House of Commons
Prayers
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill
Friday 6th December 2024
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill 2024-26 View all European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by thanking my co-sponsors for their help and support with the Bill: the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and the hon. Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), for Clacton (Nigel Farage), for South Antrim (Robin Swann), for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for North Down (Alex Easton), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). I also wish to thank my own staff for their assistance during recent weeks, particularly Dr Dan Boucher, who has worked tirelessly on these matters. I record my appreciation of international lawyer Mr Barney Reynolds for his help and guidance on many of the technical issues.
Since I came to this House in July, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard affirmations from the Government Benches about “fixing the foundations.” Well, there is one foundation that most assuredly needs fixed, and that is the foundation that flows from the inequitable post-Brexit arrangements as they affect my part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. The foundations of this United Kingdom have been disturbed and dislodged by those arrangements. The primary purpose of this Bill is, yes, to fix those foundations—to restore equilibrium to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and to our relationship as a nation with the EU.
In fixing the foundations, we need to reflect on the most basic tenet of democracy, namely that a people should be governed by laws made by those they elect to make those laws. That is so fundamental that we all presumably almost take it for granted, yet tragically and with great constitutional detriment, that is no longer the position in respect of Northern Ireland. There are 300 areas of law where the right to make laws is not exercised in this House or in the devolved Assembly, but has been surrendered to the European Parliament. That is such a momentous thing that it should cause anyone who values the fundamentals of democracy—who clings to the principle that a people are entitled to elect those who govern them and make their laws—to be ashamed that this situation has evolved. It is not just a democratic deficit, but undemocratic plundering of the Northern Ireland statute book by the EU.
These are not incidental matters or trifling issues. They are the laws that deal with customs, general trade, goods, motor vehicles, cosmetics, toys, electrical equipment, textiles, medical devices, pesticides, waste, and food hygiene, ingredients and marketing. They cover 13 different areas of law dealing with food alone. They are the laws that deal with disease and with animals—with the breeding, welfare and identification of animals. Thirty-four different diktats of the EU govern all of that.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman’s passion. He also needs to be honest with this Chamber that the laws he is talking about include human rights laws, and the basic, equal treatment of everybody in Northern Ireland. His legislation would rip up the very foundation of democracy, which is that everybody is equal. Does he not need to be honest with this Chamber that the 300 laws he is talking about include equal human rights?
Jim Allister
I will be absolutely honest with this Chamber, and to be absolutely honest with this Chamber, the hon. Lady is not addressing the issue as it emerges. I will deal with the impact of article 2 of the protocol. I want nothing more for my constituents than the same rights that the hon. Lady’s constituents have, be they human rights, the right to make the laws of our land, or any other rights. I ask for no privilege, but I certainly do not accept any detriment. That is the point here.
Ms Creasy
The hon. and learned Gentleman and I share a common concern, then. My constituents in Walthamstow do benefit from the protection of their human rights, because we are still members of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, equal access to those human rights is what the Good Friday agreement was based on. The effect that his legislation would have on article 2 of the Windsor framework would breach those principles, so if it went through, would there not be less of a connection between constituents here in England and constituents in Northern Ireland?
Jim Allister
I respectfully and utterly disagree. As part of the United Kingdom, we are all subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act is what fundamentally gives the hon. Lady’s constituents the rights that they have in that sphere, and she would lose nothing by losing the control of the foreign court of the European Court of Justice.
I am listing examples of the 300 areas of law that have been purloined by the EU in its sovereignty grab over Northern Ireland. I mentioned the 34 different diktats on animals. We have even reached the point in Northern Ireland where, under these arrangements, our cattle can no longer bear a UK ear tag. They now have to have a specified European Union ear tag. That is but an illustration of how absurd and utterly wrong and offensive it is that the right to make the laws in our own country has been surrendered to a foreign power.
All those 300 areas are set forth in annex 2 of the protocol or, as it is now more kindly called, the Windsor framework. Look at annex 2, look at the hundreds of laws—289 of them which now have been removed from the ambit of the lawmaking of this House or the lawmaking of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is amazing to look at the volume of law: there are 70 pages containing not the details of the law but simply the headings of the law. That shows the extent to which the EU has its foot in the door in Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
Absolutely. I printed them off a couple of months ago and I was staggered by how voluminous just the titles are. It is not just 300 laws; it is 300 areas of law which have been surrendered.
I have a challenge for every Member of this House who comes from a different part of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland—those who represent GB constituencies. My challenge to them today is: “How would you feel if in 300 areas of law affecting your constituents, you had no input—you couldn’t change, you couldn’t move an amendment—because those laws were made colonial-like in a foreign Parliament by those elected not by your constituents but by the constituents of 27 other countries?” How, I ask this House, could any democrat, any representative MP, say that is right and correct?
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing this debate. He is talking about the democratic deficit; is it not right that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be debating consenting to the procedures on 10 December, and are we not pre-empting that debate by holding this debate here now?
Jim Allister
I will be dealing with that, but the hon. Member invites us to think that it is appropriate that those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly should turn up on Tuesday of next week and vote to disenfranchise their own constituents—to say, “You, our constituents in Northern Ireland who sent us to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we are not worthy to make your laws. We must bow to the superiority of a foreign Parliament, and we must surrender to that foreign Parliament the right to make these laws in hundreds of areas of law.” The hon. Member might think that is admirable and is the very epitome of democracy, but I happen to think it is the very opposite.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Bill would create a democratic deficit that the hon. and learned Member has already referred to, and the Windsor framework has addressed that with the Stormont brake, which allows the Northern Ireland Assembly to review all laws applied.
Jim Allister
I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member reads a little deeper. She will discover that the Stormont brake is farcical. The previous Member for North Antrim in this House aptly said it was like someone sitting in the back seat of a car and saying to the driver, “Would you ever be so kind as to pull the brake?” That is what the Stormont brake is: a request to the British Government to pause the imposition of an EU law. The British Government do not have to do it—there has been one request to date and nothing has happened about it—so it really is a fiction, and an insult to the democratic mandate of the people of Northern Ireland.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
To continue the analogy, the Stormont brake has been described to me as rusty and not attached to anything.
Jim Allister
And if we can pull it, nothing happens. That is the value of it. The most limp excuse that I hear for this plundering of the Northern Ireland statute book by the EU is, “Oh, international law requires this.” Sorry? What sort of international law says that a state must self-harm by disenfranchising its own voters? There is no such international law. I will deal later with the fundamental basics of international law and how they have been distorted in justification of these arrangements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing forward the Bill. It is important for us in Northern Ireland and for this whole great United Kingdom to look at this. Our constituents must not lose their place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without consent, by stealth, but that is what is happening. Brexit was a vote for all of us to leave Europe, not for Northern Ireland to leave the UK, and this outstanding matter is detrimental to our economy, peace and stability. Does he agree that the Bill must be supported by all in the House if there is to be justice for all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Jim Allister
The hon. Member touches on a fundamental. In June 2016, we all had the opportunity to vote on Brexit. Some liked it and some did not, but the question on the ballot paper was: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” The question was not: “Would you like GB to leave the EU, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” But that is what we got. That is a fundamental denial of Brexit to my constituents in Northern Ireland. That is the source of the disparity, and undemocratic consequences have flowed from that.
I mentioned the 300 areas of law. They are all recited in annex 2 of the protocol. It is no surprise that the first area of law covered in annex 2 is customs, and that the first law put on the people of Northern Ireland is the EU’s customs code: EU regulation 952/2013. What does the customs code do? It operates on the basis that GB—those who got Brexit—is no longer a part of the EU; it is, in the words of the customs code, a “third country”, or in common parlance a foreign country, whereas Northern Ireland is treated as EU territory. Therefore we have this absurd insult under the customs code that goods coming to Northern Ireland—a supposed part of the United Kingdom—from GB must be subject to all the rigour of declarations, checks and reporting of data recording. Why? Because GB is treated as a foreign country when it sends its goods, particularly its raw materials, to my part of the United Kingdom.
That is the iniquitous effect of the Union partitioning and dividing the customs code and protocol. Some Members seem to find that amusing. If hon. Members believe at all in the United Kingdom—maybe some do not—they should be as offended as I am by the fact that moving goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another involves an international customs border under the control of foreign law. How could any MP—amused or otherwise—think that is right and equitable?
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would like to reflect on a proposal that I support—a veterinary agreement with the EU to reduce the checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That would have to honour our commitments under the Windsor framework, if it was to come into effect.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member may wish to see the whole of the United Kingdom sucked back into the EU. I want to see my part of the United Kingdom enabled to follow the rest of the United Kingdom properly out of the EU.
All this is for an international border over which the trade flow is infinitesimally small. We have had diversion of trade since, but in 2020, 0.003% of all the goods going into, and trade with, the EU passed from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Yet for that, we are building border posts at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint. As I will set out, there is another way.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking with great passion about an issue that is really important to him, and that he has raised many times in this House. He will accept that 2020 is not a representative year, because of the pandemic. Also, although it might be a small part of trade within the EU, that trade with the wider EU is probably very important to traders in Northern Ireland, including those in his constituency. Many businesses in my constituency are still struggling to come to terms with Brexit, and they envy the trading relationship that Northern Ireland has with the EU. He must recognise that.
Jim Allister
I will deal with that more fully, but for now I will say that the trade that matters the most to Northern Ireland is with our biggest partner, Great Britain. That is the source of the overwhelming majority of our raw materials that keep our manufacturing industry going, but as a result of this pernicious Irish sea border, that trade is fettered. All raw materials have to pass through the full ambit of an international customs border. If the hon. Member’s constituents envy the position of my constituents, they really need to reassess the situation, as does he. It is nothing to envy.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. and learned Member for introducing the Bill. At Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister about the general product safety regulation that will come into effect next Friday, which will force suppliers in constituencies across England, Scotland and Wales to increase bureaucracy and costs if they still want to supply Northern Ireland consumers and producers. Does he agree that it is absurd that we are putting additional costs on our internal UK market to facilitate the requirements of the European Union?
Jim Allister
I agree absolutely. We already see the consequences. [Interruption.] Again, this seems to be a matter of humour to some on the Government Benches. Increasingly, we see that GB suppliers simply stop supplying, because they will not put themselves through the rigours of the customs code, documentary declarations and everything else. It is very difficult for anyone trying to do business in Northern Ireland. In the main, small and medium-sized businesses do not have the resources to employ the extra 10 staff that a big business might to meet the requirements of crossing the Irish sea border. Small suppliers do not have the necessary resources, so they simply stop supplying Northern Ireland. That feeds the continuing diversion of trade.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
A report came out two days ago suggesting that Northern Ireland’s economy was going to be stronger than that of the rest of the UK. Does that not have something to do with the Windsor framework, which is allowing businesses to invest in Northern Ireland? Surely that is a good thing.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member might be interested to know that the growth area of the Northern Ireland economy is the services sector, which is the one sector not included by the protocol—it is outside all that. The one sector that is outside the protocol is increasing. There is a clear message in that.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I had not intended to intervene on the hon. and learned Gentleman, but on that point, Invest Northern Ireland, the body charged with encouraging foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland and with growing our economy, cannot point to one example of business investing in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the Windsor framework.
Jim Allister
I will make some progress. I will be as generous as I can with interventions, because I know that Government Members want to talk this Bill out—and, because they are not shame-faced enough, some of them want to vote against the principles of the Bill, but there we go.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) makes an important point. The reason why that point has traction is found in EU regulation 625 from 2017. It determines that Northern Ireland is, according to our courts, for these purposes, EU territory. We have had several legal cases in Northern Ireland, such as the Rooney case. The judgment in that case established that the EU official controls on food and feed law, animal health, plant health and so on have to be in place because our High Court has ruled that under that applicable EU law, for regulatory and customs purposes, the entry point to the EU is the Northern Ireland ports. Could it be any more Union-dismantling than that? Under EU law, to which we are subject, the entry point to the EU is the ports of Northern Ireland.
Mr Justice Colton said that EU regulations must be interpreted according to EU law as a result of article 4.1 of the withdrawal agreement and article 13.2 of the protocol, which, he goes on to say, have domestic effect in the United Kingdom under section 7A the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. He said that under the withdrawal agreement it is at Northern Ireland ports that EU territory is entered. He went on:
“The UK is not to be treated as a unitary state for the purposes of OCR checks coming from GB into NI.”
Could it be any more stark that Northern Ireland has been colonised by the EU?
What is a colony? It is a territory governed by someone else’s laws from a foreign jurisdiction. When 300 areas of law—including customs, and including the very definition of Northern Ireland’s territory in trading terms—are governed by foreign EU laws, we have created a situation in which, in that context, Northern Ireland is a veritable colony. There are many people in the House—the Government Benches opposite are populated by many of them—who boast of their anti-colonialism. They constantly pride themselves on their anti-colonial heritage. Yet here we have a part of this United Kingdom colonised by EU law, to the point that we are told that when someone enters the ports of Northern Ireland, they enter EU territory.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I believe the European Union is our ally—it is 27 democracies—and I am concerned about some of the language I am hearing. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of colonisation and surrender; is that the message we want to send to our 27 friends and allies in the European Union?
Jim Allister
Maybe the hon. Member could help me. What would he call taking a territory and subjecting it to someone else’s laws? What would he call it other than colonisation? Is that not the very essence of what he and his colleagues wear as a badge of pride in their anti-colonialism? Is that not what it is in name and in truth?
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that in the Brexit negotiations those so-called allies made it clear that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland’s removal from the United Kingdom? Far from being allies, they declared themselves to want to be colonisers.
Jim Allister
Yes, that was the boast of Mr Barnier and his staff: that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland—and so it has proved to be. That may be something of indifference, or indeed pride, for some people in this House, but it should be a badge of shame that we allowed a part of the United Kingdom to be colonised by the EU, and that we have surrendered our rights to make our own laws.
Andrew Lewin
For the record, is it the hon. and learned Gentleman’s view that the 27 member states of the European Union are not our allies? At least one Member has made that point, as has another next to him. It is important to have this on the record for the House: does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe the 27 member states of the European Union are allies of the United Kingdom, or not? I certainly do.
Jim Allister
The EU has behaved not as a friend to Northern Ireland. The EU has behaved as a sovereignty grabber in respect of Northern Ireland. That is where it caused, and continues to cause, the offence. If hon. Members think it is a good thing to back that up and endorse it, they obviously do not think very much of the territory of Northern Ireland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
We are moving slightly into the ridiculous; may I bring us back to the main point? The purpose of the Bill that the hon. and learned Gentleman has drafted is simply to provide a solution for what is currently an unworkable position. I say to Government Members that it is not about 27 nations hating the UK; ultimately, it is about function. Sir Jonathan Faull, who was the director general of the EU internal market service directorate, ended up as director general of the taskforce for strategic issues related to the UK referendum, and he and his team came to a simple conclusion: the only way to make the situation workable was to have, in essence, what is in the Bill. He has put out a statement today to say exactly that. It is a practical issue, and those who knew and understood the difficulties at the time said there was a way to do this, but they were ignored.
Jim Allister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are looking for a solution are supporters of this Bill, because we cannot go on as we are. Those who think that it is okay to subjugate part of their own territory are opposed to this Bill. They are quite content with the colonisation of part of our territory. In constitutional terms, where we have ended up is that Northern Ireland is no longer a full part of the United Kingdom. Why? It is because we are not our own masters in 300 areas of law and that a foreign jurisdiction makes those laws. What does that create? It creates what is called, in constitutional terms, a condominium: Northern Ireland is ruled in part by UK laws and in part by foreign laws. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) finds that hilarious—sorry, it is not hilarious to be subjected to that.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I find myself surprised to agree to an extent with the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we need to move away from some of the ridiculous, extreme language. There is no reason why the European Union would want to colonise Northern Ireland. Are we not talking about a sensible agreement that does not seek to impose sovereignty but instead seeks simply to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, to safeguard the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions and, at the same time, protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and in the UK internal market? Should we not recognise that and stop using extreme language that does nothing to take the debate sensibly forward?
Jim Allister
The whole purpose of this Bill is to restore equilibrium and to get us to a point at which we have a sensible relationship based upon mutual respect, not on the grabbing of the sovereignty, one from the other. That is where we have got to. The hon. Member may not like to face up to it, but a whole raft of jurisprudence and lawmaking has been removed from within the reach of this United Kingdom and placed within the control of a foreign body, and that is not the basis for a sustainable solution.
Jim Allister
I have given way quite often, so I am going to make some progress.
