.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for this amendment, which would require not a report this time—although he has sought to require many—but Statements to Parliament about the relationship between services in Greater London provided under contract to TfL and those for which the Secretary of State is responsible.
There is no reason to expect the Bill, which allows train operations to transfer from private operators into public ownership, to have any adverse effect whatever on the existing collaboration between operators and TfL. The Bill makes no change to the existing duties on the Secretary of State for Transport and on Transport for London under Section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to co-operate and co-ordinate passenger rail services in London. Like many noble Lords in the Committee, I know from my own experience how that works. I think we can all conclude that it has worked very satisfactorily so far and there is no reason why it should not continue.
The Bill will not have any adverse effect on those services: substantially the same staff will be running those trains under public ownership on the national railway network, as they do now, so there should be no concern about a sudden deterioration of service. In fact, I expect it to improve: publicly owned operators will prioritise the interests of passengers, rather than exploiting contractual conditions in pursuit of short-term profit.
The Bill says nothing about the devolution of further passenger rail service to the Mayor of London. It would not prevent further devolution, and nothing I have said would prevent that. If they were devolved, they could be operated in the same way as the current London Overground services are operated, under a concession from Transport for London.
When I said, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted, that there is no current plan for further devolution, that was an accurate statement. Of course, it may not be an accurate statement in the future, but when I wrote the letter to him and other noble Lords and Baronesses, it was true. We will see what happens. It is only a few weeks since what the mayor said in July and, if he does have aspirations to operate further services, I am sure there will be a cordial discussion under the auspices of Section 175 to discuss whether and how that is carried out and the costs of doing it.
The noble Lord is also mistaken on Manchester. Certainly, the evolving situation I described with the Mayor of Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester is that services would be operated not by Network Rail, because that is currently an infrastructure provider, but by a train company. In fact, it is most likely to be Northern Trains, which is already owned by the public sector and has been for four years.
As I have already said, I give a commitment that the future, wider Bill will give a statutory role for combined authority mayors that is better than any they have now. I have just repeated it for the avoidance of doubt. In that case, it is under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. If they were to want to operate train services, this Bill does not alter Section 24 and that would be a discussion that could be had. I described the situation as I understand it currently unfolding; in fact, they do not wish to do that, but the Secretary of State could devolve more under Section 24 if she chose to.
At the moment, if I have counted correctly, the operation of rail services in London is currently the responsibility of eight different franchised operators, plus two more under contract to Transport for London. That is without the long-distance operators whose services start and finish in London but do not otherwise serve the London market directly and, indeed, Network Rail, which is responsible for the physical railway infra- structure. Public ownership and subsequent integration into Great British Railways will simplify all this by bringing the currently franchised services together in ownership in one place. If TfL wishes to discuss or influence the provision of other rail services across Greater London in the future, it will have an easier job of engaging with Great British Railways. It will be assured that the train operators that are performing will be interested in acting in the interests of passengers.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked where I think it is all going. I will come back and answer that on Report.
It was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, talking about the particular circumstances of Bexley, and it is nice to see her in her place. I do not envisage any immediate change to the railway geography of south-east London. I cannot answer for much of the rest of what she said in the way that I once could, as the commissioner of Transport for London, but I am sure that she knows where to go to make the points about the Superloop, ULEZ and the other things she referred to for the benefit of her borough of Bexley.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, referred to Crossrail 2. It should be evident—I hope it is from what I have now said about Section 175—that, were Crossrail 2 to be promoted and come into effect, it would, like Crossrail 1, be complex, but the outcome would be a significant transfer of services to the mayor, because it would, and hopefully will, eventually take over some national railway services. The ease with which Crossrail has taken over former national railway services in London and transformed them into a coherent service for the benefit not only of London but the national economy would be replicated in Crossrail 2. Nothing in the Bill would change that; nor would it change the way that Crossrail was funded had it been proposed now, or the way Crossrail 2 would be funded if it were proposed in the future.
The answer to a lot of what has been said about the Overground is that the Bill primarily seeks to remedy those parts of the railway network that patently do not work well. I would contend—I have always contended in all my roles and in this one too—that the railway service in London works. It works because it is coherent, and there is no reason for the Bill to interfere with it.
I was very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I remember well his position on the devolution of Southeastern services, and he is right that many of them go well beyond the London boundary. There is a democratic issue about how well they serve the areas outside the boundary, and his recollection is correct that at the stage at which it was proposed— I recall it well because I proposed it, even if it was politically advocated by the mayor—it cost more to operate those services separately than it did together. That would be quite a good reason to think carefully about whether a proposition could now be made to do it differently. In a sense, he is making my case because one of the things that we need to have some regard to in a post-Covid railway, with less revenue but similar costs, is the cost of the whole thing. One of the reasons for the proposition in the Bill is to start to sort out the costs of the railway, increase its revenue and improve its performance.
I listened carefully to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on devolution and I intend to come back to them on Report.
The Government’s plans will improve co-operation, not hinder it, so I see no need for the statement envisaged in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I am sure that all involved will work together to ensure that publicly owned and TfL services can co-exist effectively side by side. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly deal with two points. In answer to the very reasonable question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the reason for a separate London debate is the three different cases that currently exist for the devolution of rail services. One is London, where services are in large measure devolved—not all of them but there is a large measure of devolution that exists. The second is the other large conurbations where devolution of rail services does not exist—Birmingham, Manchester and so forth, with the exception of Liverpool, which we agreed earlier in Committee was a slightly separate case. The third is the local authorities that are too small to have much credibility as operating services on the national rail network, although there might be specific cases. It seemed to me that, even though it was mentioned at the time, London deserved a distinct debate because it is different from the other cases that we debated.
Turning to the Minister’s response, I think we have had some instances of documents that have rewritten themselves during the course of Committee. The latest is the letter which it turns out we had all misinterpreted because the weasel word “current” had not been given sufficient prominence, but which in fact means that there may well be devolution of the operation of rail services to London and elsewhere. That is not quite what it meant when everyone first read it, but there we are. I suppose the Minister will feel he has got away with that.
But what has he got away with when he offers a statutory role? We have a notion of what is meant by statutory role when we turn to the Labour Party document Getting Britain Moving, which says:
“there must also be a statutory role for devolved leaders in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network”.
Eloquent by its silence is the word “operating”—it is not on offer. Whatever the Minister says may or may currently be the case, and whatever provisions of existing legislation he refers to, it is not going to happen. It is inconsistent with his argument for a single brain, it is not mentioned in the Labour Party policy document as it could have been, and there is not going to be meaningful devolution unless there is a change to the legislation. This may be a very short Bill, as the Minister says, but it is heavily pregnant with possibilities for the future.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Order in Council amends the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023, which implements the zero-emission vehicle mandate and carbon dioxide emissions targets for new cars and vans with the purpose of facilitating the Northern Ireland Assembly’s decision that Northern Ireland should join the scheme and also makes technical updates. In doing so, the amendment brings Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the United Kingdom and represents an important milestone on the pathway for the United Kingdom to achieve 100% zero-emission new cars and vans by 2035 and net zero by 2050.
Domestic transport is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for nearly 28% of all emissions in the UK. Analysis of the vehicle emissions trading schemes projects emissions reductions of approximately 411 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents out to 2050, with a further 9 million should Northern Ireland join. This is the single largest carbon-saving measure in government and is of singular importance if we are to meet our climate commitments.
These measures are also critical for kick-starting economic growth not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK by giving businesses the certainty they need to invest in the transition to zero-emission vehicles. Some £6 billion of private investment has already been committed by the charging infrastructure industry, and the Government are working closely with the entire vehicle industry to deliver a green future for one of the UK’s most important manufacturing sectors.
As noble Lords may recall from the debate in your Lordships’ House on the original instrument last year, the ZEV mandate sets headline targets for the registration of zero-emission cars and vans. This includes battery electric or hydrogen-powered cars and vans. It also sets carbon dioxide emissions targets requiring that vehicle manufacturers’ emissions get no worse on average than they were in 2021.
A variety of flexibilities is included in the legislation to ensure that every vehicle manufacturer has a viable pathway to meeting the targets during the first few years. For example, overcompliance against the carbon dioxide targets may be used against the ZEV targets, meaning that manufacturers that deliver carbon dioxide efficiencies can deliver fewer zero-emission vehicles than the headline ZEV target.
When this policy was originally consulted on, a remarkable 96% of respondents preferred UK-wide implementation. However, at the time that this legislation was laid in autumn 2023, it was possible for it to apply in Wales, England and Scotland only. This is because of a specific requirement in the power used to create the original legislation—paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Climate Change Act 2008—which means that the order cannot apply unless the statutory instrument creating the schemes has been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of the relevant devolved legislatures.
As the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting at the time the original order was laid in autumn 2023, it was unable to approve the legislation. Therefore, Northern Ireland could not join the schemes alongside Wales, Scotland and England. As an interim measure, Northern Ireland remained subject to the emissions regulations for new cars and vans that the rest of the UK was leaving behind. These regulations were themselves assimilated from European Union law following the UK’s withdrawal and functioned as average carbon dioxide emissions targets that tighten every five years.
Following the restoration of the Assembly in February 2024, John O’Dowd, the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive, wrote to the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government expressing his intention, subject to the approval of the Northern Irish Assembly, that Northern Ireland should join the schemes. This amendment was therefore drafted in close consultation with the devolved Governments. I am pleased to confirm that the Assembly approved this amendment and therefore Northern Ireland joined the schemes on 14 October this year. Senedd Cymru approved the amendment on 22 October, and the Scottish Parliament will be taking a vote in the next few days following the amendment’s successful passage through committee.
This legislation is an excellent example of all the Governments in the United Kingdom coming together to tackle a common challenge. I take this opportunity to thank Ministers and officials in the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government for the exemplary fashion in which this process has been conducted.
The amendment has two purposes: first, to effect the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the schemes and, secondly, to make technical updates to the legislation. Part 1 of this amendment contains preliminary provisions establishing the territorial scope and that the instrument amends the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023.
Part 2 contains a series of technical updates to correct minor errors and clarify drafting. The most salient of these are the update in Article 3 that clarifies that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles should be treated as zero-emission vehicles for the purpose of the scheme, the correction in Articles 5 and 7 of an error in the formula for determining the cap on the maximum amount of compliance that may be converted from the carbon dioxide target schemes to the zero-emission vehicles target schemes and the addition in Article 11 of additional measures to address a gap in enforcement provisions.