That is why what I regard as the two liberation clauses in my Bill, clauses five and two, exist. They are the clauses that will free the whole United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in particular, from this malevolent situation in which a huge portion of our laws are made not by ourselves but by others. That is very important. I have spent a lot of time in this debate talking about the constitutional import of all this, and that is very important, because it is that which gives certainty and assurance to any part of this United Kingdom. However, before I leave that issue, I remind the House that, because of the protocol arrangements, our Supreme Court had to rule that article VI of our Acts of Union, which guaranteed unfettered trade access between and within all parts of the United Kingdom, stand in suspension. There cannot be a higher authority than the Supreme Court to demonstrate that a key component of the very Acts of Union that makes this Union is in suspension, and if the cause of suspension is the protocol or the Windsor framework, then no one who believes in that Union should be sanguine or at ease with that.
There are also economic consequences. Before Brexit, Northern Ireland had an economy that was very integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. It had the free, unfettered flow of goods one way and the other, as we had and would still have from Birmingham to London or Edinburgh. We had exactly that.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Member mentioned certainty, and he has just mentioned the impact on the economy of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that bringing in a Bill such as this, which would see regulations in Northern Ireland change in potentially just three months, would have a massive impact on businesses in Northern Ireland? It would have a huge impact on the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is not what businesses need right now.
Jim Allister
I can tell the hon. Member that it is exactly what businesses need. My constituency office is choked, from time to time, with businesses saying, “Why is it that I cannot get the goods I need without all this paperwork and bureaucracy?” There are many small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, such as small engineering businesses, which rely for their raw materials not on huge containers coming in, but on parcels of bolts and everyday materials, six, seven, eight or 12 of which come a week. Come early next year, the Irish sea border is going to extend to a parcels border, and we are going to have a situation in which those businesses that rely on the daily arrival of a parcel of some raw materials from GB will be put through the red lane of this full-blown international customs border. The hon. Lady may think that that is good for business. It is a death knell for businesses. That is the problem that we have.
The economic consequences are severe. Even with the Windsor framework, all our raw materials that feed all our manufacturing industry and that come from GB now have to pass through the red lane in a full international customs border. Think of that—think of the effect on a business. That is what is stifling, not growing, business. In consequence, we have had trade diversion—of course we have. We have veterinary medicines. In the main, our veterinary medicines come from GB, and always have done, but now we face a cliff edge where, according to EU diktat, they can no longer come because we are subject to the veterinary requirements of the EU, not the United Kingdom. Medicines that we have used safely and with no problems for decades are suddenly to be stopped.
The Government say that they will get a deal—well, let us see it. Even the very thought that we have to go cap in hand to a foreign power to say, “Please could we have an arrangement where, from within our own country, we could bring our own medicines to another part of our own country? Please could we do that?”, is so humiliating at a national level and so prejudicial to our farming community.
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way again; he continues to speak with passion. The issue about medicines is really interesting. I know that he has spoken at some length already, but it would be useful if he could outline some of the medicines that will be prohibited and what the alternatives to them will be.
Jim Allister
There are human medicines, and there are veterinary medicines. The vast swathe of veterinary medicines currently stand to be prohibited. As for human medicines, there are some for diabetics that are still subject to difficulties.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member was the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and knows all about that, so I will gladly give way to him.
Robin Swann
On that point—I see that Members are smiling; I am quite concerned about the attitude to the issue of some of those on the other Benches—a serious piece of work has been done with the European Union on the subject of continuing the supply of human medicines to Northern Ireland. The challenge is not in the legislation but in the fact that producers and suppliers must meet EU requirements for specific Northern Ireland labelling, which makes it not worth their while to supply items to Northern Ireland, with the result that some manufacturers are still not doing so.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member knows that from experience.
I want to make some progress, and to make one point very strongly: the economic consequences are dire for Northern Ireland. We have heard much talk about the fantasy of a dual-access bonanza. We have been told that Northern Ireland will become the Singapore of the west, that we now have unrivalled access to the UK market and to the EU market—consisting of 500 million people—and that everyone should be overwhelmed by the fantastic opportunity that this provides. How wrong that has turned out to be, and for one very simple reason, already alluded to by the right hon. Member for Belfast East.
We have heard the suggestion that inward investment will flow into Northern Ireland because of this dual market access, but it has not done so. Invest Northern Ireland has had to admit that there has been no upturn—and why is that? Because any benefit, if there is one, is countermanded by the fettering of the trade from Great Britain. A manufacturer wishing to set up a business in Northern Ireland in order to have access to the EU market is bound to say to himself—because investors are intelligent people—“Where will I get my raw materials? Oh, I will get them, as most do, from Great Britain.”
But then he will discover that those raw materials will have to pass through an international customs border, with all the regulation, all the delay and all the inspection, and the shine soon goes off that idea. Far from being a bonanza, this has turned out to be anything but.
I have already pointed out that the one sector that is flourishing is the service sector. That does not just happen to be the case; it is able to flourish because it is outside the protocol. And things will get worse: next Friday, when the general product safety regulation comes into force, many small suppliers will simply stop supplying because of the bureaucratic burden that will be placed on them. Already, in so many cases, when someone wants to buy an item online, this will pop up: “Not available in Northern Ireland.” Why is that? Because the small suppliers from Great Britain find it impossible to handle the burden of bureaucracy, so they are simply saying, “We are not supplying to Northern Ireland.” That is hugely frustrating for so many people in Northern Ireland—including, I might say, Mrs Allister, who, like many a woman, wants to order things and then finds that they are not available in Northern Ireland. How would hon. Members from Great Britain feel if “not available in Scotland,” “not available in Wales” and “not available in England” constantly popped up? Would they not be asking why? And when they heard the answer, “It is something called the protocol,” why would they continue to be enthusiasts for the very thing that is blocking their consumers from getting the supplies they need? This is a practical issue.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman’s passion, but his problems are not unique. Anywhere in the highlands and islands of Scotland, or even in peripheral parts of England, has the same delivery problems as he does.
Jim Allister
Ours is not a delivery problem; ours is a bar on sending. Ours is not just that it is too difficult; ours is that it is too difficult because of the international customs requirements. That is the difference between us and the highlands and islands. I am sure the highlands and islands do have that delivery problem, and I am sure that small businesses do shirk the desire to serve them, but in Northern Ireland it is for a more fundamental and compelling reason.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The frustrations that the hon. and learned Member is talking about are surely a good argument for what the Government are trying to do in resetting the relationship between the UK and the EU. Therefore, this Bill would only undermine the UK’s credibility in doing that with our international partners. Does he agree that we need to remain focused on the issues going forward, rather than going over these points again?
Jim Allister
This Bill is prospective in its tone and purpose. It is about going forward. It is about solving the problem that has been put upon us. The hon. Member says, “Oh, let’s reset.” For some, of course, that means, “Let’s rejoin.” That is a matter for those who are advocating for it, but it is certainly not where I would like to see this United Kingdom go.
Yes, we need to reset, but we need to reset on the basis that Brexit is for all, not just for some. When we reset on that basis, the Government will not have me constantly raising these issues, because I will have the equal citizenship that has been denied to me and my constituents by these arrangements. Fundamentally, this is an equal citizenship issue. The thought that they are being treated differently, by being denied the equal citizenship of the rest of the United Kingdom, is quite appalling and insulting to many people in Northern Ireland.
Article 2 of the protocol has been mentioned in an intervention. The Government said a couple of nights ago that they will appeal the findings in one of the cases in Northern Ireland, although, listening to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I think it is a pretty half-hearted appeal. Article 2 shows us that it is not just about trade. That was the initial selling point of the protocol, “Oh, it is only about trade,” but now we have discovered, through article 2, that it has a most pervasive effect on all sorts of things.
Legislation in the last Parliament has been overturned in its application in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of article 2. Now, whether we liked or disliked the Rwanda Bill is not the point. The point is that our High Court and Court of Appeal have ruled that the provisions of the Rwanda Bill cannot be operated in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of article 2.
Why is that? Because article 2 subjects Northern Ireland to the EU’s human rights provisions, not the UK’s human rights provisions. Protections that exist for asylum seekers under EU law therefore prevent the measures from operating. It is not about the debate of the merits or de-merits; it is about the constitutional fact that a Bill of this House, the sovereign will of that time of this supposedly sovereign Parliament, could not be implemented in a part of the United Kingdom because of the supremacy of EU law.
Jim Allister
No, I will finish my point. That is the fundamental issue here. We also had it on the legacy Bill. Again, it is not about the merits or the de-merits of the legacy Bill, much of which I abhorred; it is about the principle that our courts in this United Kingdom rule. The provisions of this Parliament—the sovereign will of this Parliament—are overridden by the laws of a foreign jurisdiction. That is the fundamental issue of sovereignty at stake here. That is why clause 2 will address the import of article 2 by making it something that cannot be given effect in domestic law.
Ms Creasy
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will recognise that it is not laughter on the Government Benches, but bemusement at the inconsistency. He opines about his anger that a third party can make law in Northern Ireland. Many of us tried to untangle the inconsistencies in the Rwanda legislation. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I tried in vain to raise it with the previous Government. The critical issue was the right to remedy and the rights it gave people in Northern Ireland to petition a third party if they thought their Government was overbearing on their own basic rights. The hon. and learned Gentleman has himself used those rights: he has chosen to go to the Supreme Court and that is why we are here today. He has not chosen to go to the Court in Strasbourg—that would be his right and I would support him in doing so—but why would he deny the right to remedy to the rest of his fellow residents of Northern Ireland, as the Bill would, when he says he thinks it was wrong for that right to be protected by the European Court of Human Rights in the first place?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that it is up to the Member who is on their feet whether they want to accept an intervention.
Jim Allister
I have been very generous in giving way. In a way I am not assisting my cause, because I know Government Members want to talk the Bill out. I would rather see them take a stand on whether they are for or against the subjugation of sovereignty within the United Kingdom. I am going to move on and deal with these issues.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to my taking a case to the Supreme Court. Why would I not? It is the Supreme Court of my United Kingdom. Why would I not take a case to the Supreme Court and test the laws that relate? I remind the House again that what the Supreme Court had to hold is that, because of the protocol so enthusiastically supported by Labour Members, Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom has been subjugated. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental building block of article 6 of the Acts of Union is in suspension because of the import of the protocol.
Some tell us, “Well, we don’t want to face these issues.” There is no option, we are told, because of the Belfast agreement. I have even read and heard people say, “The Belfast agreement prohibits a border on the island of Ireland.” I hold the agreement in my hand. I have read it many times. Perhaps someone could direct me: where in this document does it say that there cannot be a customs border on the island of Ireland? Where is it? It is not there! We already have a currency border, a VAT border, a tax border. Nowhere in the Belfast agreement does it say that you cannot have a customs border at the international boundary of the United Kingdom—nor should it. And then I am told, “This would breach international law if you did not have the protocol.” That is not correct either. A fundamental premise of international law is respect for territorial integrity. What have I been talking about for the last hour, if it has not been about respecting territorial integrity? That is the fundamental premise of international law.
It all goes back to the General Assembly of the United Nations declaration on principles of international law. What does it say? It says that territorial integrity is key, and that the declaration constitutes the basic principles of international law. It says:
“Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at…disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of any other state.”
If only that had been adhered to. The declaration says:
“Where obligations under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of this charter, the obligations of this charter shall prevail.”
So the fundamental principle is respect for territorial integrity. That is the governing principle of international law, so when an agreement comes into play that defies the fundamental requirement to respect territorial integrity, that agreement falls, not international law.
Jim Allister
No, I am going to make some progress.
I strongly refute the fallacy that to depart from the Windsor framework is to breach international law. On the contrary, to perpetuate the infringement of our territorial integrity is to breach international law itself and, indeed, the Belfast agreement, which was built on consent, of which there has been none in respect of the current arrangements. The correct application of international law is to the effect that agreements that contradict the regulating principles, including respect for territorial integrity, are themselves the villains of the piece.
Having set out everything that is wrong, let me come to the solution. The Government have always told us that we cannot conduct sanitary and phytosanitary checks away from the border. It cannot be done, so we must have a border—in our case, in the Irish sea. But this week a statutory instrument was laid before this House that does exactly that. It does it for goods that come from the EU, via Northern Ireland, to GB. It says that the goods can be checked wherever they arrive, such as at factories or other premises; they do not have to be checked at the border. If we can do that for goods coming through Northern Ireland to GB, why can we not do it in reverse? Of course we could check goods without tampering with sovereignty; we could do so anywhere within the territory of the United Kingdom. It is not the impracticability of carrying out the necessary checks that is the problem; it is the fact that under the surrender of sovereignty it has been insisted that they are carried out in the Irish sea border.
That brings me to clauses 16 to 18 and the concept they would permit of mutual enforcement. I readily accept that the clauses draw heavily on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022—which found the approval of the previous Parliament—but they are none the worse for that. What they do is simple: they say that two respecting neighbours—that is what I hope the United Kingdom and the EU are—with the necessary trust between each other can operate a system where they mutually check the goods flowing through their territory to ensure they meet the standards of the recipient territory. That is a fundamental tenet of much of international trade. It is something that can be built upon in respect of this matter that the United Kingdom says, “Yes, we know the EU wants to protect, it tells us, its single market and, yes, we want to protect our single market, so we will undertake, by virtue of criminal sanction for those who do not, to check that goods flowing from our factories to your consumers, from our territory to your territory, meet the standards you set, and we expect you to do the same.” That can be done without any of the paraphernalia that we presently have.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On this particular point, it is worth pointing out that the EU already does it. In its agreements with New Zealand, for example, it trusts that specific veterinary practices to check lamb and other products arriving in the EU are done at the point of departure. By the time they get to Rotterdam, they are cleared straight through on the basis that they respect the checks done by those veterinary companies. They already did it for 40 years with UK companies where any subsequent checks had to be done. All this is already being done. The question is: why is it not being done for the arrangement we have at the moment?
Jim Allister
I absolutely agree. The fascinating point is the very concept was articulated from and originated within the EU itself.
During the early stages of the negotiations, Sir Jonathan Faull and academics Daniel Sarmiento and Joseph Weiler came up with that proposition. It is not my proposition. It is not a United Kingdom proposition. It was an EU proposition. They said the answer is mutual enforcement. Today we have a statement from those three gentlemen, which has been made public. It says, “On Friday of this week, the House of Commons will be debating a Bill which attempts to address some of the difficulties resulting from the Brexit divorce agreements between the EU and the UK, which might be of interest to readers. In 2019, we proposed a solution which would have obviated any need for these complicated and divisive legal manoeuvres. The UK and the EU could have respected each other’s positions and saved everyone a great deal of time and effort. The Financial Times characterised the proposal as a ‘win-win solution’. Regrettably, it was not followed.” I echo that: regrettably, it was not followed. Why was it not followed? Because the politics took over. Instead of looking for a workable, practical border solution, the politics of making the United Kingdom pay for leaving the EU took over. That is how we got into this morass of a pernicious imposition through the border.
Sammy Wilson
During the early stages of the negotiations, the permanent secretary of the then Brexit Department told the Select Committee that the Irish Government, before Leo Varadkar took over, were actually exploring those kinds of solutions. The politics of the changeover in the Irish Republic and the willingness of Leo Varadkar to become the puppet of the EU in these negotiations stopped that method of looking at the border.
Jim Allister
I fear that there is a lot of truth in that. As I say, the politics took over. A further truth is that for some—not all, but some—enthusiasts of the protocol arrangement of a nationalist or Irish republican persuasion, there is a political gain that subsumes all doubts that they might have as democrats. For 30 years and more, the IRA terrorised through bomb and bullet to try to push the border to the Irish sea: “Brits out—push the border to the Irish sea!” That is precisely what the protocol has done: it has pushed the border to the Irish sea.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member may object from a sedentary position, but the challenge for her is whether her nationalism is more important to her than her democratic credentials.
Jim Allister
I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment, because I have mentioned her.
How can the hon. Member, who calls herself a Social Democratic and Labour Member, look her constituents in the eye and say, “I believe you are not worthy to have your laws made by those you elect: I would rather they were made by those you don’t elect”? Is it because the nationalist reach of the protocol is more important than the democratic detriment of the protocol?
Claire Hanna
If the hon. and learned Member wants to talk about constitutional change, perhaps he might set out for the Chamber the numbers and the level of support for the Union before and after he began his Brexit adventures. He will know that I, as a democrat, constitutionally compromise every single day, because I am a democrat, I am an adult and I live in a constitutional reality that is not of my choosing. I am an Irish person living, working and upholding democracy in the United Kingdom.