Part 3 amends the schemes to allow Northern Ireland to join. The changes themselves are relatively minimal as the original legislation was drafted to allow for the possibility of Northern Ireland joining, should the Assembly choose to do so.
Finally, Part 4 makes consequential amendments to assimilated EU law to sunset—“sunset” is a verb, apparently—the emissions regulations that currently apply in Northern Ireland and make consequential amendments to revoke now redundant law, preserve certain parts for legacy administration and amend certain regulations that still have utility. I am sorry about that verb.
I am pleased to say that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported no concerns in respect of this instrument, and I thank members of both committees for their hard work.
It is important to note that the zero-emission vehicle targets and the carbon dioxide targets will be applied as a UK-wide average when Northern Ireland joins from January 2025. This means that Northern Ireland alone will not be required to meet the headline zero-emission vehicle target in 2025, which is 28%. The Northern Irish new car and van market is approximately 50,000 vehicles per year, compared with the UK car and van market of around 2.3 million, so it is approximately 2%. As such, while manufacturers will want to maximise their zero-emission vehicle sales in Northern Ireland, joining the schemes will not force vehicles into the market beyond the naturally growing demand.
While this is a technical amendment in nature, it represents a significant step forward in the journey to net zero for Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson cannot be in her place this evening, so it has fallen to me to comment on this order. It is, as we have heard, an uncontroversial statutory instrument that very sensibly brings Northern Irish regulation into line. Therefore, from these Benches, we entirely support it.
As a former member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, it troubles me that a significant part of the instrument is the correction of errors. Although I shall in future refer to all my errors as technical adjustments, there is a serious point about quality control. I will say no more to spare somebody’s blushes, but it is concerning.
I have a couple of questions on the wider point. Sales of electric vehicles are much slower than was anticipated. The industry is saying that this is because of deferring the end of sales of new internal combustion engine vehicles to 2035. Have the current Government given any thought to reverting back to 2030? When can we expect the Government to complete the review of EV charging infrastructure? As the report from the environment committee pointed out, it is a major hindrance to people having confidence to buy EVs.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his short introduction to this draft order. It is 14 pages of gobbledygook, mostly caused by Brexit and the inability of legislation in Northern Ireland to keep up with the rest of the country. I am sure that will not go on in future. Will the Minister say whether it matters where the affected vehicles are manufactured or stabled? I can see that some people will try to take advantage of whatever benefits there are on one side or the other to move vehicles across the water or to somewhere else. The sooner we have one UK-wide standard for things like that, the better.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, talking of strange verbs, I was always struck, when I was involved with Transport for London, that on London Underground there is the verb “to non-stop”, as in, “This train is non-stopping at this station”. I suppose that there might have been a time when I could have done something to eradicate it, but I never made the effort and so no doubt it will continue to flourish.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Does the noble Lord also support the verb “to platform”?
Lord Moylan (Con)
If I were to take that question, this could be a very long intervention, so perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I move more directly to the instrument itself. As the Minister has explained, it essentially does two things: first, it corrects some errors and technical problems that exist in the legislation—the statutory instrument—that was passed last year; it is good to see errors corrected. Secondly, it extends the vehicle emissions trading scheme to Northern Ireland, which, as I understand it, is being done with the support, and at the wish, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As such, these Benches have no objection to raise to the approval of this instrument.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft Order in Council.
I will respond to the specific points raised. The points about technical adjustments are noted. I beg the forgiveness of the House that some of this stuff about zero-emission vehicles and alternative technologies is very technically complex, and I would forgive technical people for not getting all of it right.
On the general point about 2030 and 2035, the Government are committed to phasing out new cars that rely solely on internal combustion engines by 2030. That means that pure petrol/diesel cars will be phased out and, by 2035, all new cars and vans sold will need to be 100% zero emission. We will be setting out further detail on the requirements for cars and vans sold between 2030 and 2035 in due course. I hope that continued progress on zero-emission vehicles will give people confidence to purchase these vehicles. It is very important that we deal with carbon and achieve consequential good effects on air quality.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked: does it matter? He gave his own answer by saying that the sooner the UK was consistent across its nations, the better. This statutory instrument is the means of doing so—so that is really the answer to that. Apart from debating the doubtful use of verbs on the London Underground— I could find several others worse than “non-stopping”; “to platform” is quite bad as well—it is nice to hear that there is no objection. It is nice that there is a considerable degree of agreement, because this rights something that clearly could not be righted at the time.
There is now consensus across the UK that the zero-emission vehicle mandate is the right tool to move our car and van market towards being fully zero-emission in 2035. The UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are in agreement that net zero is a priority for our economies and for our future. This consistency of approach is to the benefit of business, with barriers removed to accessing the Northern Ireland market, and to Northern Irish consumers, who will reap the rewards of zero-emission vehicles, including lower costs of ownership, cleaner air and reduced noise pollution, as the UK continues on its path to being a clean energy superpower.
Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 May be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare that I am the holder of a valid certificate of professional competence, as I hold a valid passenger-carrying vehicle licence. But I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in my promoting these regulations.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is to introduce an alternative route for renewal of the driver certificate of professional competence. This alternative will be recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom and will offer more flexible courses than the current system, with an accelerated pathway for drivers to return to the profession. The existing process for demonstrating competence, which is recognised across Europe, will remain for those drivers who operate within the European Union and will remain valid when driving in the United Kingdom.
We are amending the existing Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The background to this is that the Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 transposed EU directive 2003/59/EC, and were last amended in 2020. We are proposing to amend the regulations to increase the choice and flexibility available to drivers when they renew and, as a holder of a driver certificate of professional competence myself, I think these are sensible and proportionate reforms that will help the sector.
Noble Lords may remember that, back in 2021, there was an acute shortage of lorry, bus and coach drivers, which caused significant disruption to critical supply chains and passenger services. As part of its response, the department launched a review of the driver certificate of professional competence in 2021, involving industry, seeking views on ways to improve processes to increase recruitment and retention. Many felt that the current renewal process was inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome, in particular the time and cost burdens of the periodic training requirements for the renewal of qualifications.
Currently, drivers must do 35 hours of training through a rigid structure, with courses being a minimum of seven hours and most courses being trainer-led. This was identified as contributing to drivers leaving the profession. Drivers and former drivers stated in the 2021 review that the burden of gaining the certificate of professional competence was acting as a barrier to those considering joining or looking to renew their qualification, leading people to leave the sector.
A public consultation was launched in early 2023, suggesting options for possible changes to the ways to demonstrate professional competence. That consultation, along with regular industry engagement, has informed the reforms that we are proposing, to give drivers more options and greater flexibility during the renewal process and to assist the industry in retaining and recruiting drivers.
Currently, drivers renew their certificates of professional competence every five years to drive in the UK or the EU, by doing 35 hours of training through a rigid system of courses, with little e-learning as an option. We are introducing a national qualification to sit alongside the existing international qualification. The national qualification, which will be valid across the United Kingdom, will still require 35 hours of training every five years, but courses can be shorter, with a minimum of three and a half hours, and there will be more e-learning available, with new stand-alone e-learning courses being introduced—something that is not currently available. This flexibility was something that many in the industry, particularly drivers, have requested.
We are also introducing an accelerated pathway to allow drivers to return to the workforce. If a driver’s certificate of professional competence has lapsed by more than 60 days but less than two years, the driver can take a seven-hour bespoke return-to-driving course to a gain a one-year national CPC. This window of time was chosen to avoid drivers deliberately allowing their CPC to lapse in order to take the accelerated return pathway and to prevent drivers who have been out of the profession for a prolonged time rejoining without adequate training. Within the 12-month validity period of their national CPC, the driver can then do the remaining 28 hours of training to regain a full five-year national or international CPC.
I am aware that some in the industry would have liked to abolish the CPC entirely. While I sympathise with drivers who see it as a burden, based on time and cost to renew, I believe that it is absolutely necessary, for reasons of road safety and driver professionalism. Additionally, due to the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU and other international obligations, the CPC must be kept for most commercial international road freight and passenger transport.
These reforms will make renewing or regaining a CPC much easier and more flexible for operators, but particularly for drivers, easing the impact on work/life balance, while not reducing the quality of the education drivers receive, to maintain a safe and highly professional workforce in the road freight and passenger transport sectors.
These changes to the Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations will make the renewal process more flexible for drivers operating solely in the UK and help to reduce the chances of future driver shortages. We listened to stakeholders in all four nations while developing the amendments, and we expect the amendments to support the industry while ensuring a professional and safe workforce throughout the UK and beyond.
To help the industry to understand the more flexible training route, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency in Britain and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland will issue guidance to the industry on these changes. I therefore beg to move that the House approve these regulations.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations so skilfully. I welcome them, including all the detail.
Before saying anything substantive, I should declare my interest: I hold a C+E HGV licence and am a qualified HGV driving instructor, albeit somewhat out of date. I do not need a CPC because I do not drive HGVs commercially and have no intention of doing so. It is sometimes argued that Members of the House of Lords claim to have experience but are actually has-beens. I operate a tank transporter for the REME Museum, so I still keep my hand in.
As part of my research this morning I used the mock HGV theory test to be found at the GOV.UK website. I am pleased to tell the House that I passed, with 43 correct answers out of 50, without any preparation. I was surprised to see some quite technical questions about internal engine design; 4% were concerned with abnormal load operations. I presume that the test is, correctly, designed to make it hard to get 100%. If all the questions were easy, a 100% pass rate would be required, but that would mean that even the simplest error resulted in unnecessary failure. That experience gives me confidence in the testing system, although much if not all the CPC training system is attendance only.
A recent Answer by the Minister to my Written Question indicates that there are about 688,000 HGV drivers with a CPC and a further 287,000 without. Research carried out by your Lordships’ Library appears to indicate that only one person in this Parliament has any practical experience of heavy goods vehicle operation. When the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill comes into effect, there will be none.
The Minister is aware that I am currently vigorously engaged in supporting the road transport industry in respect of abnormal load movements. However, he will understand that support in the industry for compulsory training, including CPC, is mixed, and he referred to that. For instance, I have been surprised how reluctant the industry has been to recognise the need for training and record-keeping on each piece of equipment to be operated. One problem is that operators who undertake extensive training keep finding that their drivers are being poached by other operators offering slightly higher remuneration but little training. That is a good argument in favour of the CPC regime the Minister has articulated.