The hon. and learned Member will also know that none of his arguments about democratic deficit stand in any way, when his campaign suppressed the Northern Ireland Assembly, the legitimate expression and place of primary lawmaking for Northern Ireland, and when he created an enormous health sea border in the Irish sea. His adventures—his hobby horses—have created a scenario in which one third of the population of Northern Ireland is on a health waiting list.
I and others who do not like exactly the way our constitutional arrangements are made stand up every day and work to solve those problems; all he wants to do is create them. It is his actions, in fact, that are inserting the dynamism in the question about constitutional change. Every time he pulls a stunt like this, he drives more people to seek to get out of the control of men like him. I, as a democrat, uphold democracy. I accept the constitutional reality; I accept that we are members of the United Kingdom. I am seeking to change that democratically, so he will never again question my commitment to democracy in Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
I acknowledge the hon. Member’s speech, but let me say this: it is no stunt to ask, on behalf of my constituents, for what every other part of this United Kingdom has—the right to be ruled by laws we makes ourselves. It is no stunt to ask for equal citizenship; it is no stunt to say that this United Kingdom—the clue is in the title—should not be partitioned by an international customs border.
Jim Allister
I will when I have dealt with some other points.
That is an assault upon the sincerity and efficacy of those who dare to say, “If we are part of the United Kingdom, we need to be treated as part of the United Kingdom.” The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) did not explain why she thinks it right to disenfranchise her constituents and to reject a workable and practical solution. Those who reject a workable and practical solution are those who do not want such a solution in respect of the Irish border. That was very clear from her intervention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
Several years ago, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson told us that there was an oven-ready deal. That was clearly not the case, because we are still discussing this. The hon. and learned Member has mentioned mutual enforcement, but nowhere in the world does mutual enforcement happen wholesale under trading regulations between countries. The only workable deal that has been struck was reached not by politics, but through a pragmatic working out, and that is the Windsor framework. Is he selling something that cannot actually work? The mutual enforcement idea has been described by the EU Commission as magical thinking.
Jim Allister
I remind the Minister that the magical thinking came from the EU itself, through Jonathan Faull and his colleagues, who made that very suggestion. And why would what I suggest not work? If the EU is our friend—if we trust it and it trusts us—why would it not trust us to keep our word on imposing its standards on our goods entering its territory? If that does not work, then it is time to talk about alternatives, but that proposal should be the starting point. There was the whimsical dismissal that it would not work, even though it has never been tried. The really chilling thing about the Minister’s intervention is its subtext: “Suck it up, Northern Ireland. You’re no longer a full part of the United Kingdom. You will just live like a colony of the EU, under its laws in 300 areas. We have no empathy and no desire to fix it; we will just leave you in that position.” That is the chilling import of her intervention.
Richard Tice
It may be helpful to remind the Minister that the EU’s own expert, Mr Lars Karlsson, said in his “Smart Border 2.0” report that with technology and good will, all these issues could be overcome. However, the politics of Mr Varadkar and the EU overrode that.
Jim Allister
That is absolutely right, and in Northern Ireland we suffer the consequences of those aggressive political agendas every day.
If the Government are saying, “This is fine; there is nothing to see here. We don’t need to fix anything,” then they are not just insulting the intelligence of those of us who introduced the Bill, but saying to my constituents, “You can carry on being second-class citizens.” The Government cannot say to my constituents, “You are equal citizens, but you will not be governed by British laws.” That is what the Government are saying to my constituents in North Antrim and to people across Northern Ireland. “You have equal citizenship, but some are more equal than others. Some will be ruled by the laws that this Parliament makes, or by those that the devolved Assemblies make, but you will be ruled by laws that someone else makes for you, and be grateful for it.” That is where we have got to on this issue. It is not just insulting but frankly unacceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to be treated in this way.
Given the Government’s enthusiasm to maintain the unworkable status quo, they should reflect on the fact that there is about to be a new President of the United States who has made it very plain that he is in tariff mode. If he carries through his tariffs, this United Kingdom Government will need a trade deal. Why would a President of the United States do a trade deal with the United Kingdom if the UK has a back door that is open to the EU? That is the consequence of this protocol. We do not have a secure international trade border; the border with the EU is porous, and by all reports, Mr Trump is pretty adverse to the EU. Why would he ever do a deal with the United Kingdom with that back door open?
Should this Government not take the opportunity presented by this Bill to say, “We will fix this arrangement, and then we can convince the Americans that we are a safe and secure partner in a trade deal”? So long as the protocol exists, we cannot give the United States of America that certainty. It is in the national interest, the Government’s interest and our trading interest to fix this arrangement, so that we can pursue a trade deal with the Americans—who, at the end of the day, are our best friends in all this—on the best possible terms.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Gentleman has already outlined that there are 300 tightly bound areas where the EU influences Northern Irish legislation, but it sounds very much as if he is now suggesting that the United Kingdom should operate under whatever remit the President-elect of the United States chooses to set for us. Policy is made here in Parliament, not in DC.
Jim Allister
I only wish that the laws for Northern Ireland were made in this Parliament, or in our devolved institutions. If the hon. Member has been listening at all, surely he has understood that there are 300 vast areas—they are not self-contained; they are expanding, and have already been expanded—on which laws are made in a foreign Parliament. That is the fundamental point. If we want a trade deal with the United States, we have to show that it will be a bona fide trade deal with the United Kingdom, not with a surrogate of the EU through a back door that is wide open.
Deirdre Costigan
I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). He talks about doing a deal with the United States of America on trade. How could we possibly be taken seriously as a trade partner by any country in the world in future if we broke the deals that we already have on the table?
Jim Allister
If the deal was reached under false pretences—if it was reached in breach of international law, because it breached respect for territorial integrity—yes, the first thing this Government should do is reverse that arrangement. They should not continue with a deal that does not respect the territorial integrity of this United Kingdom. That is the fundamental principle of international law, and if international law has been disregarded to get this arrangement, the arrangement is disreputable and not worthy of continuation. That would be of more interest to our American friends than our saying, “We will make a deal that will sell out some of our own people—that will create circumstances where any trade deal we do will benefit the EU through the back door—but please, Mr President, make a deal with us.” That will not happen, and the Government need to realise that.
Let me try to draw my remarks to a conclusion by turning to clause 19. It seeks to reinstate the fundamental operating principle of the Belfast agreement, which is that every key decision in Northern Ireland, because of our divided and troubled past, should and must be made on a cross-community basis. It is there in black and white in the agreement, yet next Tuesday, the most key decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly has ever taken will come before it without a need for it to have cross-community consent. That decision will be on whether Northern Ireland should continue, in 300 areas of law, to surrender its lawmaking powers to a foreign Parliament. There is nothing more fundamental, either to Northern Ireland’s constitutional status or to the governance of the people of Northern Ireland, than that. However, to ensure the desired outcome of that vote, a move was made to remove, especially for that vote, the cross-community requirement, so that for the first time in over 50 years we will have a majoritarian decision of considerable import taken in Northern Ireland. That is a rigging of the arrangements of the Belfast agreement.
Strange as it might be, through this Bill, I am the one championing the requirements of the Belfast agreement by asking: if the modus operandi is to ensure cross-community support, why has the vote been rigged to remove cross-community support? One might have thought that the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down would be the champion of the Belfast agreement, and would want to ensure that its fundamental operating principle of cross-community support was respected, but no: she and her party are cheerleading for the vote. They brought the matter to the Assembly when the Executive failed to.
It is an important point—a point that cuts to the heart of the operation and stability of the Belfast agreement—that for the first time, a key decision is to be taken not on the prescribed cross-community basis, but on a majoritarian basis. What does that say to me and my community? It says, “You don’t really matter. It is more important that we get this vote through. Cross-community? Ah, that was about protecting nationalism. It was never about protecting Unionism.” Well, sorry, but we are calling that in today. We say, if it is good enough for nationalism, it should be good enough for Unionism. Why are this Government and this House trying to say to Unionism in Northern Ireland, “You don’t matter on this issue. We will railroad you”? That is the fundamental point.
Claire Hanna
Is it not the hon. and learned Member’s position that Brexit does not require cross-community consent? In the eight elections since Brexit, the people of Northern Ireland have rejected Brexit. However, he says that the protections require cross-community consent. It is a case of consent for thee, but not for me. Will he confirm that the inclusion of this provision means that he now supports the Good Friday agreement, 26 years after repudiating the will of 71% of the people?
Jim Allister
Brexit was a national vote, decided for better or for worse on a national basis. The people of London did not vote for Brexit, but no one is saying they should now be ruled by laws from Brussels. The People of Northern Ireland by a small majority did not vote for Brexit, but Members are saying that we should be ruled by laws from Brussels. That does not stack up. I am simply calling in aid what the Belfast agreement says: the Belfast agreement says key decisions are cross-community. Is anyone denying this is a key decision? If so, why is it not a cross-community vote?
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing this Bill, and I acknowledge his recognition of the strengths of those protections in the Belfast agreement, which were built in by my party and especially by Lord Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the crafter and political deliverer of unionism in support of the Belfast agreement at that time. He said:
“I feel betrayed personally by the Northern Ireland Protocol, and it is also why the unionist population is so incensed at its imposition.
The protocol rips the very heart out of the agreement, which I and they believed safeguarded Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensured that democracy not violence, threat of violence or outside interference, would or could ever change that.
Make no mistake about it, the protocol does not safeguard the Good Friday Agreement. It demolishes its central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is needed to make any change to the status of Northern Ireland. It embodies a number of constitutional changes that relate to Northern Ireland.”
Jim Allister
The late Lord Trimble was absolutely right about that. What is happening on Tuesday is an invitation to the Assembly, courtesy of the Government’s directive, to tear up the key central portion of the Belfast agreement on cross-community consent. There is another point.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. and learned Member talks about the Good Friday agreement. Why does his Bill not guarantee that the institutions of the agreement have powers, and why is he happy to put those with UK Government Ministers, unlike the existing arrangements under the Windsor framework?
Jim Allister
My Bill is about seeking to restore democracy to the arrangements. That is why I want to take back from Brussels control over our laws. My Bill is a charter for democratic progress. The present arrangements are the antithesis of democratic operation.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. and learned Member might not have supported the Good Friday agreement but does he not acknowledge that the agreement recognised the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland? It involved a changing of the constitution in the Republic to recognise the sovereignty of the UK in Northern Ireland for the first time. It also recognised the reality and the existence of a border on the island of Ireland. What he is doing is reinforcing the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which he himself might have opposed back in the day.
Jim Allister
The core operating principle of the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland was that key issues have cross-community consent. That is what has been ripped out for Tuesday. I have yet to hear a rational, convincing explanation for that. Maybe the Minister has one. Why have we ripped out of the heart of the Belfast agreement the very thing that was supposed to give comfort to both sides—that neither side would get one over on them? Why have we ripped that out of this agreement? If the Minister wishes to tell me, I will gladly give way on that point.
There is even a further point about this vote on Tuesday. Article 18.2 of the protocol says that the consent vote was to be
“reached strictly in accordance with the unilateral declaration made by the United Kingdom”
Government of October 2019. I repeat: “strictly in accordance with”. That unilateral declaration of October ’19 promised a public consultation before this vote. It is there in black and white in the words of the declaration. There has been no consultation. So why are the Government inviting the Assembly to conduct a vote which breaches the guidelines laid down by the protocol itself—that the consent vote should be strictly in accordance with that declaration? That declaration included the promise of a public consultation, of which there has been none. That is another question—
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Will the hon. and learned Member give way?
Jim Allister
I would rather give way to the Minister on that issue, but I hear no answer.
The House has been patient as I have laid out the arguments for the Bill. I see the Bill as an opportunity to restore the equilibrium, which I hope to have demonstrated has been destroyed in these arrangements. That is the democratic equilibrium, the equilibrium of equal citizenship, the equilibrium of Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and the equilibrium of our relations with the EU. All those are positives, all those are in the national interest, and all those are that which I believe should recommend themselves to the House. I trust that the House will give favour to the Bill.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
May I say that it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the contents of his Bill, as set out in its 25 clauses, and the issues that surround it, which have clearly been the subject of consternation, to say the least, in some quarters.
I listened carefully to the many points and assertions that the hon. and learned Gentleman made; no doubt everybody in the Chamber listened to them. I do not underestimate the significance of the concerns—perceived, real or otherwise—that he and many others have in relation to the operation of the Windsor framework, which in effect was a successfully negotiated recalibration of the Northern Ireland protocol. There is no doubt that all sides worked hard to achieve an agreement, given the obvious complexities, nuances and tensions that were bound to arise when the implementation of the decision to leave the European Union was made in the light of the 2016 referendum.
The detailed statement made by the most recent former Prime Minister, the response to it and the questions about it on 27 February 2023 set the tone, in my view—I think that is also the view of many other hon. Members—for a genuine attempt on all sides of the negotiation to be as flexible as possible, given the circumstances.
I want to quote a few points from that debate. The Prime Minister at the time said:
“Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union”—
we all agree with and recognise that—
“and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 570.]
He went on to take each of those in turn in more detail. He later said:
“Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 571.]
That has been referred to in the debate; I will return to that in due course. He went on to say:
“The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 574.]
It is important to move on to the current Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
“This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 577.]
Who would not agree with that statement? We do not want to continue to be locked in endless battles and arguments with our allies.
It is worthwhile referring to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who said at the time:
“My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 582.]
That is important from the Conservative Benches. The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
“I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement”,
and it was an achievement. Even the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) said:
“I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 584.]
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. Does he agree that his contribution shows that there is space for fulsome debate and important democratic scrutiny of these things that affect our family of nations?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right. Many of us here today want to discuss this issue because it is crucial to our constituents not just in the short term, but in the longer term. The former Member for Clwyd West said:
“The Command Paper tells us that the framework, ‘narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations’”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 605.]
Jim Allister
The hon. Member has recited what some might have thought were erudite contributions in support of these arrangements, apparently with the insinuation towards the end that we have considered this whole matter. Have his friends not spent since July trying to undo the very things that the previous Government did on so many other matters, because they thought that they were wrong? They were wrong on this, so should they not be trying to undo it?
Peter Dowd
I do not quite understand the hon. and learned Member’s point. Today, we are trying to tease out many of the issues and concerns that he, quite understandably, has raised, to try to understand them and maybe to reflect on them and, in future, give consideration to them through the process. It is important that we are all here today listening to what he and other Members have to say.
Ms Creasy
Importantly, this House was charged, along with the Irish Government, to uphold the Good Friday agreement. In any legislation that comes along, it is right and proper that we ask how to do that, alongside our colleagues across in Ireland. This legislation touches on so many elements of that agreement, so today’s debate is also about us doing the important job that we pledged to do all those years ago, to improve and maintain peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would be the first to admit that we do not always get these things right—whoever does? What we have to do is try, try and try again, and attempt to do our best in good faith. I will come back to that in a moment.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.
Peter Dowd
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am not going to challenge the integrity of the people who were part of that negotiation. It is not for me to challenge their integrity: they are hon. Members, and I believe that they did what they did with the best intention. During the statement on 27 February, I believe that, on the whole, most comments were supportive, but I acknowledge and accept that some were not, such as those from the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made his views known, as did others.
I acknowledge that some of the Members who spoke during that statement are in the Chamber today and express disquiet. I welcome the fact that they have taken their places on the Benches, but their disquiet and the disquiet of others must be set in the context of the following—namely, that the agreement, according to the Command Paper, which is important and which I referred to earlier,
“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland – to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations.”
In any negotiation in the circumstances, coming away with that figure is not necessarily unreasonable. Would a figure of 100% be the acid test? Maybe it would, but I do not think so, given the circumstances—in practical terms, that is unlikely. That is the nature of negotiation: otherwise, it would be called imposition. We must recognise that those on the other side, who have their views, passions and commitment to their communities as well as their histories, have also been fraught with other people.
I will finish with this. I do not accept the idea that some of our partners in the European Union—some of those eastern bloc European countries that were under the yoke of the Soviet Union as a coloniser—would take the different view that they, in turn, were part of a group or cabal trying to impose a colonialist approach to another country.
Jim Allister
How else would the hon. Member describe a scenario in which a huge quota of laws are made in a foreign jurisdiction? How else would he classify that than as colonialism?
Ms Creasy
I wish I could understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out with this. If, on the one hand, the European Union is a source of colonisation that has this disrespect towards the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but, on the other hand, as part of a trade agreement we would simply trust each other to mutually enforce each other’s rules without any level of oversight, at what point do we start trusting these colonisers, as opposed to recognising that as part of an international trade treaty, we both have to stick to the same set of rules and see them upheld?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the end of the day, whether the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and I like it or not, and I do, they are allies in virtually the biggest trading area—in fact, it is the largest—in the world, but I accept that Members have concerns. I am not trying to deny that, and I am not trying to demean them or push them under the carpet.