The CPC is personal to the driver, not the operator. That is a long-standing problem, and it is not clear to me that the Minister can do anything about it. He has claimed that these regulations and the CPC are all about raising standards and professionalising the HGV driving trade, and I am at one with him on that. However, we are still not treating HGV drivers as well as we should, given their importance to sustaining our way of life. We saw this when we literally ran out of HGV drivers a few years ago, as the Minister observed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, following the last two speeches, I can tell the House that no one has ever let me anywhere near a lorry. Nevertheless, we on these Benches very much support these measures, which strike the right balance between making sure that people are safe to be on the road and removing unnecessary bureaucracy. That will be helpful for drivers and for SMEs in particular, so we support that.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what plans there are to keep the impact of these measures under review, particularly the move to e-learning. I am sure that is a sensible thing to do, but we will probably need some data just to make sure that there is no adverse impact; indeed, it may be beneficial.
I was not entirely clear from what the Minister said whether the certificate will be interoperable in Europe and with European standards. I am thinking particularly about drivers in Northern Ireland who cross the border into the Republic multiple times. I did not entirely understand what he had to say about that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing with officials for me on this instrument, and indeed on the previous instrument, about which I should have made a similar remark.
This is a Brexit benefit; there is no doubt at all about that. It gives us the chance to set standards and a training regime for our own HGV drivers to match the needs of our economy and our workforce. That brings me—if I may anticipate the Minister—to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. My understanding is that this is a domestic certificate that will operate in the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, but it will not of itself give any right for the driver to operate on the continent of Europe. For that there will remain the international certificate and the training regime, which will be compliant with European standards. This is wholly to be welcomed as allowing us to be more flexible and responsive.
Nobody has yet mentioned the question of safety. If the Minister says to the House that he believes this regime will result in a level of competence that will not compromise safety in itself, I am perfectly happy to accept that, but the point needs to be raised because safety in the driving of HGVs is a very important factor.
I feel very inadequate in following the speech of my noble friend Lord Attlee. It made me wonder how easy it is for an HGV driver to gain a life peerage. What a pity it is that the vandalism of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill would remove the only one we actually have. However, we have no objections to the instrument.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I recognise his professional competence, as he has said to me privately that he recognises mine. I agree with many of his remarks, in particular his support of this training regime. He is right that this instrument makes a difference. I will come on specifically to answer the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about safety in a moment, but I think the noble Earl is right: this adds to the professionalism in these professions, and it is a good thing to do.
The noble Earl referred to the conditions for HGV drivers. He is right, of course, that historically there has been very poor provision. My department is making some progress on improved roadside facilities and safer rest areas. The department recently announced more than £14 million in joint government and industry funding to improve lorry parking infrastructure, boost working conditions for drivers and drive innovation and decarbonisation.
The HGV parking match-funded grant scheme was launched in 2022 to fund investment in driver welfare, lorry parking provisions, site security and so forth. The department announced the latest grant allocations as recently as 10 October. There are 23 provisionally successful bids, amounting to approximately £4.5 million of government funding and leveraging about £8 million from industry. I am sure the noble Earl will contend that that is not enough. I will therefore write to him on his question as to whether we can find out exactly how many people sleep in their cabs, when maybe they should not need to. I do not know, but I understand the question and will endeavour to answer it in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her support. We will of course keep these plans under review—especially, as she said, the one that enables people to rejoin the industry. Having left doing my five days of training until after a point at which I realised that I might be the Minister of State for Rail, it was then a bit of a struggle to get the five days in. I was wondering what would happen if I ran out of them. This is a good thing, because there are people who leave these industries and regret that they do so and who then find it difficult to get the qualifications. However, I also agree with the proposition in the instrument before us: they cannot use it to get round the requirement for the five days of training. They should not be able to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, had it exactly right that, if you drive in the EU, you will need the EU certificate of professional competence. The EU, as I understand it, is considering introducing reforms, but it is not as fast as we are, so it is unlikely to recognise this national CPC in the near future. These reforms are necessary, however, and good things to do anyway.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to safety. Driving a heavy vehicle of any sort is a professional job and it needs to be safe. There has been a lot of consideration about the nature of this training. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that it is a good thing, despite the opposition to it from some people—a few operators and some drivers. Apart from anything else, as I can testify, you can hold one of these licences for a long time. I passed my PCV test in July 1974 and, until these regulations first came into effect about 10 years ago, I did not need to do a single day’s further training. If you think about the possibilities of driving either a vehicle like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, does, or the modest public passenger-carrying vehicles that I drive, that is extraordinary. It is absolutely right that people who follow these professions should get periodic training. They should be reminded of the serious consequences of breaking regulations on drivers’ hours, of not complying with the Highway Code and of a number of other things—including, if I put my railway hat on, the possibility of tall vehicles striking railway bridges—all of which are covered in this training. In addition, in the case of passenger-carrying vehicles, dealing with passengers is covered properly.
It is very good to hear that all sides of your Lordships’ House support this. We are not going to abolish the qualification. I can attest, as I said, to the focus on road safety, that the CPC brings, and I beg to move that these regulations are adopted.
Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Building Safety) Order 2024
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 10 September be approved.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order, which is the result of collaborative working between two Governments. It supports the Scottish Government’s request last year to devolve powers for the Scottish Parliament to establish a Scottish building safety levy.
The order before us will be made under Section 80B of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides for devolving additional tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament by way of statutory instruments. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action. I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through over 250 orders since devolution began 25 years ago.
The Grenfell Tower fire was a heartbreaking tragedy that sent shockwaves across the UK and overseas. As the Prime Minister said when the final inquiry report was released in September, it was entirely avoidable. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families, and the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that a disaster of this scale never happens again.
Many homeowners across the UK still live in buildings with serious fire and building safety defects. The remediation challenge is significant. The Scottish Government estimate that around 49% of high-rise buildings above 18 metres would require some level of remediation, along with 10% of high-rise buildings between 11 and 18 metres. This suggests that there are 382 buildings above 18 metres requiring some form of remediation and around 500 buildings of between 11 and 18 metres requiring it—close to 900 buildings in total.
The UK Government and the devolved Governments have stepped up and committed public funds to help remediate life-critical building safety problems. Many in the building sector have also assumed their responsibilities and taken ownership of the remediation challenge, but there remain buildings where a responsible party cannot be identified. It would be unfair on the taxpayer for the cost of remediating these buildings to fall on to the Government. It would also be unfair on homeowners for the cost to fall on them.
The order will devolve a power to the Scottish Parliament to enable it to legislate for a Scottish building safety levy to fund building safety expenditure in Scotland. The devolved power will be akin to the Secretary of State’s power under Section 105C of the Building Act 1984, as amended by the Building Safety Act 2022, to introduce a building safety levy in England. This follows a request from the Scottish Government last year to devolve such a power. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government, and I am pleased that, in this case, the Governments have worked together to make sure that this issue can be addressed in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of this instrument. She has made it clear that it is related to the consequences of the Grenfell disaster, which I think we all recognise is still with us in terms of the consequences and the resolutions still needed. We can understand, first, that we need to address it and, secondly, that the two Governments have discussed the ways of doing that. It is not possible simply to do the same thing in Scotland as in England because of different building standards and so forth. I understand that.
The order specifically mentions cladding, but the question arises: are there other forms of remediation that might be included? That is not specified anywhere. The explanation says that the proportion should be the same in principle both north and south of the border, but it appears the method of collection will be different. In England, it will be local authorities which collect and administer it, but in Scotland—I am afraid I am not surprised about this—they prefer to do these things centrally. Local government gets even less support from the Scottish Government than local authorities in England. I do not know whether there is any suggestion that a different way of doing it could lead to different impacts.
The two Governments say that they do not think it would adversely affect macroeconomic policy or impede the UK single market in housebuilding. Nevertheless, the joint consultation produced a rather mixed result. Not very many people or organisations responded— I admit that. Nevertheless, while eight were broadly supportive, six were not and two did not express an opinion.
There was one particular issue I would like the Minister to address. There is a power to impose a levy, in effect on builders, to provide funding to remedy the problem, particularly with cladding. What about a levy on builders who may have not been involved in any buildings affected by cladding? I am thinking of small and medium-sized builders. What is to stop the Scottish Government nevertheless putting a levy on them? If they do, it could presumably affect the market. By definition, big developers—some of which, as the Minister has said, have stepped up already—can probably absorb this and manage it, but small and medium-sized ones may be less able to. I want to highlight that concern because it is the one thing that was flagged up which struck a chord with me as a risk. Not only could it affect the profitability of those small builders but the price of building houses could be adversely affected if builders were subjected to a levy in spite of never being involved in building anything that required remediation.
If the Governments are satisfied that the UK single market will not be affected, what are the arrangements for ensuring that the levies raised are not significantly different north and south of the border? It is devolved, so presumably it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Government. However, if they became significantly different, it would have an impact on the UK single market. Do the Government have any indication of how they could intervene in that situation? I know the single market was very contentious but, given that we are praying it in aid, it is important to know that if it is distorted there will be some mechanism by which there can be redress—particularly if either England or Scotland is adversely affected by the application of this.
Other than that, on these Benches, we understand the principle behind this instrument, and we are happy to support it.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this order. She spoke of collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments. It is important to note that the collaborative process which led to the order began under the Conservative Government. In 2021, the then-UK Government announced the introduction of a building safety levy. As the noble Baroness stated, the Scottish Government now seek devolution of the necessary powers to introduce an equivalent building safety levy in Scotland.
The collaborative approach taken by the Conservative UK Government and the Scottish Government began with a joint consultation, which ran from January to February this year, with the outcome published in April. It stated that the UK Government were willing to proceed with the devolution of the power and the Scottish Government were willing to receive it.
It is also important to recognise that the Scottish Parliament has agreed to this instrument. The Scottish Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has agreed to it, and I believe its Finance and Public Administration Committee did so only today. In light of that background, I confirm our support for the order, but I have a few issues to raise with the noble Baroness.
With the devolution of any proposed tax power, there is always a question about the impact on UK-wide policy issues. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that, in devolving this tax power, there will be no disproportionately negative impact on macroeconomic policy in the UK? In particular, building on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does the noble Baroness think there will be any negative impact on the single UK market in housebuilding? Finally, I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government intend to assess the impact of any tax decisions made by the Scottish Government on growth in the UK more broadly. If she could deal with those queries, I would be most grateful. I welcome the order and am happy to confirm our support for it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I will respond to all comments, but I want to put on record thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who is absolutely right that this process began under his leadership. Devolution has been a cross-party, I hope, success—although some relationships are now being slightly reset.
In terms of the specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is right that it refers to cladding and other remediation, but the reality is that the detail of how this policy will be applied is a matter for the Scottish Parliament as a policy consideration. On how it will affect the wider market, there was a genuine consultation and we do not believe that it will have an impact on the market on implementation because we believe that both levies in England and Scotland will be comparable, although collected differently. We will, however, as part of our ongoing relationships with the Scottish Government, ensure that if there is a significant divergence we will look to review.
How the levy is paid is a matter for the Scottish Government. This is devolution in action; they have asked for the powers, and we are working with them to give them the powers they have asked for. We will do everything we can to make sure this is a success as far as they are concerned. I believe I have answered the substantive points, but if I have not, I will reflect and write to noble Lords.
This instrument comes in the year of the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, which the last Labour Government delivered and which I am very proud of. It is in the spirit of devolution that this Government have set out to reset relationships with the Scottish Government to deliver for the Scottish people, building on the work of all parties. The instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Horn of Africa
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House takes note of the rising tensions in the Horn of Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have an in-depth debate about the rising tensions in the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia. We have had some excellent contributions and I am determined that, as we go forward as a Government, we give this House the opportunity to have a proper debate on these issues.
Rising tensions in the Horn of Africa matter significantly to the United Kingdom. These tensions are further destabilising the region, which risks having knock-on effects on the ability of the United Kingdom and regional and international partners to counter al-Shabaab. As a result, the United Kingdom’s capacity to advance growth, climate and development partnerships in the region could be jeopardised, with worsening political instability and a worsening security environment. I recognise the importance and complexity of the issues contributing to these tensions. Despite other pressing global conflicts, we must not overlook the potential of the Horn of Africa. Yet the multiple concurrent challenges it faces—security, humanitarian and development—hinder its ability to realise that potential. But we must not give up on it.
Since 2019, the United Kingdom has allocated more than £1 billion across east Africa to humanitarian operations, helping to reach tens of millions of people with life-saving support. However, despite the progress made, the United Nations estimates that around 63 million people will still require humanitarian aid this year—that is a staggering number of people in desperate need of help. This is due to a combination of pressures, including a drought of unprecedented severity and duration, as well as flooding and conflict.
To make matters worse, the situation in the Horn has been growing more tense in recent months. At the beginning of this year, Ethiopia and Somaliland signed a memorandum of understanding that could grant Ethiopia access to the sea in return for Ethiopian recognition of Somaliland. This has subsequently led to a worrying deterioration in relations between Ethiopia and Somalia, and it has drawn in other regional actors, such as Egypt and Eritrea. Together with international partners, the United Kingdom has reaffirmed its support for Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while Turkey is leading mediation efforts between Ethiopia and Somalia. As the United Kingdom, we are supportive of Turkey’s attempts to initiate dialogue between the two countries, and we welcome its engagement on this issue.
I will take Somalia and Ethiopia in turn to expand on this. This is a critical time for the region, as the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Somalia will transition into a new mission. Crucial details still need to be finalised regarding the mission structure and the associated force, including which countries will contribute troops. There are still unresolved issues regarding the funding of a future mission. In recent years, the United Kingdom, alongside the EU, has been a core donor to the African Union’s mission in Somalia. But we fear that, without a sustainable funding mechanism drawn from a broader base of donors for a future mission, the crucial security gains made in recent years will be lost.
I turn to Ethiopia. Only recently, we marked the 40th anniversary of the 1984 famine. We have also recently addressed a question relating to the tensions in the Horn. As I have repeatedly said, Ethiopia is a country of unbridled possibilities, with an innovative population, an expanding economy and a rich history. Yet challenges persist, and we continue to raise them with its Government. That includes finding political solutions to internal conflicts, which have a devastating impact on civilians, particularly women and girls. The Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU risks bringing further instability to a region that is already engaged in tackling issues such as conflict, food insecurity and terrorism, while also posing a threat to Somalia’s territorial integrity. That comes on top of already tense relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea, making it all the more necessary that we do everything possible to de-escalate tensions.
It is clear that the rising tensions and deteriorating relationships in the Horn of Africa have been exacerbated by the signing of the MoU. The United Kingdom and the international community remain focused on a diplomatic approach aimed at finding a mutually agreeable solution by encouraging dialogue between the parties. It is, however, crucial to avoid any action that could destabilise regional security.
I will add a bit about Sudan, because we cannot talk about the Horn of Africa without acknowledging the serious situation there. I know that Sudan is a matter of deep concern to many Peers across the House. Since conflict erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in April last year, Sudan has witnessed one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Over 24 million people urgently need humanitarian assistance, and famine has been confirmed in northern Darfur. Humanitarian access continues to be deliberately blocked, and atrocities are being committed on a horrific scale.
In response, the United Kingdom has provided £113.5 million in aid this year to support those fleeing violence in Sudan and neighbouring countries. The United Kingdom continues to be at the forefront of efforts to respond to this crisis. Most recently, on 18 October, we led a joint statement, together with 10 other donors, condemning the obstruction of aid and calling upon the warring parties to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. We continue to pursue all diplomatic avenues to press the parties into a permanent ceasefire, to allow unrestricted humanitarian access, to protect civilians and to commit to a sustained and meaningful peace process. Additionally, as we prepare to assume the presidency of the United Nations Security Council in November, the United Kingdom will push for actionable steps to protect civilians in Sudan, in alignment with recent UN recommendations.
The United Kingdom’s commitment to Sudan remains strong, with continued advocacy for peace, accountability and relief for the Sudanese people.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for initiating this debate and for his collaborative nature, involving us in these discussions. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, who I am sure will play a full part in your Lordships’ House.
I must question the title of today’s debate. Although His Majesty’s Government may not formally recognise Somaliland, failing to acknowledge its 6.2 million people does not make them invisible. To speak of tensions in the region while omitting the most democratic and stable society within it is, in effect, to disregard an entire nation from our discourse. Somaliland’s people are committed to democratic principles that outshine any of its neighbours, yet they find themselves absent from the very title of our discussion.
We find ourselves addressing a matter of both immediate and long-term consequence in the Horn of Africa. Specifically with regard to Somaliland, there exists a unique opportunity for the United Kingdom to act in accordance with our moral responsibilities and strategic interests. As I said, Somaliland’s democratic development offers a stark contrast to the persistent instability of its neighbour, Somalia, and it presents a prospect for stability across a region long beset by conflict. With our support, Somaliland could contribute to the security of one of the world’s most vital maritime corridors.
Since declaring independence in 1991, Somaliland has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to democratic governance. This is not an abstract ideal but a tangible process, evidenced by elections such as the one poised to be held on 13 November 2024—in two weeks’ time. This is its fourth presidential election since 2003. This commitment to democratic values must be viewed against the backdrop of rising tensions in the broader Horn of Africa.
The region is marked by significant security challenges, including the influence of the Houthis in Yemen, al-Shabaab and ISIS, all of which threaten stability. The ongoing Houthi conflict, fuelled by Iranian arms, disrupts shipping routes across the Gulf of Aden and now poses an increased threat, as the Houthis have begun collaborating with al-Shabaab, arming it with Iranian weapons to extend its reach across borders. Al-Shabaab continues to present a major threat, particularly in regions close to Somaliland’s borders, such as Sool, where the group exploits weak governance for recruitment and cross-border incursions.
Furthermore, ISIS has established a presence in Puntland, raising alarms about potential infiltration into Somaliland’s contested areas. These security dynamics are exacerbated by the region’s fragile governance and the vulnerability of marginalised populations, whom terrorists of course exploit for recruitment. Here, the UK’s engagement in counterterrorism and governance enhancement is not merely beneficial but essential.
Moreover, the geopolitical landscape is complicated by the actions of key players in the region. Djibouti, a strategic nexus hosting military bases for countries such as the United States, China and France, plays a crucial role in supporting the economic stability of landlocked Ethiopia. However, Djibouti faces challenges in balancing relationships with these foreign powers while managing regional refugee flows. Eritrea, under President Afwerki’s one-party state, has seen a normalisation of relations with Ethiopia since 2018, yet remains embroiled in human rights abuses and regional conflicts, notably in Tigray.
Ethiopia itself is beset by internal conflicts, including in Tigray, as I have said. In Somalia, the persistent threat of al-Shabaab, coupled with political instability and corruption, further complicates the regional landscape. The reliance on the African Union mission underscores the need for a concerted international effort to address these governance challenges.
At the heart of these rising tensions are territorial and border disputes, for example between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and clashes over contested regions, such as Sool and Sanaag, between Somaliland and Puntland. The dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea over the Dumeira mountain and island further illustrates the fragility of regional stability. Internal ethnic tensions in Ethiopia, exacerbated by the Tigray conflict and violent clashes among various groups, pose additional risks of escalation.
Somaliland, amid these challenges, continues to seek international recognition and investment, highlighting its relative peace and democratic governance compared with Somalia. The recent provision of iris biometric technology by Taiwan marks a commendable step toward ensuring electoral transparency, and Somaliland faces considerable challenges from foreign interference in its elections. Both neighbouring states and external actors see these elections as opportunities to advance their geopolitical interests. Thus, it is critical to support Somaliland in strengthening its electoral integrity and ensuring transparency and fairness while preventing undue foreign influence.
Additionally, external influences from Middle Eastern powers, such as the UAE and Qatar, further complicate local politics. China’s expanding presence in the region, particularly its military base in Djibouti and strategic investments, highlights the competing interests of global powers. As these dynamics play out, we must remain vigilant against the potential for escalating conflicts to ignite broader regional wars, which would of course have devastating humanitarian consequences, including famine, disease and mass displacement.
In this complex context, I believe that the United Kingdom, with its historical ties and global standing, is uniquely positioned to play a constructive role in Somaliland’s future. Recognising independence would not merely acknowledge a political reality but would strategically align with our objectives in the Horn of Africa. Such recognition would signal our commitment to supporting democratic governance, reinforcing stability and ensuring secure trade routes. Critics may argue that such recognition could destabilise the region, yet we must question whether adherence to outdated paradigms serves the cause of peace and progress. Supporting Somaliland’s independence is not just a matter of principle; it aligns with our strategic interests in a region marked by volatility and uncertainty. I spoke in your Lordships’ House on 25 July about the Ethiopia-Somaliland Memorandum of Understanding, which the noble Lord referred to. I hope it will turn into a full-scale agreement.
I will end as I began. The people of Somaliland should not be invisible, especially here in the UK, and while we do not officially recognise their home country, we owe it to them to recognise them and support their most basic human rights, wishing the country well in its democratic elections in two weeks’ time.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government have initiated this debate and I thank the Minister for his introduction. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Harman. Having had a flat in her former constituency for quite a few years, I am certain that she will be very welcome in this House, and we are looking forward to hearing what she has to say.