I also do not want to revisit the pre-referendum process. It is unavailing at this stage to rehash or regurgitate the arguments, warnings, finger pointing, claims, vilifications, passions and tensions that at times dominated the debate in the lead-up to and during the last weeks of the referendum campaign, but the situation we face is a direct result and consequence of that decision—of that, in my view, there is no doubt. I believe it is fair to say that personalities, rather than policies, often dominated the discussions and debates at the time. I also believe that, at times, high-politics issues around sovereignty, self-determination and other factors came into play. However, such matters are really symmetrical. That is the nature of the democratic debate and of the democratic debate that we have in this country, for better or worse.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one consequence is that we have a United Kingdom in part of which people have a second-class citizenship compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he have any solutions, other than the solution put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in his brilliant Bill, as he brings intellectual rigour to try to address this intractable problem?
Peter Dowd
I think the fact that the hon. Gentleman used the word “intractable” gives us a clue about how challenging it actually is. When a country decides, for better or for worse, to withdraw from a treaty to which it has been a signatory for more than 50 years, issues are bound to arise.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill undermines not only the UK’s adherence to the Windsor framework, but the security architecture that the Belfast agreement underpins? The Belfast agreement is not just a peace settlement, but a cornerstone of our national security strategy. By jeopardising our reputation as a trustworthy international partner, the Bill would weaken our ability to collaborate with allies on global security challenges. Does he not agree that by maintaining the integrity of the agreement, we are safeguarding our national security and international standing?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences when we go down a particular path.
Issues are bound to arise that either no one thought about or thought would have significance outside of an abstract environment but subsequently became significant, or that were parked so that we could come back to them at a later date. The reality, as we found throughout the whole post-referendum period—oven-ready this and oven-ready that—is that lots of things that were parked are coming back to bite. The problem with that, as I said, is the law of unseen and ignored consequences—those things are waiting around the corner, and turn up like an uninvited and unwelcome guest in our house.
Please bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the potential unintended consequences of coming out of a treaty. Imagine what would happen if we decided to abrogate the North Atlantic treaty—which, of course, no one would dream of doing. We know there would certainly be huge consequences to such an action. I suspect Members understand there would be pretty immediate and most probably predictable consequences to that. However, it is sometimes the unpredictability of taking actions that comes back to haunt us.
The same could be said for other treaties, which may appear to be of little significance and consequence in the short term, but which might take on a whole new persona down the line. I am not sure that many people would initially grasp the consequences of, say, breaching the Antarctic treaty, but there would be consequences in due course. If we abrogate a treaty, or part of a treaty, it is unlikely that we can then somehow revisit it, change domestic law and expect other countries to accept that.
I will finish on this point, because it is important. There are other treaties that we have to look to—I could go into detail on them, but I will not. What about— [Interruption.] Well, if Members insist. How about the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? What would happen if we decided to tweak that a little bit through domestic law?
Peter Dowd
Precisely—my hon. Friend on the Front Bench says it would be dangerous, and it would be. What about the key provisions of the outer space treaty? What about the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Redevelopment? On and on it goes.
Jim Allister
Is the Belfast agreement not an international treaty subject to international law? Is it okay to breach that agreement when it comes to its provision of every key decision being taken on a cross-community basis? I suppose that is okay because it affects only Unionists.
Peter Dowd
The bottom line, in my view and that of many other people, is that it has not been breached. I completely accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes a different view, but I do not believe that it has been breached, and there are better legal brains than me who agree.
The Windsor framework was in turn realigned through the “Safeguarding the Union” paper of January 2024, which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to, and the Stormont brake mechanism and the provisions contained therein for the Northern Ireland Assembly to approach the UK Government in relation to the application of EU laws. I read the Windsor framework time and time and time again, as I suspect all Members in this Chamber did.
Joe Powell
North-south co-operation between institutions in Northern Ireland was a vital component of the Good Friday agreement, so I thank my hon. Friend for making his point about treaties, because the Bill, which I have read, in clause 14 makes it possible to disapply protections in the Windsor framework for north-south co-operation. Would my hon. Friend reflect on why disapplying the role of north-south co-operation would be consistent with the intent of upholding the Good Friday agreement? That is a relevant point for him to reflect on.
Peter Dowd
That is a really good point, and I am pleased we are having this debate, because these are the points we need to consider carefully when we look at these issues and figure them out. It is an excellent point; I think we will all reflect on that, and I hope the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and hon. Gentleman across the Chamber reflect on it. It is important to note that the protection of the Belfast agreement was paramount and that was there to reassure the communities of Northern Ireland. I hope that this debate continues, notwithstanding some of the points that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made, so that people understand that we are here to reassure as much as we can.
Peter Dowd
I will, but I first want to make a point about the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I know that he holds views that are born out of real belief in, and commitment to, his constituents and the wider communities across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is exactly the view that I take. I hold views born out of a real belief in, and commitment to, my constituents, and every Member in this Chamber takes that approach. Who am I to challenge their integrity on that? I am not in any way going to attempt that, either from my side or to cast aspersions on the other side.
Alex Easton
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 3% of EU laws that we have to obey. Would the hon. Member like his constituents to be unable to get drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and diabetes, as is the case in Northern Ireland? Would his constituents like that? The hon. Gentleman can get veterinary drugs in his constituency that we cannot get. Would he like that situation for his constituency? Let us say that the hon. Gentleman had a dog and wanted to take it to his neighbouring constituency—would he like it if he needed to get a passport to come back? Does he not think that this situation is unfair on us in Northern Ireland, as we are meant to be part of the United Kingdom?
Peter Dowd
The framework attempts to do that, and there is nothing, I suspect, that prevents those issues being teased out in more detail as time goes by, but at the end of the day, I do not live in a perfect world—I do not know about anybody else. I have constituents, for example, who have been unable to get access to drugs, and that is nothing to do with this issue; it is to do with a whole range of matters that have developed over the past 14 years in relation to Government policy, but I do not want to go there. I and other hon. Members are trying to do the best we possibly can, given the circumstances we have inherited. I know that might be cold comfort for some Members across the Chamber, but it is said with the best intent and with sincerity. It is not to brush this matter aside; it is a recognition that there are challenges, but those challenges were bound to crop up given some of the points I raised earlier.
Peter Dowd
I will give way first to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. It looks like I will not get to make a speech, but I want to put on the record that the Ulster Unionist party actually campaigned to remain in the European Union. We thought it best at that point, because we foresaw exactly what is happening now. We respect the referendum of this United Kingdom, but we are now seeing the enabling of what we were concerned about because of the lack of interest in this House with regard to some of the regulations that are coming through and how they are applied to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member mentioned medicines. Yes, we have supply issues, which are global issues, but we also have additional supply issues because of regulation from the European Union.
Peter Dowd
As far as I am aware, the framework attempts to tackle some of those issues. I completely accept that the hon. Member maybe does not accept that or does not want to accept it; I do not know. I am not casting aspersions at all on the integrity or beliefs of Members. At no time do I say anything that denies the right of people to hold the views that they hold, which are clearly, deeply and obviously felt. In a way, I actually celebrate those differences.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I want to give the point of view of my constituent, who runs a business. She says, “I currently supply materials to a lady in Devon, who then produces goods for sale within the United Kingdom, only I’m at a complete loss as to what to do regarding the GPSR rules coming in. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Successive Parliaments have done what they can to make this nation as dysfunctional as possible and return us to EU subjugation.” What would the hon. Member tell my constituent’s business, which must close as part of the price to pay to further the aim of having an all-Ireland Irish Republic? That is what my constituent says, and it is very much contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Peter Dowd
As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.
Sammy Wilson
I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.
Peter Dowd
In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [Interruption.] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible.
This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.
Andrew Lewin
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, especially on the language we use. In my maiden speech, I said that when I agree with a Member on the other side, I would say so in this House. I call out the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who I believe did a good thing with the Windsor framework. After nearly 10 years of moving away from the European Union, he took a practical step that led to a serious improvement. I want to put that on the record, because I think it is important.
Peter Dowd
This House often debates the most challenging and sensitive matters. In this Chamber last Friday, we saw how a sensitive and intense debate based on conviction rather than dogma brings out the best in the House. That is why I have been looking forward to this debate and to listening to the views of colleagues of all political persuasions, and I hope I have done that.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim gave the House a heads-up on this Bill with his previous actions. For example, the putative incompatibility of article 6 of the Acts of Union with the Belfast agreement was ruled out on all counts by the Supreme Court, as far as I am aware. I am sure Members on both sides of the Chamber will recognise that engagement with this debate is done in good faith, even where there are differences of opinion.
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanatory notes on the Bill. I read them with interest, particularly paragraph 11:
“The purpose of the Bill is to provide Ministers with the power to make changes to the operation of the Windsor Framework in domestic law, restore the cross-community imperative of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in respect of continuance of the Windsor Framework and to safeguard democracy, peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”
In my view, this is effectively a reincarnation of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022, which caused concern in so many quarters, domains and jurisdictions. The Government of the time acknowledged that there would be non-performance of their international obligations out of necessity. They said that they sought to reach a negotiated settlement with the European Union to forestall the need to invoke the concept of necessity.
The previous Government subsequently withdrew the Bill, because they believed they had secured the necessary conditions they sought, as set out in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Therefore, the assertion on the use of the concept of necessity was never put to the test. I, for one, am pleased that it was not. If it had been, in my view and in the view of many others, we would have been on the road to perdition—there is no doubt about that.
As I have said, this Bill is another iteration of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that would take us back to June 2022 and, once again, put the country in danger of breaching its obligations under international law, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said. The idea that the Bill can invoke the concept of necessity as a reason for a breach is beguiling, but illusory.
Jim Allister
Does the hon. Member not accept that a fundamental element of the jurisprudence of international law in this area is the requirement that any such agreement must not infringe the territorial integrity of either state? That, patently, has happened. Is this not the fundamental flaw in the international law argument? It falls at the first prerequisite: that the territorial integrity of the state with which the agreement is being made must not be infringed.
Peter Dowd
I do not want to go down that particular rabbit hole, but I will say this. We have the sovereign base in Akrotiri, in Cyprus. We negotiated that. Is it a breach of the sovereign territory of Cyprus? Is it somehow wrong? We negotiated it, we agreed it, it exists and it is used, so I do not believe that it is a breach. It is possible to negotiate a range of matters. It could be said that an element of sovereignty is given away for a better, or a more comprehensive, capacity in another area.
Jim Allister
What the hon. Member seems to be saying is that if the United Kingdom decides to acquiesce in—indeed, support—the infringement of its own territorial integrity, that is all right. If that is the basis, is it not all the more reason why the Government—a new Government—of the United Kingdom ought to address this humiliating concession?
Peter Dowd
I do not think it is a humiliating concession, but if it is a concession at all, I think it is an attempt, given the circumstances that we faced, to reach an agreement with trading partners in the light of the decision of the British people. We live in a world where we do not get everything we want. We live in a world where there is a little bit of give and a little bit of take, and sometimes we are able to give more than we take, and vice versa. As I have said, however, I do not want to go down that rabbit hole, because I do not think it is necessarily the subject of today’s debate. We touch on it, and it is pertinent, but I do not think it should dominate the whole debate.
There is no doubt that the subject is fraught with all the concerns and anxieties and consternation to which I referred earlier, and we have to operate in the wider political environment and milieu in which countries have to operate all the time. I think it only fair to point out that the law of unintended consequences may decide to poke its head around the door, and perhaps even to walk into the Chamber, and there will be nothing that we can do. That is the very nature of the issue that confronts us. There are no easy solutions. There are no easy answers to difficult questions. There are no off-the-cuff responses that will sort out the issue. That is a statement of the obvious.
Ben Coleman
I very much like the image of the law of unintended consequences poking its head around the door. One thing that has occurred to me during this debate is that we need, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and the whole of our United Kingdom, to try to reduce the red tape that Brexit has introduced. One of the most important steps that we could take is to enter into a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union, but if we are to do that, we will need the EU to trust us, and to accept that if we negotiate with it and reach an agreement, we will stick by that agreement. Is not the challenge, in the context of this particular Bill, that one of the laws of unintended consequences might be that the EU simply will not engage in the discussion and negotiation that we need in order to proceed with those red-tape-reducing measures?
Peter Dowd
That is a perfectly valid point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has had a sneak preview of the points that I will raise later on. I will take up that matter with my staff.
It is important to recognise that those views are considered. I am sure that those views have been informed by many events, circumstances and long-held political opinions, and by culturally held views, which, in turn, have been informed by many personal and political experiences—some constructive and positive, and others negative and traumatic. In justice to the debate, I am sure that Members have attempted to bring if not a fresh perspective to it, then at least a perspective that takes into account the views of others from across the Chamber.
In this debate, the word “irrelevant” may itself become irrelevant, because we must face up to the fact that many of the points being made are not irrelevant, given the wide-ranging impact that any change to the law would have on internal and external relationships, both in a formal legal sense and informally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said.
On trust, the Bill asks the House to abrogate our treaty obligations under the withdrawal agreement. That is worrying. Having given this some thought, I decided to look at the treaty landscape and the issue of necessity, which has been raised. That then sets off the justified claim about the potential for abrogation, so it is a good place to start. The ecosystem around treaties goes to the heart of the efficacy of partnerships, relationships and—dare I use the word—trust between those who sign a treaty.
This issue really goes to the heart of the question of trust, belief or faith in what we say as a nation. I look to our finest playwright to set the scene—in fact, I go to scene four from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, part 3:
“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”.
The concept of oaths and promises was explored by William Kerrigan in his book, “Shakespeare’s Promises”. It is important to quote this, because it goes to the heart of the matter. He writes:
“It is impossible to imagine any kind of moral life without obligations, and impossible to imagine obligations without types of promises. We are always up against them. Before we ever reflect on what a promise is, we have made them and are expected to make more of them. We are born into nations that enter into treaties and agreements. Promises are with us like gravity. Man is a promising animal.”
Mr Bailey
I take my hon. Friend back to his point about abrogating treaties, which is the modus operandi of the next United States President. Such behaviour creates instability in our international order, yet those supporting the Bill ask that we disestablish an agreement that provides stability, and that seeks to address intractable issues, and asks that we fix those problems through relationships with such persons.
Peter Dowd
It is a fair point. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we agree to the Bill, are we in breach of faith and trust? I think so. I do not say that lightly, or to be offensive or provocative.
Jim Allister
Does the hon. Member think that there is such a thing as breach of trust when it comes to relations within the United Kingdom? Are the citizens of this United Kingdom entitled to expect equal citizenship, and to be governed by laws that their nation makes, or are those things secondary to tipping our cap to the EU? Is that his stance?
Peter Dowd
My stance is that if a person does not trust me in a democratic environment, they are perfectly entitled to go down to the ballot box and put an X against my opponent’s name, and I will respect them for doing so. That is the way we do it in this country.
Ms Creasy
Many of us are passionate about equal rights; that is why we have concerns about this legislation. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not engage on the subject of the impact that the Bill would have on human rights in Northern Ireland. We all know about our democratic rights. When we talk about equal citizenship, we are talking about the ability to be represented, about rights being upheld, and about a right of remedy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would rip up those rights in Northern Ireland by ripping up article 2 of the Windsor framework? The Bill would deny people in Northern Ireland rights that his constituents and mine have, because we have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights if we feel that an overbearing Government are breaching our rights. When it comes to equal citizenship in the Union, we must reject the Bill to uphold the rights of all.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right. I reject the Bill as respectfully as I can. Countries have to operate in an international rules-based system. That is the position that this country has taken on many occasions, even when the consequences for us have been dire. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about foundations. I do not want to undermine the foundation of the rules-based system, trust and good faith. That is what I do not want to breach.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]
Peter Dowd
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) says from a sedentary position, the framework strengthens the Union. That is exactly the point that I would have made. I know that some people do not accept that, but I believe that it strengthens the Union. Like a curate’s egg, any treaty will have good and bad parts for both sides. We would not need treaties or agreements if we all agreed about everything. The reality is that dissonance comes with the territory.
Alex McIntyre
Members on the Opposition Benches have talked a lot about cross-community support. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) mentioned a lack of consultation. Is my hon. Friend aware of whether there has been any cross-community consultation on the Bill?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend may be in a much better position to say, but I suspect that this is the place where that consultation happens. We listen to the views of people, and we can reflect them in our observations.
I want to continue on the theme of trust. Dictators and autocrats consider treaties a sign of weakness, to be dispensed with as soon as is practicable. In this country, we tend not to take that transactional and cynical approach. I am forever thankful for that. Keeping faith with a treaty or agreement that we have signed without duress says a good detail about our moral compass as a nation.