While I think what the noble Lord had to say about Somaliland is worthy of consideration and thought, it is a difficult and delicate issue—but it has validity. A few points need to be drawn out. As quite a few noble Lords will know, Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council was in this House last week and gave a pretty depressing comment on the state of the world. The very starkest statistic was that in the last few years, the number of refugees and internally displaced people in the world has risen from 42 million to 120 million and, while that has happened, most of the developed countries have dramatically reduced their aid and support to exactly those people. So, as the problem has got worse, support from the international community has been reduced—and we wonder why conflicts escalate and resolutions do not appear.
I have some knowledge of Ethiopia, as I have visited several times, and I have also visited Sudan and South Sudan. I have not visited Somalia, Eritrea or Djibouti, but clearly the impact is very much felt whenever you visit the region in any case. I am grateful for the fact that Anneliese Dodds, the Development Minister, visited Ethiopia in August, and that the Minister was there just a week or two ago. I think that demonstrates that the Government are engaged. I have to point out, however—and he can correct me if my figures are wrong—that from a peak of £300 million a year of the UK’s aid budget to Ethiopia, we are currently down to about £83 million, and in the case of Somalia, from a peak of £250 million it is down to £92.7 million in the current year. That reinforces the point. I know that the Government are not in a position to reverse that, but they must not cut it any further, and I think we want to see that they are beginning to build it back, and this is an area of focus where it is urgently needed.
As the Minister said, it is a very complex region and the interconnections are very difficult, but he quite rightly made some positive comments about what those countries are trying to do. Somalia is definitely in a better place than it was a few years ago, but it is not out of the woods. Somaliland is a shining example in one sense, but there is an unresolved problem. Eritrea is still a worry. The point that I wish to make is that there are 120 million people or more living in Ethiopia and, in spite of some reverses in the last few years because of the internal conflicts, Ethiopia has achieved a huge amount since it got rid of the communist Government, in a whole variety of ways. The poverty indicators have dropped very sharply and health and education have improved, but it has slid, because of the conflict, in the last few years.
While the Prime Minister’s rhetoric may not be helpful, it is quite understandable that a country of 120 million people that is trying to build a successful economy and has no access to the sea, other than by agreement with Djibouti—which has its own problems—is looking for secure access. It used to have it when it possessed Eritrea. That is not a viable option, so it is understandable that it would look to Somaliland, with very close access to the sea and a stable environment.
It is equally understandable that Somalia is more than uncomfortable about that—it is very angry. My appeal to the Minister is from the point of view of the UK and the international community: this could surely be resolved by negotiation and agreement, but the starting point has to be that Ethiopia’s need for safe and secure access to the sea is a legitimate aspiration that it would be helpful if its neighbours could take a constructive attitude towards resolving. I can put it no more firmly than that. I cannot say what the answer should be, but it is an understandable wish and refusing to address it does not help us.
As the Minister said, we have the problem of the spillover from Sudan and South Sudan, with refugee camps in Ethiopia and probably the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. The UK is the UN penholder on Sudan, so we have reasonable responsibility to help resolve that situation. Lowering the temperature, addressing the issues and getting the parties together is the only way that we will resolve this.
The consequences of climate change and the current famine are an added burden. We all know that this is the 40th anniversary of the famine, but it is important to remember that it was to some extent directly caused by the appalling Government of the time—part of it deliberately and the rest by neglect. Therefore, it is understandable that the Government who have succeeded them, even though they have changed in the last few years, are very sensitive to Ethiopian famine because they have done an awful lot to try to ensure that they can manage famine and stress from their own resources as well as international aid. Even when it is embarrassing for them, they are prepared to make a public statement that they are facing the prospect of famine and looking for practical support. We should acknowledge that, because it shows that we respect what they are trying to do and that we are there to try to help, rather than giving the terrible image of Africa as a completely failed continent that cannot cope, which is just not true. The scale of climate change and the extremity of some of the drought is beyond human control but not beyond management and resolution.
The UK Government’s engagement in the region has been positive and constructive but regrettably rather downgraded in recent years. That has been noticed. I was advised that the very sharp withdrawal from aid projects in Ethiopia led a Minister in the Ethiopian Government to say that they were not sure they wanted to work with the UK Government in future because they could not trust the continuity. I hope that this Government, whatever they do, do not stop and start— I hope they start and do not stop—because that is the worst way to handle aid and development co-operation on a mutually respectful basis.
There is a tendency for this to become an issue when there is a crisis—when the TV news cameras are in, when there is an appeal or whatever. That creates a rather negative image—not that it is not real—when surely this is about long-term solutions and building resilience and capacity. When I had the honour to chair the International Development Committee, I always used to say to people: “It is not the Foreign Aid Committee; it is the International Development Committee”. Sometimes aid is necessary in an emergency, but it needs to be backed up by sustained development programmes to build resilience and capacity to give countries the ability to tackle their problems in the long term. I appeal to the Government not just to respond to crises but to set in process programmes with long-term continuity. They do not always get the attention but they make the difference, which is really important.
As I have said before in this House, we need to rebuild the cross-party consensus that we had, because we have broken the connection between the British public and the importance and relevance of our overseas development programme, both in compassion and in our internal national interest. We need to rebuild that, because at the moment the attitude tends to be: “We have all these problems at home, so we really shouldn’t be addressing that”. But we will have more problems at home if we do not do so. We live in a shared, over- crowded and overstressed planet. We are part of the overstressing and have to be part of the solution too.
I appreciate the fact that two Ministers have been to Ethiopia in very short order. I hope that our relationship with Ethiopia and the neighbouring territories will continue and that our role as penholder on Sudan might help us push that forward. Can the Minister say to what extent the UK could help with mediation among the countries, in particular between Somaliland and Ethiopia, and give some leadership to the international community? We are not the single most important player, but we have been an important player and can be again. I hope we will recognise that these tensions can be resolved by good will. The rhetoric has been restrained; there has been a bit of tub-thumping, but they have just held back from escalating it to conflict. That could happen, but should not. This is no justification. Conflict will resolve nothing, just make a very bad situation a lot worse.
Baroness Harman (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the illuminating and powerful speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Bruce. I thank them for their welcome. I am more than pleased to find myself joining this House. We have an important job to do. Our task is to scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account, consider and report on public policy and seek to introduce legislation or propose amendments to Bills. I pledge that I will do all that to the best of my ability, working with Peers on all sides of the House.
Everyone is so nice here. It feels quite different from the Commons. I confess that it will take me a while to get used to former members of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet greeting me warmly, and my former ministerial colleagues here are being much nicer to me now than I ever remember them being when we were in government together. I put it down to this being a place of post-ambition politics, and I can highly recommend it.
There are so many here whom I have worked with closely and respected over decades, not least my noble friend Lord Kinnock, who in an overwhelmingly male-dominated Parliamentary Labour Party always backed me, and my noble friend Lady Smith, whom I have admired since she won Basildon in 1997. I thank them for introducing me and for their advice.
I am grateful to Black Rod for her guidance—I ask her to pass on my thanks to all her team, who have been so helpful—as well as to the digital service, the Library, the doorkeepers and many others. It meant a great deal to me that Black Rod and her team enabled my family to be here when I was introduced last month. When I was introduced in the Commons in 1982, I was pregnant and it was my husband beaming down at me from the Gallery. This time, it was my children and grandchildren up in the Public Gallery—even one year-old baby Reuben was allowed in.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. While the dreadful suffering in the Middle East and the appalling invasion of Ukraine by Putin have seized the world’s attention, there has none the less also been a steady focus in this House on the suffering in the Horn of Africa. I fully support the Minister in making that the case. I pay tribute to his speech last month and the many other excellent speeches in that debate, most particularly that of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
During the 40 years I was an MP, Camberwell and Peckham became home to many from the Horn of Africa. I learned from them about the tragic waste of lives and the suffering which propelled them to leave their home and seek a better life here for themselves and their families, and I valued the contribution they made to this country. I visited the Horn of Africa out of respect for them and to get to know their homeland, and grew to understand not only the critical role of our development aid, which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, spoke about, but the crucial importance of the money they send back from the often low pay that they earn here. Those who send remittances for the welfare of those in conflict-blighted homelands are truly the hidden heroes of international development and I hope the new Government will recognise that and facilitate their contributions.
As we debate the many problems in the region, we must have at the forefront of our minds the absolute need to tackle the monstrous abuse that is female genital mutilation. Across the Horn of Africa, millions of women are living with the consequences of the brutality of FGM. Somalia and Somaliland have an almost universal rate of FGM; it is inflicted on all women. It is rife in Ethiopia, Djibouti and Sudan, too. FGM is cutting, scraping and cauterising procedures to remove the external female genitalia, and it is carried out on girls from as young as infancy up until the age of 15. The pain inflicted by it does not stop after the initial procedure but continues with bleeding, infections, shock, and difficulty in passing urine, having sex and childbirth.
I pay tribute to those in the region who challenge the taboo subject of FGM and those here too from the diaspora community who fearlessly speak out against it. Our new Development Minister, Anneliese Dodds, is also Minister for Women, and I know that she will make this a priority. We should recognise that the eradication of FGM and the empowerment of women with a new generation of women leaders will bring new prospects to the region.
There are now many women in this House who are proud feminists and I look forward to continuing to work with them, but, in conclusion and ever-hopeful, I want to say I am on the lookout here for male allies of feminism, not so that you can decide our agenda, heaven forbid, not so you can lead us—we are more than capable of doing that ourselves—but so you can actively back us in our work as we go forward to greater equality for women.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by commending, thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lady Harman of Peckham on her maiden speech today, a speech demonstrably characterised by great experience, wisdom and insight. I will not attempt to be the feminist from the male sex in this speech— I am too much of a coward in this environment.
Occasionally, I am deluded in regarding myself as an experienced parliamentarian, with 13 years in the other place and 11 years in your Lordships’ House, taking into account that I had a three-year leave of absence. However, next to someone who served in the House of Commons for 40 years—is it 40 or 42 years? My noble friend says it is 40 years and she will know, because she has probably counted them. That makes her, as I understand it, the second-longest serving female MP in British history after my noble friend Lady Beckett, who I am delighted to see in her place today—and ended up as the Mother of the House, I am forced to regard myself as something of a neophyte in this sort of company. No less extraordinary is the fact that, on ending such a distinguished tenure, my noble friend has promptly taken up another role and entered your Lordships’ House. Indeed, perhaps only in politics could one essay this somewhat Benjamin Button-esque transformation from being the Mother of one House to an eager, thrusting new arrival in the other.