Having started on the issue of the importance of treaties, I want to look at one or two examples of the 14,000 treaties to which this country is a signatory. [Interruption.] No, I will not go into the treaty issue again, but I refer Members to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s online treaties database if they wish to look up the treaties that this country has signed over the years—and yes, I do have a life.
This country has had a good deal of experience in writing, agreeing, monitoring, enforcing and advising on treaties. There is little that this country does not know about the history, implementation, negotiation, monitoring and abrogation of treaties. We may even be the place to go to get that advice. Over the decades, this country has decided in good faith and with good intentions to put its name, credibility and integrity up front by signing treaties to ensure that its national interests can are secured as far as is practically possible. We have centuries of experience of the pitfalls, implications and consequences of a unilateral breach of a treaty. I ask colleagues to hold that thought during the deliberations on this Bill.
It goes without saying that serious, sometimes convoluted, diplomatic manoeuvres and mental gymnastics are involved in agreeing the terms of a treaty. That will come as no surprise at all to Members—if it did, that would be surprising to me. One has to be careful before signing a treaty. That does not mean that one does not sign it, but once an agreement is reached, signed and ratified, it remains duly constituted until the treaty is renegotiated through the proper channels. Do we really want to feel, as Sophocles said, that
“No treaty is ever an impediment to a cheat”?
I do not believe we are cheats. Sophocles also said:
“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim does not have too much pride. Call me old-fashioned, but I am afraid that whether we like it or not, we have to negotiate a treaty or an agreement through the proper channels.
Dr Arthur
I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the classics. He makes an important point, because it is almost as if we were being presented with a false choice between ripping up the Windsor agreement and setting it in stone. It has already been shown that the agreement can adapt and evolve, and it will continue to do so.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: treaties are renegotiated all the time. Yes, that can be messy—as I have said, we have a great deal of experience of how messy it is—but that has never stopped us from doing it, or attempting to do it, in good faith.
Peter Dowd
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the Bill before us is a breach of a treaty or agreement. I will leave that question in the air while I let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
Jim Shannon
Everyone in this House respects the hon. Gentleman for his honesty, and for the way he has stood up for justice. In all the debates we have been in, in Westminster Hall or this Chamber, he has epitomised those who seek justice and honesty. However, in his contribution today, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, of Unionists and of all those who wish to have their rights restored through this Bill have not been referred to. I ask the hon. Gentleman I know to take that on board, and to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland; unfortunately, he has not done that so far.
Peter Dowd
I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of what I am saying. I would not say it is not fair, but I am genuinely trying to be as conciliatory as I can be given the circumstances in relation to the question of trust. The question is this: is this Bill a breach of an agreement or a treaty? In my view it is, and I think most people are not denying that assertion. There may be some people who do so, but as a House of Commons paper of 4 December says on page 17:
“No rule of a state’s domestic law can be used to justify a breach of its existing international obligations. This principle is set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”
I genuinely believe that I am bound by that. We can caveat any breach of international law until the cows come home; it can be claimed that it is out of the concept of necessity as referred to before in terms of international law. However, although we can claim whatever we want, it does not wash with other countries with which we have negotiated, and that in a sense is all there is to that particular point.
Jim Allister
In pursuit of the hon. Member’s filibuster, he tells us how much he adheres to international law. Why does he not adhere to the declaration and the principles of international law from the United Nations of 24 October 1970, which says in very emphatic terms that there is a duty in treaties
“not to intervene in matters within domestic jurisdiction of any State”
and that the principles of international law require respect for territorial integrity? If those are the principles and the Windsor framework infringes on those principles, is it not the Windsor framework that is flawed, and not the declaration of fundamental principles?
Peter Dowd
No, I disagree. If I am being honest, I think that view is predicated on a fallacy. I do not want to use those words, as I am trying to be as temperate as I possibly can be, but I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is using that reference somewhat inappropriately. As I said, we can caveat any breach of international law that we like, but it comes back to the question of what our partners or co-signatories think.
It is worthwhile exploring that concept in a little more detail, because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities as a custodian—I choose that word with care, for that is what we are—of international law, and not just in relation to any particular treaty, but in general terms.
Ms Creasy
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is one that he and I have lived and breathed as Members elected prior to 2024 and indeed prior to 2019, when the legislation at the heart of this matter was constructed in this place. We were on the Opposition Benches at the time and we all had to look at the concept of international relations and what would happen because of the Brexit votes. It was striking that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) promoting this legislation talked as if that had never happened. We have been there before in all of this. There are no perfect solutions; that is part of the challenge that Brexit created for all of us. But in looking at what we do next, understanding that breaching international protocols has consequences is as important as thinking about what we do when we breach those international protocols, as we did with Brexit.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement.
I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are.
Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.
Peter Dowd
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.
Peter Dowd
Just a moment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call a Westminster Hall debate in relation to a whole series of breaches of treaties—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be in his place for a Westminster Hall debate whoever secures it. If anyone wants to secure a Westminster Hall debate to tease out those matters in a little bit more detail and in an atmosphere that is a little less fraught, I would be more than happy to be there either as the Chair or as a participating Member.
Peter Dowd
I am coming to a close, but I will give way. I have found this subject to be crucial to the wider constitutional and democratic process of which we are all supportive. There are times when people are unhappy with decisions, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will continue to be unhappy, so I will let him speak.
Robin Swann
It is not that I am unhappy, and I applaud the hon. Member for the tone he has brought to the debate in opposition to the Bill; it is that we want to see a resolution to these things. He talks about breaking agreements and when trust is removed, which brings me back to my intervention about the Belfast agreement and how Lord Trimble said that the protocol
“demolishes the agreement’s central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is required to change Northern Ireland’s status.”
I gently remind the hon. Member of that persuasion.
I am also reminded of the contribution that Lady Sylvia Hermon made when she was in this place in challenging the former Deputy Prime Minister about the Belfast agreement. When he started to talk about it, she simply asked whether he had read it. I simply encourage any hon. Members in opposition to the Bill to ensure that they have actually read the Belfast agreement before quoting it.
Peter Dowd
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I was going to quote from the Belfast agreement in detail, but I decided not to do so. I did read it, and I remember it at the time as well. I implore him not to push me on that matter.
There are times when I have been unhappy with the decisions made. I have been perplexed when, during the Parliaments I have been part of, conventions and understandings that had been in operation for decades were pushed aside for short-term political expediency. It is one thing to go down that path in the operation of the workings of this House, but it is another to invoke that type of approach when dealing with agreements and treaties, especially when those are with trading partners and neighbours.
I was tempted to explore the Bill clause by clause—all 25 of them—in this contribution, but I resisted—[Interruption.] I did, and it was born out of discipline and willpower. I decided not to test the patience of the Chair and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will draw my contribution to a close, and hope that hon. Members across the House take what I have said in good faith and without any rancour.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I will respond in, hopefully, the same tone and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I suspect there is a big prize for him waiting in the Government Whips Office after this debate. He welcomed every intervention going. I do not besmirch his character at all, but since he suggested that there is interest in the concerns being raised by the Unionist community, I reflect that with almost two hours left of a five-hour debate, I am the third speaker. Scores of Members from Northern Ireland on both sides of the Chamber will probably not get the opportunity to make their point and represent their constituents, because of a quest to make sure that the Bill is talked out. I say, respectfully, that the hon. Member did exactly what he was asked to do, but when considering these issues, I am not sure just how constructive that will prove to be.
The hon. Gentleman said in his remarks that we will be able to deal with issues as time goes by. I have watched “As Time Goes By” on repeat on UKTV Gold, and I have watched people in this Chamber say that we will deal with these issues “as time go by”. Here is an opportunity to engage in the concerns that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised, having received support from across the Unionist spectrum in Northern Ireland to raise them. Yet, as time goes by, though it is said that we shall not be dismissed or demeaned in the position that we are putting forward, that is exactly what is happening.
I stand not only as leader of my party and my colleagues, but as a co-sponsor of the hon. Member’s Bill. I commend him on the position that he has outlined to the Chamber today and on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot. He is not a gambler—anyone who listens to him will know that he will put forward his principled position without fear or favour—but he took a chance and he has this opportunity. I commend him on doing so in a collective and cohesive way that has allowed for greater co-operation not just from those in Northern Ireland, but from across the country. He should be commended for that.
The hon. Member and I embarked on this journey in the same position as we approached the 2016 vote. Although over the intervening years there have been a few crossed paths, a few cross words and the odd crossed sword, I suspect that it is good, fitting and encouraging for people at home that today we are speaking with one voice about these issues.
I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bootle that one of the best ways to deal with the issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and me, and supported by colleagues in their own remarks, is to honour agreements that have been reached. When the hon. and learned Member said in his remarks that it seemed as if the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to “suck it up,” the Minister said from a sedentary position—I hope she will not fall out with me for sharing this—“No, we fight to maintain the Union.” [Interruption.] She is agreeing.
However, whenever agreement was reached earlier this year, the “Safeguarding the Union” paper outlined a number of stepping stones to a better place. The Minister and her colleagues present voted in favour of that agreement. They recognised the recurring issues in Northern Ireland, and the harm that those issues were causing the people of Northern Ireland and consumers, no matter the constitutional outlook. If constitutional principles are not shared, it harms ordinary people in Northern Ireland. They voted for solutions on an interim basis—a stepping-stone approach—to move these issues forward. Where are we on that today? What is the Government’s position on eradicating routine checks within the UK’s internal market system? They voted for it in this House back in February, and they did so because they recognised the constitutional implications that checks were having and the practical frustrations they were causing consumers in Northern Ireland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The right hon. Gentleman is addressing an important part of the Bill’s purpose—from all the rhetorical issues right down to hard tacks. The previous Government went into the negotiations on the Windsor framework because it had dawned on, and been agreed by, the European Union that the protocol was not working. It recognised that nothing is fixed; these things are about experience, and then tempering that experience and changing. Labour Members keep saying, “You’ve reached an agreement and you will breach it,” but the real principle behind that is to recognise that there are still fundamental flaws, and that we could agree a better way to harmonise everybody in that respect.
Gavin Robinson
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for co-sponsoring the Bill and being present today. He is right: the people who say in this or other debates that we cannot change what is written in tablets of stone are of the very party that was, from 1998, part of securing the Good Friday agreement, which was worked on in a political way, with parties in Northern Ireland, including my own, and changed time and again through processes at Leeds castle, the St Andrews agreement and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The very arguments that they are deploying against change ignore the fact that they have a history of doing exactly the same thing—particularly on the Belfast agreement, which they often suggest is written in tablets of stone.
Jim Shannon
Let me quote someone from a small business that relies on supplies from Etsy. They say:
“I simply cannot continue without this supply. My suppliers have said that they can’t understand the system and can’t afford to look into this any further. Therefore, I am cut off. I am having to give notice to my landlord. I was barely making ends meet as it was - another business lost.”
The Bill is an opportunity to retrieve that and every other business, which would help the economy in Northern Ireland to thrive and create jobs. The Government need to do something.
Gavin Robinson
That is a fair point, and illustrates the requirement to honour the agreement—supported by the Minister and her Labour colleagues back in February—to eradicate routine checks within the UK internal market system. Does that deal with all the issues? No, it does not. Does it deal with what is in the red lane? No, it does not. Does it deal with the constitutional impurity of the overarching framework? No, it does not. But is it a step forward? Does it remove the frustration of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who does not share my constitutional outlook? Yes, it does, and it should have been delivered in October.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has also included in the Bill aspects on customs and parcels—another commitment made back in February and supported by the Labour Government. It was to be implemented in October this year, but they delayed it. The Minister and Members should know that we did not get overly exercised by the delay, because we recognise that it will be implemented by the end of the financial year. However, owing to the practicalities, the fact that attention was diverted because of the general election and all the rest, it did not happen in October. It is happening, which is good, but it is being done in a way that recognises the overarching imposition that we have from relationships that are totally unnecessary.
If the business run by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is bringing in thread, wool and felt from Etsy to make craft, I defy any Member to stand up and indicate how that will have a material impact on the integrity of the single market. I defy any Member to stand up and give me an example—other than from “The Lord of the Rings”—of where a tree has come from GB to NI and been planted, and has then got up and walked across the border. It does not happen, yet we are told that sending a tree from Stranraer to Belfast would destroy the sanitary and phytosanitary integrity of the single market. It is a nonsense.
We are having to live with, and try to work through, the practical solutions to the overarching imposition that this Parliament agreed to, in spite of the concerns raised by people like me who were here during the Brexit years, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) was. We raised concerns, but we were ignored. So when people stand up in 2024 and say, “Why are we still talking about an issue that started in 2016?”, it is because Members on both sides of the House did not listen to the warnings, the concerns, and the opportunities for compromise and agreement. Moreover, in repeating the same approach today, we are storing up greater potential for frustration in the future.
Gavin Robinson
I will not give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because I am giving way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).
Ms Creasy
The right hon. Gentleman actually knows that I have a lot of sympathy for his frustrations, because none of us should ever say there is a perfect solution to the challenges that he presents. That was always why many of us were concerned about the idea of Brexit, but we know that Brexit has happened. Once it happened, it created a series of problems. Does he recognise that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat that he is setting out, and that this legislation actually takes us back to those old arguments?
By working together in this United Kingdom Parliament, we could look at how we get a better SPS deal, and at how we deal with the problems that the border operating model has created, so that all our constituents can benefit. We cannot go backwards; Brexit has happened and created all these problems. Those who advocated for it may wish to reflect on that, but we can go forward by trying to tease out better solutions. They will not be perfect, but they could be better. This legislation is not the solution, but I will offer a hand of friendship across the Chamber to find better solutions, if he is game.
Gavin Robinson
I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s last line; I will leave it to others to determine. She and I have engaged with each other—sometimes helpfully, and sometimes crossly—for years. When there are opportunities to work together to benefit my constituency or anybody else’s in the United Kingdom, I will do it. What I am actually doing at the moment is sharing agreements that were reached. She and her colleagues voted for them, yet we are still waiting for their implementation.
Let me give another one: an agreement outlined in “Safeguarding the Union” required a labelling regime across the United Kingdom. The reason for that was that there were no cost implications or benefits for businesses in Scotland, England and Wales if they simply chose not to supply our market in Northern Ireland. We have heard every hue and cry from drinks manufacturers and food manufacturers across the United Kingdom, who have said that this is costly and will cause them difficulty, yet Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco simply put it on their best-before date line. It costs them nothing, but what does it ensure? No divergence of trade within our own country. What does it ensure? Access to the Northern Ireland market and the removal of a disincentive.
What have we heard? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no interest in honouring the very aspect of the agreement that Labour supported back in February. It is now saying, “Yes, we will take the power, but we will not use it, unless—”. Unless what? It is repudiating a commitment from an agreement that it supported, but it will not say what is the trigger point. At what point is it OK for it to step in? At what point should Northern Ireland be disenfranchised before our sovereign Government and our sovereign Parliament will take steps to protect the consumer interests of the people of Northern Ireland? We do not know, but what we do know is that even when they have been prepared to engage in discussions that are of practical benefit to the people of Northern Ireland to resolve these issues—and Labour supported those—there has not been full and faithful implementation. It is not governed by the Vienna convention, but we are not seeing that full and faithful implementation.
Sammy Wilson
My right hon. Friend says that even when solutions are found, they are not implemented. We have heard examples of things that people never imagined would be problems becoming problems. The fact is that every time a solution is found, because we in Northern Ireland are subject to laws that are different from those in the UK, new problems arise. Unless we deal with the fundamental issue, namely what is causing the problems, we will be continually looking for solutions and continually fighting to get them implemented, and that is not good either for business in Northern Ireland or for confidence in the Union.
Gavin Robinson
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What have we achieved over the last five years? A game, and not a very enjoyable game, of whack-a-mole, for it is about as strategic as whack-a-mole. An issue comes up involving the VAT margin schemes for second-car salesmen; we find a solution. Then another issue pops up, and another, and another. Whack-a-mole! That is the best strategic approach that this Government, and the previous Government, have adopted to deal with issues that are affecting us because of the decision taken back in 2019.
I remember the parliamentary discourse about the quest for agreement, but I know this. When the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] Just let me finish. No need for your wee quips. When Boris Johnson engaged with this issue, in respect of the protocol, he went to the Wirral for a walkabout in a wedding venue with Leo Varadkar, and became smitten with Leo. He ditched the democratic consent principles in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. It was always part of the preceding arrangements that a consent vote in Northern Ireland would adhere to the consent principles in the Belfast agreement, and Boris Johnson ditched them.
In “Safeguarding the Union”, there was a commitment to remove and repeal a legacy provision in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on having due regard to an all-island economy—a commitment that Labour supported, but now repudiate because it is in “Safeguarding the Union”. Let me remind the House that it is only in “Safeguarding the Union” because it features in the Windsor framework. Much of the approach from the Government Benches seems to amount to “We cannot achieve anything with the European Union unless we demonstrate our trust and our integrity—or our servitude!—to the European Union.” Paragraph 53 of the Windsor framework indicates very clearly that there is no need to have a legal due regard to an all-island economy that does not exist. Anyone who stands up here today and talks about their full-throated support for the Windsor framework should read what paragraph 53 has to say about the all-island economy. It is a matter of fact that we do not have an all-island economy; we have strands within our economy that operate on a cross-border basis in the context of two legal jurisdictions, two tax jurisdictions, two currency jurisdictions, two VAT jurisdictions and two regulatory jurisdictions, unless covered under annex 2 of the protocol. We do not have an all-island economy. It is a superfluous piece of legislation that is drawn out of the joint report from 2017, and it should go. It should go because I say so; it should go because it was agreed under the Windsor framework, which is quickly forgotten and ignored.
We have talked about article 2 in this debate. No one on this side of the Chamber is indicating that we should leave, through this argument, the European convention on human rights, nor that we should replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which embeds those commitments in our domestic legislation. The argument being raised on article 2 of the Windsor framework is that what has been presented as an international treaty, an agreement and a resolution on trade is impacting and frustrating the ability of this sovereign Parliament because of how the courts in Northern Ireland are interpreting the provisions on myriad areas outside trade.
Immigration is a classic example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right that we worked on this and we talked about this, but let me be very clear: whenever I stood up in this Chamber on behalf of my colleagues as our spokesman on home affairs to say that I would not vote for the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it was not because I did not think there was an issue with immigration. I do. It was not because I was ill-prepared to support Government in their endeavours. I was prepared to do so. I said this in this Chamber and my colleagues supported me: it was because, though the Government said that the provisions would apply in Northern Ireland, we were indicating that they would not.
The very same people who told me that the immigration legislation would apply in Northern Ireland launched a leadership campaign on the back of the arguments I was making afterward. We were right, but it is wrong that a trading agreement should have any impact whatever on the ability of this sovereign Parliament to set a uniform immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. It was wrong then, and I am glad that the Secretary of State on Wednesday night indicated that that is a ground of appeal that the Government are bringing forward, because it is wrong.
Gavin Robinson
I hope, if I agree to allow the hon. Member for Walthamstow to intervene once more, and once more only, that she will agree that it is right to sort that issue, too.
Ms Creasy
The right hon. Gentleman is right. He and I may disagree about how to resolve it though, which is what I want to ask him about so that I do not misunderstand him. That disagreement was about the right to remedy being removed from people in Northern Ireland seeking asylum; in other words, it was the right to petition to an external court to uphold your rights. This Bill removes the domestic legal effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework and breaches paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 4 of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement, which require that individuals be enabled “to rely directly” on the provisions of that treaty.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is right? Many of us believe that there is a libertarian argument for a third-party court to uphold the rights of citizens, whether that relates to contract law and what they are sold or to their basic human rights. Is he saying that his resolution is that the right for citizens to petition a third party to protect themselves against the Government should be removed from the people of Northern Ireland?
Gavin Robinson
Our judiciary are independent from the Government as well, as she knows. At first instance, in the High Court in Northern Ireland, citizens can draw upon legal jurisprudence within the European system without needing to go to the final arbitrary appeal of a third party. She knows that. The hon. Lady and I have parsed the course on many occasions. Despite all the suggestions made by Members, when challenged, that they are prepared to engage in the debate on this legislation or on the wider issues affecting Northern Ireland seriously, earnestly and with a willingness to resolve problems, there have been an awful lot of giggling Gerties and Cyril Sneers across the Chamber. There has been an awful lot of dismissal of concerns that have not been raised for the first time today—they have been raised on many, many occasions.
It is not just immigration that has been encroached because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, but legacy, which was the basis on which the Secretary of State raised this issue on Wednesday night. The legacy of our troubled past is an important issue, and it has absolutely nothing to do with international trade or trade within our own country—yet here is a case predicated on article 2 of the Windsor framework, which is frustrating this Parliament’s ability to legislate on that issue. That cannot be right. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down seeking to intervene, or is she just waving supportively?
Claire Hanna
I was agreeing with the right hon. Member that the trade rules have nothing to do with the past. I was also hoping to remind him that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who spoke before him and tried to equate the murderous campaign of the IRA with the protocol, degrades everybody in this Chamber, and degrades every victim of that campaign. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows that. I am sure he agrees with me, and that he was as mortified as everybody I know hearing that.
Gavin Robinson
I regard the hon. Lady as well, as she knows. She has made that point now on two occasions, and she is free to do so.
I want to come back to the SPS point that has been raised on a number of occasions. Here I stand as a Unionist Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, having engaged on these issues for the past eight years, as have my colleagues in this place, whether recently or over the same period of time—nobody sitting behind me has a shorter political career than I do; in fact, almost all have a much longer political career. We have engaged on these issues because we have been trying to find solutions that work for the people of Northern Ireland. Sometimes that causes discord among us. Sometimes the best tactical way of achieving that does not meet unanimity or agreement. I am sharing with Members present that when we make progress and make achievements, we want to see them implemented, and there is no trust or honour earned when those agreements are breached or not fulfilled.
We are invited to wait for an SPS agreement. I just want to be very clear that in a debate such as today’s, on the Windsor framework and the EU withdrawal Bill that the hon. and learned Member has presented, the Paymaster General should be here. The Paymaster General, who has been charged by the Prime Minister to engage with the European Union and resolve these issues, should be in this Chamber. I greatly respect the Minister present, but some of the issues being raised are for the Paymaster General. It is he who intends to go and secure this SPS agreement.
Let me say very clearly to Government Members who think that such an agreement is the answer to all of our problems: it is not. There is a world in which that process could provide solutions and get equilibrium across the United Kingdom on SPS issues alone. However, nobody has yet said that that will see the removal of the overarching framework that is causing the imposition; nobody has once suggested that once reached, all the legislative requirements and the constitutional and practical impositions would dissolve. Nobody has suggested that, and that is problematic. The fact that the agreement would be a single solution for SPS and would not touch on any of the other areas of law is problematic.
However, what is most fundamental? The Paymaster General knows as well as I do that the European Union does not see this process concluding within the next two or three years. I do not think it is appropriate or acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to wait so long.
The Paymaster General has not indicated what the content of his agreement should look like, nor the content he would like to achieve. I understand that this week—only this week, some six months into government—he has written to the devolved Administrations asking for ideas as to what that process would look like; only this week, six months in, for a key plank of the Government’s approach to resetting their relationship with the EU. That is simply not acceptable.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member. I came here today because of the harm that the botched Brexit deal has done to my communities, and because of my fear for what this Bill would do to those communities and the economies in the centre of London. He talks about the frustrating delays in implementing some of the solutions that he believes could make a difference, but I am confused about why he and the Bill’s supporters think that going back so many years, as the Bill proposes, would actually help to make progress on the many issues that I think all Members—even on the Labour Benches—still believe need to be fixed.
The right hon. Gentleman supports the Bill, so will he explain why going back might help us to move forward on some of the areas where we think there needs to be progress?
Gavin Robinson
This Bill does not take us back. If we are interested in building trust and resetting our relationship with the European Union, why is it not conceivable that we could get to a place where we respect one another, acknowledge one another’s purity of legal services and legal systems, and recognise the importance of the rule of law and the ability to mutually enforce standards with one another? Why is that so inconceivable?
Why is it possible for the European Union to outline a system that allows goods to move from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland and into GB without any border checks, but not the other way around? Why? Will anyone stand back and ask themselves whether all of this, with the attendant hassle and constitutional impairment, is necessary or worth it? It cannot be sustained, neither practically nor pragmatically.
The impositions are not required. We started this journey in a place of equilibrium on standards. When we left the European Union, our standards and theirs were exactly the same. Mutual enforcement was not mythical then, and it is not magical now. There is no reason why I cannot conceive a solution based on a reset of relations, if necessary, and a rebuilding of trust so that mutual enforcement is the better answer.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
If the Bill is talked out, as seems almost inevitable given the attitude of Labour Members, the Prime Minister has indicated that he will speak with representatives of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the next few days. If the Labour Government are saying, “Yes, there is an opportunity to make progress and, yes, there are difficulties to be resolved,” does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity in the next few days for the Prime Minister to tell us exactly what he is going to do if Labour Members do not support the Bill?
Gavin Robinson
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.”
Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend not find it even stranger that for products moving from the Republic of Ireland into GB, the Government rushed to find an accommodation? Only last week, the Minister told us that she was totally satisfied that checks away from the border would be perfectly suitable because producers in the Republic of Ireland were getting concerned about access to the GB market, yet our Government cannot find any urgency for facilitating the movement of products from GB to Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
My right hon. Friend is right. That is where it becomes thoroughly obnoxious for people in Northern Ireland. They say, “Whatever the constitutional views are, and whatever the Labour position on this and the Conservative position on that, why am I being impinged on? Why am I being treated differently? If a workaround is available that allows goods from the Republic of Ireland into the GB market, why is there not one for me?”.
When we talk about market access and the UK internal market system, we are in principle talking about a marketplace—somewhere to both buy and sell, where trade flows in both directions. However, when Government Members talk about market access, they all too often consider one direction only, and not the implications for businesses in Northern Ireland.
I will conclude with a point about the democratic scrutiny mechanism and the vote that is due on Tuesday. The arrangements are a complete inversion of the commitments that were given in the Belfast agreement. They were brought forward following Boris Johnson’s bedazzlement with Leo Varadkar in the Wirral. The protections that were offered to the people of Northern Ireland were stripped away in haste as a result of that political union. It has left us in a position where, even though cross-community support will not be attained, articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework will continue.
There is a strong argument, which others have made, that we should not countenance that process with our presence, but as I said at our party conference in September and since, we will be there on Tuesday. If the vote proceeds, we will vote against the continued application of the Windsor framework, in the knowledge that if we demonstrate our opposition, we will not leave anybody on other Benches or in the European Union with the chance credibly to argue, “They weren’t even interested enough to vote—they didn’t even turn up.” With our vote and our voice, we will demonstrate our opposition to the continued application of the framework.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for his Bill. It is disappointing that I will not get to make a speech on it; I trust that you will show me a little leniency, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my intervention as I have deliberately not jumped up and down during others’ speeches.
Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) agree that those in this House underestimate at their peril the damage caused by the current arrangements? Unionism is reeling at the fact that our mother Parliament has sacrificed and continues to sacrifice Northern Ireland on the altar of political expediency. Unionism has had enough. Businesses and consumers have had enough. They cannot get plants, seeds or trees from GB. They cannot bring in farm machinery, just because it may have British soil on its wheels. They cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland. All traditions in Northern Ireland—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think the hon. Lady has made her point. I call Gavin Robinson.
Gavin Robinson
I acknowledge the position that my hon. Friend outlines in her contribution. I wish it was not the case that so few Members will get to contribute. Indeed, I arranged for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) to lead for my party on the Bill—but he decided that I should—because I want to ensure that people get the opportunity to contribute.
Just as we make our point today, we will make it on Tuesday. I encourage other Unionists to vote with us. It will trigger a review that I think will be important; I hope that it will not be dismissed in the way that the concerns being raised today or in the past are being dismissed by Members here. The review will take evidence and suggest how the arrangements may change. The purpose of Intertrade UK and the independent monitoring panel was to provide an evidence base for us to draw on when the review was triggered, but another aspect of the Government’s inability to honour the commitments they entered into back in January and February is that their reluctance and lethargy means that that information will not be available. That is a shame. It is a complete shame that the work was put in to make sure that we could have these discussions in a robust, evidence-based and honourable way, but the information simply will not be available.
I wish the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim well with his Bill. He knows the frailties of the private Member’s Bill process, and we do not know where the Bill will end up, but the issues raised and the principles engaged, and the imperative to keep working at this properly, to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland in our United Kingdom, will not be diminished today, and they will not go away.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I do not intend to speak long; that will allow others to get in, but it is primarily because we have spoken about this issue morning, noon and night for much of the past eight years and because Northern Ireland in general wants to move on. The hearts of people at home are sinking at the prospect of going back in time, of our heading like a demented moth towards the hard Brexit flame, and of our reopening debates from a time that was so destructive to our public services and our economy. That was a time when our economy, our jobs and our crumbling health service were put on the back burner while we indulged in years of discussions about sausages and smoky bacon crisps. We remember the menacing rallies that accompanied those discussions, and the way the Northern Ireland Assembly was held down. The people I represent do not recognise the “Mad Max” scenario that Members continue to paint in which there is a lack of food and other products on our shelves. That is not the reality that people are living in.
I do not want to relitigate all that has happened since 2016, but it is fair to say that Brexit sharpened all the lines that the Good Friday agreement was designed to soften around identity, sovereignty and borders. It is a fact that has not really been mentioned—I am not a majoritarian person—but Northern Ireland very clearly rejected Brexit in 2016. In the eight subsequent elections, in increasing numbers, it has supported parties and candidates who have sought to put mitigations in place. My party and I will stand by every decision we took in those years. In this Chamber, the other Chamber and the media, we begged Unionist Members not to make this a winner-takes-all scenario, not to follow Boris Johnson down yet another blind alley, not to take the assurances that they were being given. In all those times, there was not a whisper about consent, consensus or cross-community affairs.
Many of the people I deal with see the implementation difficulties. Brexit was entirely a project about trade friction, and it has created friction for many people. Those people, including small businesses and the people I represent, absolutely want to address those issues. They want to streamline processes and to use the framework provided to solve problems. They do not want to tear down the edifice of the solutions, as the Bill would do. In fact, last week, the Northern Ireland Assembly, as Unionist Members will know, endorsed my party’s proposals for moving forward—proposals not to rejoin the European Union, not to cancel Brexit, not to reopen all those wounds, but to look to the future, so that our voices are heard in decision making, and to try to grab every single economic opportunity that comes our way, east and west, and north and south.
My party and the people who opposed Brexit have never tried to make people choose between trade and possibility in either direction. We believe that we have been handed some lemons by Brexit, but we are ready to make lemonade. The lengthy opening speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will do nothing to allay the fears of many of my constituents that at its heart, this is about repudiating rights and hardening the rules on movement of people and goods, north and south. It feels to many people that that is what he is attempting to do, as well as to bring in the legacy of the past.
Jim Allister
It appears that the hon. Member has not been listening. The whole focus of my speech was on how we give back rights to the people of Northern Ireland and sort out our trade across the border, not the opposite. She has a rich heritage of advocating for cross-community issues. I have two questions, if she will address them. First, does she think that the decision on Tuesday in the Assembly is key, in that the Assembly will say for the next four years, “We are prepared to accept whatever laws from Brussels, even laws we do not even know about yet”? Secondly, if it is a key decision, why should it not be taken on a cross-community basis?
Claire Hanna
Of course I was listening. I do listen, and as the hon. and learned Member said, I try to find consensus, but people were forced to listen, because—for whatever reason—large parts of the media have indulged this argument for many years. He knows that he has had an outsized platform in the media. We have listened and tried to resolve this issue. As I have stated very clearly numerous times over the past eight years and in the past few minutes, unfortunately, no consent for Brexit was sought or given. That decision was not afforded the luxury of being cross-community, so we have to protect the mitigations through a majority vote as well. As I say, everybody wants to solve the problems, but I do not hear any solutions. We get more of the magical sovereignty dust, the Henry VIII powers, and suggestions that some future Minister will come up with some solution that has not appeared in the past eight years. This is about solving problems, Jim; that is what people elect us to do.
Claire Hanna
I will tell the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim that our constituents elect us not to mine grievances, or to use the protocol as a receptacle for every bit of frustration about progress and the modern world, but to solve the problems that are before them. That is all that is left for us to do, calmly as leaders and as neighbours—to work through the challenges, streamline the processes, find workarounds and accept the honour of compromise. We got Brexit, which a lot of us did not want, but we are also getting the protections to help mitigate it and reconcile it with our politics and our geography.