I could easily fill my allotted time by rehearsing the details of my noble friend’s distinguished career—noble Lords will be glad to hear that I will not. In my time in politics, I can scarcely think of a better fit between a job and its holder than her time as the first Minister for Women. Her role in driving the adoption of the Equality Act 2010 will be long remembered and long celebrated, and her service as deputy leader and chair of the Labour Party was undertaken with commitment and distinction.
The golden thread running through my noble friend’s career is a passionate commitment to equality and the protection of the human dignity of every individual. That consistency of purpose and sheer doggedness tell me that she is an invaluable addition to your Lordships’ House and that she will command respect and attention in all her interventions in our proceedings.
I thank my noble friend the Minister not merely for affording us the opportunity to consider this Motion today but for the characteristically wise and well-informed speech with which he opened the debate. I called for a full debate in government time on the situation in the Horn of Africa in Oral Questions on 10 October. Whether the scheduling of today’s debate is causation or coincidence, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the opportunity to turn the full glare of our attention to the conflicts that disfigure some parts of the Horn of Africa and the splintering peace in others.
It is perhaps understandable—but no less regrettable—that in general, conflicts in this part of the world are ill-served by international reporting, and consequently receive a very small percentage of global attention. I do not propose to enter into the question of why, for instance, the deaths of around 20,000 in the Sudanese civil war since April 2023 have excited such an extraordinarily small fraction of the international emotion and indignation that has focused on Ukraine and the Middle East over the last couple of years, but it is something that might repay a little thought. Finland’s Foreign Minister rightly warned about the dangers of “Ukraine fatigue” two weeks ago. Those who are victims of state-sponsored violence or repression or of militia groups in the Horn of Africa would welcome even a fraction of the apparently attenuating western attention that is focused on Ukraine.
Mindful of the debate on the 40th anniversary of the Ethiopian famine and the many forensic and moving contributions from noble Lords on that occasion, I will focus the first part of my remarks on Eritrea. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that on 10 October, the Presidents of Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea met in Asmara to sign a joint statement which pledged the three participants to work together for
“strategic co-operation in all fields”.
That designedly vague phraseology should give us pause but, if precedent is any guide, we can expect an intensification of mutual military aid and co-ordination —largely directed against Ethiopia. Indeed, even before the summit concluded, Egypt had sent two arms shipments to Somalia to reduce its reliance on Ethiopian forces in fighting al-Shabaab.
The communiqué that followed the summit underlined tripartite agreement on—I read this short—
“respect for the sovereignty … and territorial integrity of the countries”
in the region. Although cloaked in the cool objectivity of diplomatic language, this was a pretty clear disavowal of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s coastal ambitions and the MoU Ethiopia has concluded with Somaliland.
Such agreements serve only to normalise Eritrea and its regime, but Eritrea has consistently acted as a destabilising force in the region. Not only is it a one-party state but it is now a one-family state, with President Isaias having frequently signalled his intention that his son should succeed him. It ranks last out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. It sits 161st out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s corruption perception index. The UN special rapporteur describes “severe control” exercised by the state over every aspect of civil and personal life, and daily repression clouds the lives of all Eritreans. Thousands of political prisoners within Eritrea are subject to torture and sexual violence, 300,000 individuals are subjected to forced labour, and almost half of Eritrea’s population is forced into military service, which can last for decades.
These statistics detailing internal repression within Eritrea are grim enough, but the recent diplomatic alignment with Egypt and Somalia is doubly concerning given Eritrea’s long record of intensifying regional conflicts or fanning them into flame. Eritrea’s President Isaias has a record of plotting attacks against neighbouring states. Despite having won independence from Ethiopia as recently as 1993, Eritrea has already engaged in conflicts with Yemen, Sudan and Djibouti, while recently offering intermittent support to al-Shabaab. With all that in mind, can the Minster tell us what assessment the Government have made of the potential benefits or drawbacks of sanctioning individual members of the Eritrean Government and the Eritrean Defence Forces who have involved themselves in serious human rights violations in Tigray and Eritrea itself, their own country?
I would also welcome any comments my noble friend might share on Eritrea’s diplomatic closeness with Beijing. Only last month, President Isaias attended the Beijing summit and was greeted by Li Qiang, Premier of the State Council, and a warm statement committing to further Sino-Eritrean co-operation under the auspices of the belt and road initiative. I mention that not merely because it is a further supervening diplomatic complication but because those economic ties to China and the Gulf states render our sanctions many times less effective than they otherwise would be.
I have focused my attention thus far on Eritrea and its increasing gravitation towards Somalia and Egypt, but as other noble Lords have reminded us, the start of this phase of escalation is at least partly consequent on the MoU signed by Ethiopia and Somaliland. The expansionist ambitions of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed are placing a severe strain on relations with Somalia. They are pulling other regional powers, including Egypt and Turkey, into the orbit of this diplomatic crisis, and have fashioned an ideal context in which al-Shabaab recruitment and funding have spiked.
Of course, the quid pro quo for coastal access in the MoU between Ethiopia and Somaliland is the recognition of Somaliland independence. I understand those who point to the cultural distinctiveness, the resilience of civil society and the six democratic elections and peaceful transfers of power in Somaliland as factors that should impel this country to recognise Somaliland independence, but I worry about the consequences.
A senior adviser to the Somali president, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told the world that Somalia is prepared to countenance war with Ethiopia over the deal. In June, Somalia announced that it would expel thousands of Ethiopian troops deployed against al-Shabaab unless the deal was scrapped by the end of the year. Compounding that capacity problem in quelling terrorism, the Institute for the Study of War released an analysis last month that suggested that an intensification of Egyptian military support for Somalia would destabilise the region and hinder operations designed to counter al-Shabaab. In such a febrile situation, what precedent would UK recognition of Somaliland aspirations set?
Were we to indulge in unilateral recognition of Somaliland independence, it is not only possible but probable that this would be seen as implicit endorsement for the separatist aspirations of a host of other groups and regions across the Horn of Africa. In other quarters, it may well be greeted as a piece of high-minded neocolonialism, pushing states engaged in conflict with separatists in their own populations further into the arms of China, Russia and other strategic adversaries. No UN member state has recognised Somaliland’s claim of independence, and earlier this year their Government began the process of appealing to the International Court of Justice. It would surely be destabilising to pre-empt, or possibly to disavow, that judgment by proceeding unilaterally.
The Ethiopia/Somaliland MoU stipulates that Ethiopia can lease a 20-kilometer coastline in Somaliland’s Awdal region for 50 years to build its naval base. That region within Somaliland is dominated by the Issa clan, who have protested vigorously against this deal, accused the Somaliland Government of selling their land and threatened war if the agreement is not rescinded. This is another reminder, if one were needed, of the intense complexities that shape the politics of this region.
Your Lordships’ House will recall the Edwardian satirist, Saki, who in 1911 described countries in the Balkans as producing
“more history than they can consume locally”.
We all know what followed three years later. I believe that the same remark could be applied to this region, with all its complexity: ethnic, religious, cultural and political affiliations that do not conform neatly with national boundaries.
I reiterate my admiration for the vigour with which my noble friend the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have pursued a course of de-escalation in the Horn of Africa in the few short months they have been in post. With that in mind, can my noble friend say what consideration the Government are giving to ongoing participation in the EU’s CSDP missions, including in Somalia? Given that international unity is the best means we have of mitigating the humanitarian impact of regional divisions and conflicts, such a step, while small, may well enable us better to ease these conflicts in the medium to longer terms.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to speak in this debate so that I can congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, on her maiden speech. It is nice to be close again, because we shared neighbouring constituencies for over 30 years. It is a delight to see her here, and I am very pleased that she will continue the amazing work she has done over the years on women’s rights.
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for enabling us to have this kind of debate. I hope this will be a way to discuss other parts of Africa, as it would be lovely if we could get a proper debate on Zimbabwe, as he knows. I thank him.
The Minister and other Peers have given a comprehensive view of what is happening in the Horn of Africa. Over the past number of years, we have seen rising tensions, with the civil war in Sudan continuing to destabilise the country. There has been a drought for over three years, and food shortages. Worryingly, increasing numbers of various terrorist groups seem to be escalating their fundraising and recruitment.
I will speak about the one country in the region that gives us hope—Somaliland—and add some remarks to what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said. It is important that we remind Peers and others listening to this debate of its history. In 1960, Somaliland emerged as an independent country from the British Empire after many years as British Somaliland. After that, it very quickly took steps to merge with what was then the Trust Territory of Somaliland—historically, Italian Somaliland—to form a union. Originally, there was huge optimism and hope of creating a country where all Somalis could come and live together peacefully. Sadly, that did not happen. Things got worse, with military dictatorships based in Mogadishu, discrimination against those in northern Somalia, attacks on civilians, mass killings and genocide. Somali jets bombed parts of northern Somalia and almost completely destroyed the city of Hargeisa.
Out of those decades of horror, Somaliland declared itself free of Somalia in a declaration of independence in 1991. For the last 33 years, that proud country has been asking for the world to recognise it. It is doing everything that we in the western world—western democracies—continue to flag up as showing what a democratic free country should do. As has been mentioned, it has regular, free and fair elections. In a couple of weeks, they will have their sixth presidential election, and I hope and am sure that, like those before, it will be peaceful.
It has an active civil society and has made huge strides in the advancement of women’s rights, even beginning to tackle what the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, mentioned: the scourge in that area of female genital mutilation. The current president is even considering banning FGM altogether. All sexual violence and rape acts go through the criminal justice system and are not, as elsewhere in the region, dealt with by community or customary laws, which have been outlawed. It has a strong and fair justice system and religious tolerance.
Indeed, in this whole region, independent Somaliland is the only beacon for democracy and the rule of law. We should be lauding what it has achieved. Yet despite that progress, its achievements and its loyalty to the United Kingdom—let us not forget how many Somalis died, sacrificed in the Second World War when they joined us in fighting fascism—we always find reasons to procrastinate and not officially recognise it.
I find it interesting that when I asked a Question a couple of weeks ago as to the possibility of the UK recognising Somaliland, one or two Peers urged so much caution that it seemed they did not even want to discuss Somaliland and almost implied that those of us who raised it were being reckless. It was also very telling that, in response to the Minister’s Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was able to point out that the same Answer had been given to him to read out on the question of Somaliland being recognised when he was Minister, at least 10 years ago. That should give us food for thought, because obviously there has not been much change in the Foreign Office briefings over those years.