I said this earlier, and will say it again: hundreds of thousands of us constitutionally compromise every day, because we are democrats and because we accept the principle of consent and the framework that most people in Northern Ireland want. There was, if not rejoicing, certainly respect for the fact that the Democratic Unionist party appeared to accept that in February, when it brought back the Assembly and agreed to work through these solutions, but it continues to rankle with people that constitutional compromise is expected of those of us who are not Unionists, but will not be tolerated by those who are. Let us move forward—that is what the people have consistently asked us to do in eight elections, and it is what the Assembly asked us to do last week. Let us grab the opportunities. Yes, dual market access is not perfect, but we have heard from businesses time and again that the first thing they want from us is stability. I am begging Members opposite to ensure that stability, and not to tear down the structures that it has taken eight years for us to create. I do not believe the electorate will forgive you if you do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
“Him”, not “you”. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will try to be as brief as possible, to allow others to speak.
I wish to come to what the Bill is actually about, rather than what people say it is about, but first I want to dispel the idea that it would mean going backwards. The idea of mutual enforcement in fact originated, as others have said, in the EU itself at the time. It came from those who were tasked, as senior officials—British and others—to come forward with a solution, before the end of the Brexit debates and so on, with an alternative way to make the borders work and to take the heat out of what later became really quite powerful and ended up with a Government literally unable to move any motion at all and have it succeed.
I have personal experience of this issue because, when there was a break in the negotiations between the UK Government—who handled it pretty badly at the time, by the way—and the Commission, I managed somehow to get a team of people together to go and see Monsieur Barnier directly. We sat at a table with all his negotiators, and a few of ours who were there, and we talked through the principles. This was before mutual enforcement became a concept, but we talked about what already existed in the EU with others from outside the EU and inside the EU, and how they traded. We ended up reaching very much the same conclusion as originally reached by Sir Jonathan Faull and others: that mutual enforcement was the better deal. Monsieur Barnier agreed with us. At the end of that agreement—I can see him following me out as I put my coat on—he said, “The principle behind any chance of this being agreed is that we must have trust. Without trust, we cannot have an agreement.”
The sad part about it was that when I came back to the UK to speak to my Government, they did not want to take any interest in that as a departure. They had already got bogged down in other areas. Sadly, two weeks later, what actually happened was that the Government went back in and carried on with their complicated and hopeless negotiation, without first setting out the principle of what they wanted. I think Monsieur Barnier was open to that and I think the EU wanted mutual enforcement. At that stage, there was no question about weaponising the border; it was about how we could reach an agreement. We could have done much more then, and I still today think that this idea is it.
The Bill, then, is not about going backwards in the sense that it destroys what we have done; it actually says something about what we have done so far in two stages. The protocol, it seems to me, could only ever have been temporary, and the Windsor agreement, which I did not support, opened up the negotiation again, which was good, but the ask was so limited, and in some ways rather restrictive, that we have ended up with the principle being there, but the practical bit does not work. That was the moment when we should have used the opportunity to go back into mutual enforcement. What is so wrong about that? The EU already uses the principle in its dealings with other countries.
As I said in an intervention earlier, the classic example is New Zealand. The EU trusts the New Zealand veterinary officers—particular key ones, but they trust them all once they are registered—to say whether certain foodstuffs are, under SPS rules, packaged properly and agreeable under the EU rules. They are trusted to say that EU rules are met. That is a critical component. When those foodstuffs are shipped and arrive at Rotterdam, most often it comes up on the computer and they are waved through. Any checks that have to take place in Rotterdam for non-EU countries take place 30 km behind the border, and they are spot checks just in case something has happened en route or something else has changed on the way. In other words, things move smoothly through. But such arrangements were not agreed in the various agreements here.
Eventually, in trying to draft this idea together, I sat down with others to try to figure out how we could make mutual enforcement work. I give credit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for having brought forward the Bill, because it gives us a chance to debate the matter. I know very well what goes on in this Chamber and I know only too well how Fridays work, and the sad part is that if the Government do not want to have any further debate on something, they arrange for it to be talked out. It has happened on both sides; cynicism exists on all sides. I understand that. Lots of people will have come in, particularly from London because they are closer, and they will do what they have to do to talk this out. The Bill is not going to get through; I never expected it to. [Interruption.] Honestly, do not object; Government Members know very well that that is exactly what happens. Some will be here because they believe in something—I look across at my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—but the majority are not. Therefore, let us just understand fundamentally what we could have been discussing and what the current Government could now be engaged in; they could be talking to the EU about changing these arrangements.
The current arrangements are damaging relationships and causing issues around Northern Ireland. We know that; nobody is arguing that that is not the case. If we have such problems that affect the constitution and the smooth running of businesses both in Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom, then surely any Government would want to make sure those are settled. It is not a polemic, it is not a right or left wing thing to do; it is called practical governance to try to figure out how this works.
I did not agree with my Government when they brought forward the Windsor agreement in its final stages, and I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought they had lost a real opportunity. The EU had accepted that its imposition earlier on did not work and it had to change it, but what we ended up with was a de minimis change which did not solve the problems; in fact some of them have got worse.
When we strip out all the politics, the key component is that mutual enforcement requires each side to make reciprocal legal commitments to each other and to enforce the rules of the other with respect to trade across the border. In other words, we would accept that where our exporters export to the EU, we are responsible if they breach EU regulations. So if the EU says a company or individual is exporting goods in breach of the terms of its trade, the UK Government will take the responsibility to proceed against them, and vice versa for the EU.
That does not require no border, because there has always been a border in Northern Ireland; we just do not want a hard border. That was always the issue. People talk about borders, but they mean a hard border. I had some experience of that when I had to man one of the checkpoints there when I was sent to Northern Ireland. I hated doing it, but that was a hard border. We do not want a hard border and mutual enforcement obviates the need for a hard border. Borders will exist, and we talked about that in terms of currency and VAT.
Mr Gregory Campbell
On this mythical hard border, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to implement such a thing for any land border of 300 miles with 280 crossing points, and that the process we are embarked upon is trying to get a two-way flow of trade that obviates the need for any of those checks anywhere on the border?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The real point is getting rid of the Irish sea checks; it is anathema that one part of the United Kingdom is now treated separately from the rest of the UK. That is surely a reasonable idea and if it is in this Bill then the Government should want to take it through to the next stage and debate it. This is what the Bill does. Mutual enforcement does not of itself remove customs duties; neither does it harmonise or require mutual recognition of standards. It works by inverting the usual approach to customs enforcement; duties may, for example, be imposed for anti-dumping reasons or due to subsidies that one party claims are injurious to itself or to companies as a result of goods failing to qualify for zero duty under rules of origin. That is what the Bill does. All the rest that has been talked about is not in this Bill; it is very simple and very practical. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK already has an agreed mechanism, which is very important for identifying and addressing these distortions. If we are able to allow that and make changes, that is how it will work.
There are other areas, too, which I will speed through as quickly as possible. Mutual enforcement can also under these terms accommodate the collection of customs duty. The detailed procedures are obviously beyond the scope of briefing papers and the Bill, but the reality is that we could have a system whereby an order of goods from the UK to the Republic of Ireland triggers a UK export declaration and an EU import declaration such that in terms of the EU’s customs data any sums owed are put into the goods invoice and paid by the importer to the exporter. There are many other ways ahead that can be facilitated, particularly now that almost all of this is done using modern technology, not large sheathes of paper and with a man standing at the border with a ladle to check whether the brandy being imported or exported tastes like brandy. That does not happen any longer, but from some of the debates it would seem somehow we have not moved on from 17th-century customs requirements.
To ensure compliance with this regime, a penalty in this arrangement would apply to those parties who failed to follow the procedure. The penalty would apply to both exporters and hauliers, therefore incentivising all parties involved in the carriage of goods to ensure that appropriate EU customs duties are paid. By the way, the same would be required in the Republic for its importers. It should be noted—this is the important bit that has gone missing—that an analogous system would in any event be required for the red and green lane approach prescribed in the Windsor framework.
Is this going back? No. It is using what we have and ultimately making it better. That seems to me the practical principle behind this idea of mutual enforcement. We should have started in this place, but we now have an opportunity to look at this issue and decide if there is a better way to do it that will take some of the good stuff already there and improve it by saying to the EU that we want a smooth process between the EU and the UK, because everything else then follows. Many EU members already agree; I have heard their discussions.
I cannot remember who it was, but somebody got up and said, “Did we not think they were allies? Did we not think they were friends?” It is because we think they are allies and friends that we want to get rid of the things that make us have rows and arguments about the most practical issues that could be dealt with. That is the point of this mutual enforcement process: to get rid of the ludicrous arguments about who we are and who they are. We can then be very good allies and friends, which we are and will need to be over the next few years, as we enter arguably the most dangerous time that I can remember.
I have a point for the Government. Given that almost identical rules apply in the EU and the UK, the EU could, and arguably should, negotiate an SPS equivalence agreement with the UK, as it has done for countries as far away as Canada and New Zealand, as I have said before.
Jim Allister
Given the right hon. Member’s experience of international affairs, what does he think are the prospects for the present arrangements? Are they an incentive or a disincentive to securing a trade deal with the United States of America?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thought the hon. and learned Member might tempt me down that road. Whether we have a trade deal with the United States of America is way beyond my paygrade. No Government I could ever join would ever have me, so on that basis I will answer from my own perspective. Yes, there is a change in Administration in America. I understand one thing, because I negotiated a trade deal with the incoming President of the United States, about which I have never quite told the full story. It became very clear to me in those discussions that he wanted a trade deal, more than anything else, with the United Kingdom, and he said so.
How we go about that is a complicated issue. There is an easy way to do it, through what are called sector-by-sector trade arrangements, which are agreed before moving on to the next area. That is made more difficult by the arrangement in which, somehow, part of the United Kingdom now seems to be partly inside the EU. That makes it difficult for them to understand whether any goods and so on would slip through into the EU. That will cause a problem—it is not my place to say whether it is insurmountable, but these are unnecessary difficulties. However, if we had mutual enforcement, that would not be the case. It would be very clear at that point that that would actually be a very good basis for a trade deal with the United States to smooth our arrangements with them. They are our biggest trading partner and, ironically, unlike the EU, one that we have a surplus with and not a deficit of some significant degree.
I end on this point. In terms of what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years, there are big, deep gulfs and divides over anything that touches on Northern Ireland and its relationships with the UK and the rest of Ireland. I came here to look at the practicalities of a better way to sort out the trading relationships that leaves Northern Ireland as a solid part of the United Kingdom. Yes, it has a special place, because it is the one land border that we have with the EU, but that does not mean to say that we should treat it differently in terms of its arrangements with us here in Parliament. My worry is that we set those insurmountable problems ahead first and, at the end, we then do nothing. We could achieve this change. If the Government had their way, they would take all the bits from the agreement and try to discuss and implement them with the EU. The EU knows that that would not work. It is time to make some changes. Just talking out the Bill helps no one.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for introducing the Bill. I listened with interest to some of the points made by Opposition Members, particularly the words of the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who suggested that there are attempts to talk the Bill out. The only people who appeared to be attempting to talk the Bill out were the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for Belfast East, and they did a very good job of it.
It has become increasingly clear in this debate that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has no interest in progressing the Bill. He knows that it is unworkable and has no intention of its ever becoming law. What he is doing today is purely and simply political posturing for nakedly electoral reasons.
I was interested and slightly amused to hear the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refer to his interest in ensuring equality and equal access to citizenship for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. I wonder if he felt the same way about extending access to equality and citizenship when it came to reproductive rights for the women of Northern Ireland and the right to equal marriage for people in Northern Ireland. I do not recall him being as vociferous at that time.
I was interested to hear from the Member from South Acton—I mean South Antrim. Apologies—I represent an area very close to Acton, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) knows. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked whether Labour Members had read the Good Friday agreement. Back in 1998, as a very young woman, I recall vividly buying the newspaper that printed the full Good Friday agreement, laying it out on the floor of my bedroom at the time and reading through it clause by clause. For me, and for the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and all the United Kingdom, it was such an important and joyous occasion to see that agreement come to fruition.
That joy is properly experienced if one watches the final episode of “Derry Girls”, when Orla dances through the streets of Derry on her way to register to vote in favour of peace in Northern Ireland. What a contrast that moment of joy is to some of the words that we have heard from Opposition Members today, which have been less about forging a prosperous future for Northern Ireland and more about raking up the arguments of the past. Today we found ourselves revisiting old grievances rather than pushing for progress. The Bill drags us back into the quagmire of disputes that were settled through the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework—painstakingly negotiated and endorsed as a solution that works for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Deirdre Costigan
I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member has had sufficient time to speak today.
The Bill is an attempt to undermine the very foundations and underpinnings of the Good Friday agreement. It risks creating far more issues than it claims to solve. Given the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s electoral pact with Reform UK, I would have thought he would be happy to get Brexit done, yet here we are renegotiating 2019, stuck in an endless “Groundhog Day” of Brexit debates. While the hon. and learned Member looks backwards, this Government are looking forwards to a stable, prosperous and peaceful Northern Ireland.
Let me look at the most fundamental concern about the Bill. At the heart of it lies a blatant disregard for the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law. Clause 3 shows that the legislation seeks to disapply key elements of the Windsor framework. This is not a matter of abstract legal principles; it strikes at the very core of the UK’s credibility as a nation that honours its commitments. The Windsor framework was the result of years of painstaking negotiation designed to balance Northern Ireland’s unique position post Brexit. For the UK unilaterally to disregard its provisions would be not only a breach of trust with our European partners but a dangerous precedent that could have profound consequences for our future trade agreements and alliances. It would be not just a technical breach but a move that would erode trust in the UK’s ability to uphold our agreements, and international partners are watching closely.
The message that the Bill would send if passed is clear. How can we expect to secure future trade agreements or maintain our standing on the global stage when Members of this House seek so readily to abandon the commitments we have made? Instead, the Government have grounded themselves in respect for international law. Only by sticking to our word can we rebuild this country’s reputation, which was trashed by the previous Government’s shocking decision to break international law in “specific and limited” ways. Let us be clear: we either abide by international law or we do not. It is not an à la carte menu where we can pick or choose. The Government understand that, and that is why we will be sticking to our agreements.
The economic implications of the Bill are just as troubling. Under the Windsor framework, the at-risk, not at-risk test provides a clear and workable solution allowing for the smooth movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland while protecting access to the EU single market. By removing that mechanism and replacing it with undefined alternative models, the Bill would introduce huge uncertainty. Such a lack of clarity would create significant operational challenges, leaving businesses without a road map for compliance. The small and medium-sized enterprises that drive Northern Ireland’s economy would be particularly damaged as the Bill would disproportionately burden them.
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about trade. Does she agree that the ripple effects from disapplying the Windsor framework would hit all of us, including constituencies such as mine that are looking forward to the Government’s priority of resetting our relationship with the EU and finding practical solutions on, for example, a veterinary agreement, which would help deal with some of the problems that Opposition Members have raised and on which we have had some degree of consensus in the House today?
Deirdre Costigan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am focusing on businesses in Northern Ireland, many of which lack the resources to implement the dual tracking system for goods destined for different jurisdictions. They would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage.
The Windsor framework has provided Northern Ireland with dual market access. That is a unique and valuable advantage that no other part of the UK enjoys. It has enabled Northern Ireland’s economy to remain one of the strongest performing post-Brexit. Businesses have adapted to the framework’s provisions, and over 9,000 firms are now registered with the UK internal market scheme. The Bill, however, would throw all of that progress to the wind. It would deter investment and create further trade barriers, undermining Northern Ireland’s status as an attractive place to do business. For small and medium-sized enterprises already operating on tight margins, the additional costs and administrative burdens could be devastating. After years of decline under the Tories, these businesses need certainty, stability and support, not a chaotic and fragmented regulatory landscape that would leave them scrambling to comply with conflicting rules. The people and businesses of Northern Ireland deserve better than what the Bill proposes.
I turn to the critical issue at the heart of the Bill in clause 19, which would alter the consent mechanism for articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, replacing the current system of simple majority voting with a requirement for cross-community support, as laid out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. While such a measure may appear on the surface to strengthen democratic buy-in, in reality it would risk paralysing decision making and undermining the delicate political equilibrium established by the Good Friday agreement.
Jim Allister
The hon. Member talks about undermining the delicate political balance. We were told that that was solved by the Belfast agreement. It was the Belfast agreement that decreed that, for every key decision, there should be a cross-community vote, yet this is a key decision and the cross-community vote is to be abrogated. Where is the respect in what she is saying in terms of the efficacy of the Belfast agreement or of this vote?
Deirdre Costigan
Let us look at the intent behind the existing democratic consent mechanism. The Windsor framework carefully designed the process to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives in the Assembly, have a say in whether the key provisions of the framework continue to apply. By allowing a simple majority vote, the framework ensured that the democratic will of the Assembly could be expressed efficiently and effectively. That system reflects the realities of a power sharing arrangement, where decision making can already be complex and contentious.