I am aware, as of course we all are, of the complexity of the region, as mentioned by other Peers, and that causes Foreign Office officials and Foreign Office Ministers to be very careful in their diplomatic efforts. Of course, it does not stop other countries looking after their own interests first, and we are now seeing China beginning to get very much involved in the Horn of Africa. China has said publicly that it is geographically of strategic importance to it, with abundant resources and enormous potential, and it now has a special envoy.
Any aid that we give should go directly to the people of Somaliland rather than via Somalia, where it is used as a political tool. Remember that during the Covid pandemic, vaccines earmarked for Somaliland were deliberately delayed in Mogadishu and released only hours before they expired. That exposed the politicisation of humanitarian aid. State-directed aid is also typically routed through Somalia. Understandably, the Somaliland Government have repeatedly declared that they neither can nor will accept development or budgetary support filtered through Somalia’s federal Government. They view that as an affront to a country that is running itself freely and successfully.
We should be rewarding good governance and using Somaliland as a beacon to show the rest of the region what can be achieved. Human Rights Watch produced a brief for this debate which highlights all the terrible atrocities, obscenities and human rights abuses that are taking place in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said earlier, “Somaliland” was not even mentioned in the Human Rights Watch brief. Clearly, it did not want to distinguish between Somalia and Somaliland, and it is very sad that the benefits of what has been happening there are not being put forward.
Our Government’s position seems to be, as was mentioned in the Lords recently, that it is up to Somaliland to negotiate with Somalia. The Minister said at Questions recently that it is absolutely an issue for Somalia to resolve. I think that is not feasible at all. Look at what is happening in Somalia. It will not suddenly, or even after a lot of negotiations, say, “Somaliland, you can be independent and we will recognise you”. A noble Lord said that we will set a precedent if we recognise it, but surely the Somaliland situation is unique because it was independent. It was recognised back in 1960. There probably would be a backlash from Somalia, but I believe that recognition by us would be followed very quickly by other western countries, including the United States, and that this would encourage the people in Somalia who really want to see changes to engage in dialogue.
Surely, we should be supporting and encouraging democracy around the world. To me, recognition is not just a moral imperative; it would give the United Kingdom a strategic advantage that aligns with our foreign policy goals. It would be the first step to promoting peace, stability and democracy in the entire Horn of Africa, benefiting all its people. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is looking at this very carefully, as was said in the short debate we had on Africa some time ago. I urge our new Government to look at this again, to be brave and not to wait for somebody else. Let us be the first to recognise what Somaliland has done and can do, and how that could play a real part in improving the terrible situation in that region.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is a part of Africa in which the United Kingdom has interests in terms of the global combating of terrorism. There are strong diaspora communities across many parts of the United Kingdom, and UK access to key Red Sea trading routes is fundamental to our economy.
It is also an area where the UK has values. A thread throughout this debate has been the humanitarian crisis, which we discussed last week in the debate of my noble friend Lady Featherstone; in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on the sustainable development goals; and previously in the debate on Sudan, as the Minister said. I therefore thank the Minister for bringing this debate to the Chamber—a causal effect of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which called for it. Now that I have learned how these things happen, I will not forget that lesson.
For at least a little part of this debate, we had packed Government Benches taking an interest in the Horn of Africa. That might be because of the outstanding contribution from the new Member, the noble Baroness, Lady Harman. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated, our having in this debate the two longest-serving female MPs in British history is a great credit to this House. I also hope that her choosing this debate to send her powerful message on FGM, along with her campaigning, means that we will see a reversal of the previous Administration’s cuts to global FGM support, in which case her contributions will have proved extremely powerful. Noble Lords can count me as a supporter of her work—even though I am having to adjust to being in a post-ambition part of my political career.
The MoU between Ethiopia and Somaliland is of importance, and I was glad that the Minister gave precedence to that. This is not some form of debate about a race for recognition or a glib idea that, because it had been part of a British colonial past, it deserves our recognition now. Sensitive diplomatic talks, brokered by Türkiye, are going on between Somalia and Ethiopia, which are of significance. There is no clear diplomatic breakthrough, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lord Bruce indicated, the alternative to diplomatic work is fearful. Therefore, we have to guard against language such as “there could be a backlash”.
This is an area where, as we heard, there has been the worst famine and the greatest number of displaced people in a generation, and very sensitive geopolitical talks are happening that could lead in certain areas to tribal conflict. We should bear those aspects in mind, but we should not shy away from debating the issue.
The Ethiopia MoU potentially recognises Somaliland in return for Red Sea access, possibly both naval and commercial—it is not yet clear which is the most significant priority for Ethiopia. However, it is not just about the MoU; in August, Egypt and Somalia signed a military, security and defence pact, so the two should be considered together in terms of sensitivity.
That is why it is important to recognise that the neighbouring countries and Somalia as part of the African Union peacekeeping mission should be relevant for consideration as well. There are Ethiopian troops in Somalia as part of ATMIS. It is not just that these are neighbouring countries; there are troops in country. The mandate for ATMIS is up for renewal at the end of the year. Ethiopia has said that it may not want to be part of it but may seek to have Egypt fill a gap as far as potentially having troops as part of the AU force. What is the Government’s assessment on the continuation of ATMIS or an AU-sponsored force? Will it be likely to have a replenishment of the force capability? Are there other countries that could be troop-contributing countries?
I previously raised in the Chamber that the UK was the lead contributing donor country to ATMIS, with its primary mission supporting our combat against Al-Shabaab. I jotted down what the Minister said because I quite liked the slight bit of officialdom—that the UK was seeking a sustainable and broader-based source of funding. That may be true, but the reality is that this is to infill from the cuts from donor countries that have pulled away from it. Are we confident that the force will have a replenishment of its funding? As far as I understand, that is not clear yet. I hope that the UK will be a contributing factor to the successor of ATMIS. Will we seek the continuation of Resolution 2719 as far as any successor organisation is concerned? I am very clear that if there are any uncertainties, any divisions, any complexities, the potential victor will be Al-Shabaab.
I want to raise two wider aspects before closing, because this is an opportunity to talk about some elements of economic development too; it should not all be seen just through the lens of conflict. I want to touch on some elements of debt, because Somalia is a case study of how, on paper, debt restructuring and moving away from debt servicing costs can look good, but the net impact is not necessarily as beneficial as we would want it to be. Somalia has had a successful debt restructuring: a $4.5 billion debt relief from the IMF and the World Bank that reduced the debt ratio from 64% of GDP to 6% of GDP. On paper, that is outstanding, but health spending in Somalia has almost halved over this period.
I know that this is one of the Government’s priorities, but when we are validly debating ways of tackling debt servicing costs, how are we ensuring that, if that is happening, there is ultimately better investment in education and in health services? We have seen that, if we move purely towards private sector reissuing of bonds, if it is not through concessional rates then there is likely to be higher rates. We have seen it in neighbouring Kenya, where there was a reissuing of bonds and 11% interest rates, which have now fed through the entire economy, and we saw the tension recently within Kenya. I am going to copy the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in asking for a debate, so I hope that at some stage we may have an opportunity of discussing the wider aspect of debt and debt servicing, because I think that all parties are now seeking to be seized of this and it is a valid issue to discuss.
Finally, the Minister referred to Sudan. He was very generous with his time yesterday in meeting Abdalla Hamdok, the former civilian Prime Minister of Sudan and leader of Taqaddum, the civilian front, with me, for a discussion. Abdalla Hamdok is in London to take part in the FT summit. I hope that the debates that we are having in Parliament on Sudan will have increased focus and interest, which will spill out to the public.
I have been pursuing the Disasters Emergency Committee, which has three criteria for triggering an appeal. This is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It has told me that the third triggering element is not being met—that there is sufficient awareness among the public. That to me is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if we can do anything in Parliament to say that we are aware and want to raise it, I think the great British public will be generous if there is an appeal for it. Therefore, I repeat publicly my appeal that we can trigger this. The priorities are perfectly clear: protection of civilians, for there to be a ceasefire, and a political process. The UK, as not only penholder but with the presidency of the Security Council come up is in the prime position.
I close by recalling that in 2012, when we debated Somalia in Parliament, there was a London summit on Somalia. I give credit to William Hague as Foreign Secretary, because we knew then that, if Somalia was going to fall foul of terrorism, weak neighbours, displaced people and hunger, that would have an impact on Britain. We used our convening power and we put effort into it, including diplomatic effort; we did it on focus and scale, we led up to it and delivered, and we had funding. Perhaps for the protection of civilians in Sudan, a London summit during the UK presidency of the Security Council might be the appropriate thing that we can do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been another outstanding debate in your Lordships’ House. I thank the Minister for tabling it.
I start by joining with others in commending the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, for a quite outstanding maiden speech. The noble Baroness has had a remarkable parliamentary career in the other place and its loss is very definitely our gain. I was thinking that with the noble Baronesses, Lady Harman and Lady Beckett, and my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who made her maiden speech last week, we men need to up our game a bit if we are to compete with all these excellent women joining us from the other place. I particularly liked the remark from the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, that this was a post-ambition House. I can assure her that, for those of us that until not too long ago were sitting on the other side, in government, that is certainly true, or it is in my particular case. But it was an excellent contribution, and we look forward to the many excellent contributions that I am sure she will make in the years to come.
On these Benches we hold long-standing commitments, like most others, to upholding international law and supporting peaceful resolutions to global conflicts, and it is from that stance that we approach today’s debate. As the Minister outlined in his introduction, tensions have increased greatly since the signing of the partnership this January between Ethiopian and Somaliland. While it is important to recognise, as many other noble Lords have done, Ethiopia’s desire as a landlocked nation for improved trade routes to boost its economy, we must also recognise the ramifications of it engaging with Somaliland.
Somaliland is indeed a fascinating territory with much to commend it, as my noble friend Lord Polak reminded us, with many democratic features. It is much more sustainable than the rest of Somalia. Of course, it is currently not internationally recognised as independent but still considered part of Somalia, even though in practice it is not. I believe that the time is fast approaching when we will need to reconsider that long-standing Foreign Office policy. It has been throughout all parties for many years now, but Somaliland has proved itself worthy of further consideration.
This decision has not only heightened tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia but has highlighted the enduring, complex nature of Somaliland’s political status, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reminded us in her contribution. We should urge Ethiopia and Somalia to engage constructively through diplomatic channels. We should do whatever we can to help avoid escalation. It is a cause for concern that Turkey’s mediation efforts in July and August did not lead to a satisfactory agreement. Have the Minister or his colleagues in the department had conversations with Turkey, the African Union or the United Nations to help facilitate that dialogue?
Should Ethiopia and Somalia refuse to co-operate, they risk further destabilising what is already a very unstable region, where more than 20 million people are in desperate need of food assistance due to prolonged droughts and the destabilising impact of the ongoing Sudanese civil war. The stakes are extremely high. It is tempting to ask whether we could make the situation any worse by recognising Somaliland; maybe this is an opportunity that will prompt the rest of the nations there into further actions.
The situation becomes precarious with Somalia’s recent security pact with Egypt and Eritrea, nations whose historical tensions with Ethiopia are well documented. Egypt’s delivery of arms to Somalia and its willingness to support Somali forces with Egyptian troops are deeply alarming. With nations in the region rallying around different sides, there is a high risk of conflict expanding beyond a diplomatic dispute into a full-scale regional crisis. In this context, I ask the Minister to tell us what steps the Government are taking to counterbalance many of these concerning developments and help to ensure the de-escalation of any military ambitions.
Previous Governments of both parties have followed the standard Foreign Office line and refrained from supporting Somaliland’s independence to avoid potentially stirring further instability. It is about time that we reviewed this policy, respecting international norms, of course, but recognising the unique relationships and diplomatic ties that we have built across the region. Somaliland has successfully demonstrated stability and self-governance in recent years, and we should commend it and recognise these strides. Of course we must proceed with caution, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Polak that it could well be about time to reconsider that stance.
I also ask the Minister whether the Government are considering additional steps to help to marshal our soft power in promoting stability in the Horn of Africa. His colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, previously mentioned that she would be reviewing our soft power strategy in the region, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House further information and elaborate on whether there have been any further developments in that regard. British engagement must not simply stop at diplomatic appeals but should encompass initiatives that address humanitarian needs—they are considerable—economic co-operation and institution building across the Horn of Africa.
In conclusion, we cannot ignore the severe humanitarian challenges arising from drought, conflict and food shortages in that region, which have placed millions in a state of considerable insecurity. We urge the Government to act in accordance with international law, consult with regional partners and do all they can to ease the considerable tensions in the region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. It has been an excellent debate, but, like other noble Lords, I have to start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Harman on her excellent maiden speech. She and I go back a long way, even before she was elected to Parliament—we have been friends for many, many years. I have only one warning for her about this idea of post-ambition politics; I realise that I have had many post-ambition jobs, and every time I think I have finished one, I end up with another—so I am determined to follow through in terms of looking forward to new challenges. What she displayed in her maiden speech was that still-strong passion for changing and challenging inequalities and championing feminism. Let me reassure her—she knows this—that I will always be a very strong ally in support of her feminist ambitions.
I will also say, on the passion she has shown on the issue FGM, that we are committed to working hard to end this disgraceful thing, and we will continue to support groups to ensure that we can end this practice. We are supporting grass-roots organisations and activists, not only in Africa but in this country too, to challenge that practice. So I congratulate her on that excellent speech and I know she will make many, many more.
This has been a really thought-provoking debate that has highlighted the tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia, which remain high and risk drawing in the wider region, damaging the prospects for growth and stability. To echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, we are determined to focus on the positive opportunities that the region offers. It does offer growth and opportunity and we are determined to focus on our partnership to do that. But we have to acknowledge that the region is beset with a range of challenges, from climate change, conflict and terrorism. All these issues were central to my recent visit to Ethiopia, where I met the Ethiopian Prime Minister to discuss the full range of our relationship. This included plans to implement the cessation of hostilities agreement that brought the Tigray conflict to an end, as well as steps we could take to de-escalate tensions in the region.
I also underlined to him the United Kingdom’s respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia. This is a critical time for the Horn of Africa, as the African Union’s current mission comes to an end, and we must protect the region’s stability. The United Kingdom will continue to call for dialogue and de-escalation to avoid that dangerous escalation. I will share some examples to demonstrate how the United Kingdom is helping. I will take each region in turn, beginning with Somalia. The United Kingdom is one of Somalia’s closest and longest-standing partners, and we remain committed to building a safer, freer and more secure country for all Somalis. I welcome the steps that they are taking towards these goals, including their huge achievement in clearing arrears to international financial institutions last year, putting Somalia on a sound footing to rebuild its economy, having overcome so many challenges.
As Somalia’s debt relief champion, the United Kingdom has worked side by side with its Government to reach this milestone. We have also helped Somalia strengthen its economy and create livelihoods and jobs for marginalised groups, especially women, girls and young people. Ranked the second most vulnerable country to climate change globally, Somalia has experienced severe climate events, ranging from El Niño rains and flooding to prolonged drought, as we have heard in this debate. Naturally, this has had significant impact on industries and livelihoods. This is why the United Kingdom has driven forward discussion to support fragile states such as Somalia to access climate change finance in the face of soaring adaptation needs and protracted humanitarian crises. This includes being an anchor donor to support its accession to the task force on access to climate finance.
Finally, we are working on multiple fronts to help Somalia tackle the key challenges it faces from continuing efforts to degrade al-Shabaab and supporting Somali plans to drive economic growth, addressing the immediate pressures facing communities vulnerable to climate shocks. We remain a long-term champion of its people and its future.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the ATMIS project, I say that Ethiopia is a key contributor to Somalia’s security through its troops and through the AU peace support operation. It is a significant bilateral presence and we welcome Ethiopia’s contribution to ATMIS and any successor mission.
To respond to the noble Lord’s specific question, we encourage a smooth transition from the current AU peace support operation to a future mission in 2025 that can support Somalia’s security and stability and protect those hard-won gains. The AU and Somalia’s federal Government have proposed a new peace support operation called the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia—AUSSOM. We support this and planning is under way.
As the noble Lord pointed out, there remains a significant funding gap for the new mission and our least conservative estimates put it in the region of tens of millions of dollars. We continue to work urgently with stakeholders, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to address this. All my conversations with African Union officials are to ensure that we get that support. We cannot continue with the current arrangement, and therefore it is important that we have broader support.
I will focus on noble Lords’ questions on Somaliland. As was pointed out, the UK’s long-standing position, alongside others in the international community, is not to recognise Somaliland’s unilateral declaration of independence. It is for Somalia, including Somaliland, to resolve Somaliland’s status through dialogue between authorities in both capital cities. It is not for the United Kingdom to determine.
Nevertheless, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that we have a strong relationship with Somaliland. We work closely with its Government to enhance stability and promote economic, social and human development. I have certainly met officials in its Government. Ahead of its presidential election on 13 November, we will support its National Electoral Commission and international observer missions, because holding peaceful, free and fair elections is crucial to ensuring that we avoid further conflict in the region.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me what we are doing with like-minded partners on the MoU. We regularly discuss these issues, working together with international partners including the US, to encourage dialogue between Ethiopia and Somalia. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we also welcome Turkish efforts, which have created space for that dialogue, and we hope that Ethiopia and Somalia will continue to talk so that we can find a mutually acceptable solution and reduce tensions.
We have a long and shared history with Ethiopia, and it is easily one of our closest development partners. We have worked to support Ethiopia’s recent IMF and World Bank programmes, and we have provided support for its ambitious economic reform programme. It is a partnership rooted in trust and mutual respect and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, it is a country that is central to the stability of the Horn of Africa. There can hardly be better proof of this than, as I have said, its long-standing commitment to the African Union’s mission in Somalia.
Of course, Ethiopia has its challenges, many of which I witnessed during my recent visit. That is why we are taking steps to alleviate humanitarian suffering, including that caused by conflict, and to help rebuild people’s livelihoods. I recently announced funding for the national demobilisation and remigration programme, supporting ex-combatants back into civilian life, and the next phase of our industrialisation-focused Accelerate programme, which will help rebuild Tigray’s economy.
I met those ex-combatants, and I saw the damage that that war has caused and realised the huge ambition that those people have for a better world and a better country. But I know that it is not enough, and that we have to go further to end the ongoing conflicts in Amhara and Oromia and to implement its transitional justice policy, all of which the United Kingdom stands ready to support. It is vital that Ethiopia, among others, strives to find a mutually acceptable solution to current tensions while respecting the territorial integrity of Somalia.
In spite of these tensions, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the Horn of Africa remains an area of endless possibilities. It is a region with the most incredible community-led innovations and solutions to problems. It is clear that there is a strong appetite for growth and enterprise, and the United Kingdom partners with regional governments and the private sector on a wide range of bilateral and multilateral programmes covering health, education, economic development, security and resilience.
We were pleased to join the Horn of Africa Initiative as one of the five development partners last year. The initiative provides a platform for co-operation across the region, led by member states, including Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia, Eritrea, South Sudan and Sudan. The menace of violent extremism, conflict and climate shocks—problems that span national borders—requires a united approach. We are working closely with members, including through our £15 million Deris Wanaag programme, to build stability and end the scourge of al-Shabaab in the border areas between Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Efforts are going a long way to enabling the Horn of Africa to truly unlock its potential.
My noble friend asked about ongoing participation in the CSDP missions, including that in Somalia. We are working closely alongside the federal Government of Somalia and with security partners, including Turkey and the US. He asked us what assessment we are making of Eritrea’s and Ethiopia’s relationship with China. We continue to urge all stakeholders to support dialogue and de-escalation, and to refrain from words or actions that will fuel further tensions in the region. We are drawing on a range of levers to pursue UK objectives and deliver UK policy that builds resilience in those countries.
The noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Bruce, raised a question about the Djibouti-Ethiopia relationship, in particular on access to the sea. The two countries are interdependent. Ethiopia gets more than 90% of its imported goods via Djibouti port, and Djibouti gets the bulk of its electricity and potable water from Ethiopia. There have been tensions in the last year over Ethiopia’s desire to gain access to a Red Sea port, but those tensions need to be addressed through dialogue, not unilateral demands.
I want to focus on the need to continue to encourage all parties to engage in dialogue and to de-escalate existing tensions. We need to allow for the positive and constructive relationships necessary for the region to enjoy peace, stability and mutual prosperity. We have to do that in the spirit of genuine partnership, with respect and equality at the heart of our approach, because that is the only way that we will deliver meaningful progress.
I reassure noble Lords that this debate is only the start of many. It is important that we engage on a cross-party basis to address these issues, and we will have an opportunity to discuss Sudan further tomorrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, recognised, we may be focused on the conflict, its generals and warring factions, but there is a very strong civil society, of which His Excellency Mr Hamdok is just one example. We must continue to support those civil society actors, because they are determined to represent the interests of their people, so we should do all in our power to ensure that they do. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.