Clause 19 proposes a significant and disruptive shift. By requiring cross-community consent in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a majority of Unionist and nationalist representation—the Bill introduces a mechanism that grants de facto veto power to either community, and Opposition Members know that. That risks creating scenarios where no decision can be reached at all, with no explanation in the Bill for whether the Windsor framework would continue under such circumstances. Such provisions invite obstruction and brinkmanship on a critical issue.
Robin Swann
The hon. Member is countering what she said earlier about having read the Good Friday agreement. Obviously she has not understood it, because that cross-community consent has been central to the protections that were applied in the Belfast agreement at the start to ensure minority concerns are protected. That was the purpose of it. What she is saying in regard to the change from five to 10 on removing cross-community support and consent undermines the principles of the Belfast agreement, which my party paid so much for.
Deirdre Costigan
We disagree on that point, but I reiterate that I have read the Good Friday agreement from cover to cover.
The introduction of a cross-community requirement would only place enormous burdens on the Assembly, which has already struggled to function effectively in recent years. Adding another layer of complexity to the Assembly’s decision-making process risks further entrenching the situation, making it even harder to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
We must also consider the message that the provision sends to the people of Northern Ireland. By imposing additional barriers to democratic decision making, the Bill risks fostering a sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment among the electorate. How can we expect the people of Northern Ireland to place their faith in the Windsor framework if institutions are being deliberately hamstrung by measures designed to perpetuate stagnation rather than to promote co-operation on this vital issue? The Windsor framework was carefully designed to strike a balance between competing interests. This Bill, by contrast, undermines that delicate balance, replacing pragmatic solutions with political posturing that serves no one.
There is an absence in the Bill of a clearly articulated framework to replace the existing regulatory mechanisms established by the framework. Under the current system, Northern Ireland operates within a dual regulatory sphere, giving it unique access, as I said. That arrangement, while complex, has provided a measure of certainty for businesses. They know which rules apply, how to comply with them and the benefits of adherence. The Bill removes critical aspects of the existing framework. That would create a vacuum, leaving businesses and regulators alike with more questions than answers, and the resulting uncertainty would of course threaten Northern Ireland’s prosperity.
That is before I get on to the fact that there is no clear timeline for the implementation of the Bill. It provides no road map, no phased implementation plan and no transitional support for affected parties. The Bill would therefore only create a chaotic environment in which businesses must prepare for the unknown, potentially leading to disruption, delays and financial losses. For small and medium-sized businesses that lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory shifts, the consequences would be devastating.
The regulatory uncertainty created by the Bill is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental flaw that undermines its viability. Far from being a technical adjustment, the Bill is a destabilising force. At its core, it flagrantly disregards the principles of international law and the commitments that the United Kingdom solemnly made under the Windsor agreement. But perhaps the most frustrating aspect is that the Bill represents a colossal missed opportunity. Northern Ireland is uniquely positioned to thrive as a bridge between the UK and the EU, leveraging its dual market access to attract investment and drive growth. The Windsor framework, while not perfect, is a pragmatic solution that provides the stability and predictability necessary for that unique position.
Instead of building on that foundation, the Bill tries to tear it down, replacing a functioning system with chaos and division. It prioritises short-term calculations over long-term economic and social stability. Northern Ireland deserves better than this. Its people, businesses and institutions deserve a Government who legislate responsibly, with foresight and care, rather than rushing forward with reckless and ill-conceived measures.
This House has a duty to legislate responsibly, to weigh the long-term consequences of our actions, and to uphold the principles that underpin our democracy and our international commitments. This Bill fails on all counts. It is not simply flawed; it is fundamentally unfit for purpose.
I urge colleagues to reject this legislation and demand a more thoughtful, inclusive and workable approach to addressing the challenges facing Northern Ireland. Let us act not out of political expediency but out of genuine commitment to the people, businesses and institutions that rely on us to get this right.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate—and nice to have an opportunity to stand up. It is also nice to see such enthusiasm for this subject from Labour Members, and I can see how disappointed many of them are not to have been called in this debate.
There are so many things that one might say about the extremely interesting Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We know that it will not progress, as Labour Members intend to talk it out, but I want to talk about some of the ideas and principles that have been raised today, and indeed some of the ideas and principles that are contained within this interesting Bill.
Many new and enthusiastic Labour Members were not here during the difficult days of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, although some senior and experienced Members were. When looking at that densely packed history, there is a temptation to step back. We perhaps do not need to go back quite as far as Sophocles, although the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) always peppers his interesting remarks with cultural references. I was reminded of something else that Sophocles said: “There is a point at which even justice does injury.” There is something in these conflicting ideas of law, international law, obligation and principle that rings with Sophocles.
In those Brexit days, mistakes were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has referred to mistakes made by the then Administration. They created a starting position that some of us did not want and that has had long consequences. But we are, as has often been said, where we are. From those starting points there has been progress of a type.
The initial proposals for the backstop were unquestionably bettered by the protocol. The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. “Safeguarding the Union” is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible.
As the Windsor framework approaches its second birthday, it is worth taking stock of what has emerged from it. Obviously it made some improvements and achieved some of what it set out to do, but there is still the problem that Opposition Members have raised with the flow of certain goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a frivolous concern; it is a serious concern. The promised investment—we were going to see Northern Ireland becoming a Singapore of the west—has not happened. I have asked about it in my conversations and in my visits to Northern Ireland, and I have heard that it has certainly not yet materialised.
On Wednesday night, the House debated the Secretary of State’s statement on legacy and on the challenges that he is bringing to judgments made at the Court of Appeal in Belfast. The interpretation of the Windsor framework is a very live issue that could have profound and long-reaching consequences for how law operates in this country. Even then, it must be acknowledged that popular opinion in Northern Ireland is shifting slowly. Queen’s University Belfast carries out regular polls on how people feel about it. It is becoming less popular over time. That may change, but it is an issue. These are all practical issues, even before we reach the serious issues, which must never be discarded, about sovereignty.
If this is where we are right now with the framework, we have to ask what will happen next. The Labour Government were elected not six months ago, with a considerable majority, on a manifesto that committed to
“implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”.
They must be sure to do both. Both elements of that promise to the British people are extremely significant.
Opposition Members have raised many issues that have arisen with particular goods in particular sectors. Nowhere are those issues more pressing than in the SPS arrangements and the veterinary medicine arrangements. I talked to farmers in Belfast a few days ago, and they said that they were concerned that the Government do not appreciate that time is of the essence. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned the need for haste in the Paymaster General’s work. It is indeed pressing, because the timescale that the EU is briefing out is the next two to three years, and the grace period is due to end at the end of 2025. More than 50% of Northern Ireland’s medicines will not be sourceable from the UK. That has a huge implication for farming and agriculture, which is a major part of the economy in Northern Ireland, as I do not need to remind Members of the House.
Ben Coleman
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill would make it easier or more difficult for the Government to enter into successful negotiations on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim says, if the Bill were to pass—as we know it will not, because it is being talked out—there would not be the same need for that sort of deal, because goods would be flowing freely from GB to Northern Ireland, so the question is at best academic.
Alex Burghart
I will not, actually. I have points to make and I want to leave the Minister time to make her speech and take interventions from Members in all parts of the House.
One thing that strengthened the Windsor framework was “Safeguarding the Union”, which is critical to where we are now. Hon. Members will remember that the Northern Ireland Assembly came back together only because of “Safeguarding the Union”. If elements of it are removed, it is possible that that agreement will fall away, although we hope that it will not. If it does, it will risk the stability of our institutions in Northern Ireland.
There are many points that one could raise—I have asked a lot of parliamentary questions on this—but there are some specifics on which we are now owed some detail. The first is about the independent monitoring panel. The internal market system is supported by the UK internal market guarantee, which is overseen by the independent monitoring panel, but when will the panel first report? Secondly, we have Intertrade UK, which could be an important body. We were all pleased to see Baroness Foster appointed in September, but as far as I am aware, Intertrade UK’s terms of reference have still not been published. That is unacceptable. We are now three months on from appointing a chair, and many months on from the publication of “Safeguarding the Union”. Intertrade UK must have its terms of reference, and they must be shared with Members of this House.
Similarly, we must have regular updates from the Government on business preparedness for the internal market system. It is not enough for us to depend on Members of the Opposition to ask questions proactively; the Government should report regularly on that.
Dr Arthur
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—I am sure that he will be grateful for the chance to sit down briefly. He has been very constructive, and I welcome that, but in reality the Government have largely inherited this situation, which is quite a difficult one, given the friction and the other issues that we need to discuss. Does he not think that he is being a little impatient by demanding progress so soon?
Alex Burghart
No, I do not think I am being impatient, because this is an extremely important subject. We were all aware, when the Command Paper was published earlier this year, that this would need to be done. The framework was in the Labour party’s manifesto, so we assumed that it was making those preparations. It is perfectly possible to put together terms of reference for Intertrade UK within three months, for example. We are not being impatient; such things need to be done for a reason and within a reasonable time. I know that the Minister is alive to the importance of those things, but I hope that she will hurry that work along.
It is clear that under this Government the Windsor framework will continue to run. How successfully it runs will depend on any deals they strike and on whether they are able to uphold the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. However, as Opposition Members have said, the limitations of the Windsor framework, in practical terms and on constitutional principle, are clear. That is why we must continue to seek even better solutions.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about the Bill’s central issue: mutual enforcement. During the Brexit negotiations, mutual enforcement was categorised as “magical thinking,” but I think that was an unfair ploy used by people who did not want to do it. It is thinking that has magical potential but it is not magical thinking, because, as my right hon. Friend spelled out, mutual enforcement has already been done. We have seen it work in the EU’s dealings with New Zealand. Significantly, we heard that Monsieur Barnier was open to it, and that people involved in formulating policy at the time have stated again that they know it is deliverable. I just do not want anyone on either side of the House to think that mutual enforcement cannot be pursued; it can and must be. With the good will and the technology, there is no reason why there cannot be a future in which mutual enforcement plays a role.
During the Brexit negotiations, I remember being told repeatedly, as a Back-Bench Member, that there could not be any border checks, any infrastructure, or any checks near the border. However, in recent months we have seen that is not true. We know that it is not true because the Republic is conducting Operation Sonnet, which it is perfectly entitled to do. Operation Sonnet is a series of checks performed by the Garda on people crossing the border to make sure that they are not crossing illegally.
Carla Lockhart
I commend the hon. Member on his speech. Does he agree that today, sadly, is a missed opportunity? We had it within our grasp in this place to end the application of EU law in Northern Ireland, to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market by removing the Irish sea border, and to address the democratic deficit, but we failed, so we will just have more of the same as of tomorrow.
Alex Burghart
I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to make that point.
As I have said, we have seen that the Republic is carrying out checks on the other side of the border, so things that we were told were not possible are. If that is the case, it must open up possibilities for the future. I remain strongly of the view that the Windsor framework with “Safeguarding the Union” is a better solution than the Windsor framework was; that the Windsor framework was a better solution than the protocol; and that the protocol was a better option than the backstop. However, that does not mean that there are not better solutions available.
Those of us who believe in the Union do not wish for a sea border, or for a settlement that infracts the Acts of Union. Mutual enforcement obviously has the potential to be a sensible alternative, particularly if it is backed up by very serious penalties for those who infringe those arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, it could be remarkably effective. We would not start from here. We are where we are, but that does not mean that we cannot get back to where we once belonged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
Let me begin by expressing thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate so far—I am sure that there will be many more after me—and to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). He has set out his view to the House with the same ardour as he did a fortnight ago, although at greater length than he was allowed to in Westminster Hall, and he made his case during his time in Stormont as well.
It is important to restate to him what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to this House a fortnight ago, which is that the Government want Northern Ireland to prosper and flourish as an important part of the Union. On that, many of us will find agreement. We are here to do what is best for the people of Northern Ireland. I also reiterate the Government’s commitment to both the Windsor framework and to the UK internal market. It was on that point that the Secretary of State respectfully disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim in this House a fortnight ago.
I will set out the Government’s objection to this Bill, which is not compatible with international law, does not account for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances, and would take away powers that are given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make decisions about Northern Ireland. It would result in a regulatory black hole that would be very bad for businesses, jobs, growth, the Northern Ireland economy and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I will start by outlining some of the good news for the Northern Ireland economy—news that shows what the Windsor framework, the prospect of stability, the Executive returning, and the stability of a new Labour Government are doing for the economic outlook in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland composite economic index indicates that economic output increased by 0.4% over the quarter to June 2024 and by 2.3% over the year. Ulster University’s economic policy centre shows that Northern Ireland has a forecasted growth rate of 1.4% in 2024 and 1.7% in 2025. The region’s economy is performing better than was expected at the start of the year. This has been driven by strong growth in employment, particularly in the transport, construction and health sectors.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency’s interdepartmental business register shows that the number of businesses registered for VAT or pay-as-you-earn operating in Northern Ireland in 2022 is estimated to have risen by 1,550 since 2021 to 77,640, and is continuing to increase. I could go on and on; I have a longer list of the good news stories for Northern Ireland. The economy is working, but all the businesses I speak to talk about the need for stability, and the underlying premise of this Bill would change that stability. We would go into uncertainty and chaos, which would not be good for the Northern Ireland economy.
Jim Shannon
Honestly and sincerely, each one of us on the Unionist Benches who has concerns has presented examples of where things are not working, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) introduced the Bill to address those issues. I gave two examples of businesses, and I could give many more if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to let me, but I know that you will not. The Minister might say that what has been done is positive, but for us there is not positivity. Constituents with businesses have told me that they will no longer be able to trade, to have a business, or to provide employment and pay wages, and that has to be addressed. Those are the issues that we are raising, Minister. Tell us what will happen.
Fleur Anderson
I listened carefully to the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave on behalf of his constituents. They are concerning, and we need to listen to them carefully. I absolutely understand the concerns raised by other Members in this debate as well. It is useful to have this debate, so that we can talk about those issues, but without the Windsor framework, there would be no framework from within which to negotiate changes. Many changes have been made since the establishment of the Windsor framework, and that shows that it can flex, allow negotiation, and allow for practices and schemes, such as the internal market scheme, that enable the smooth flow of trade. That is the benefit of having the Windsor framework, rather than ditching it.
Jim Allister
The Minister talked about the flexibility of the Windsor framework in allowing change. Of course, the Windsor framework was not able to change one word of the substantial content of the protocol, because the protocol involved giving the EU control over the vast swathes of our economy that are under those 300 areas of law. It involved putting Northern Ireland under the EU’s customs code. Only if that is reversed can Northern Ireland return to the UK internal market and be retrieved from the EU single market. The Windsor framework does none of that, and even with the greatest will in the world, it is not capable of doing any of that. It can tinker; it cannot change.
Fleur Anderson
I will come to his important point on the 300 areas of laws, because it is important to put that in context. However, I reiterate that having a framework within which to negotiate is better for all those areas than not having one, resetting things and trying to do in just three months what has been done and talked about for the past eight years. That is what this Bill would do.
I will cover the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and by others. They were sincerely made, but the Government sincerely disagree. Before I come to the substance of the Bill, it is important that this House should deal in facts, and I am afraid that the opening speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim contained a number of factual inaccuracies that it is important to correct. He claimed that a Stormont brake is nothing more than a request from the Assembly for the law to be disapplied. Back-seat driving was referred to. That is incorrect. In fact, schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a strict legal duty on the Government to act where the brake is validly used by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has used hyperbolic and frankly incendiary language, impugning the motives of our partners and allies, all the while ignoring the fact that this House voted for the arrangements that now apply. I can only presume that he supports the sovereignty of this Parliament. Indeed, he has opposed the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Good Friday agreement, so he should reflect on the fact that the Windsor framework represents the democratic will of this House. He made repeated reference to the 300 areas where EU law is applicable to Northern Ireland. He ignores the fact that, under the Windsor framework, more than 1,700 pages of EU law, with accompanying European Court of Justice jurisdiction, have been disapplied. They cover areas such as VAT, medicines, which were referred to, and food safety; the UK Government can decide on them, and UK courts can interpret issues to do with them. I have my own views on the whole process, but that was faithfully applied after the democratic vote to withdraw from the EU.
Fleur Anderson
I will give way, but I will not do so too much, as I will not have time to go through all my points otherwise.
Jim Allister
Are there, or are there not, 300 areas of law that are now beyond the legislative reach of this House and the Assembly because they lie within the purview of the European Parliament? Is that true or false?
Fleur Anderson
There was this trilemma, involving the integrity of the UK internal market; avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland; and respecting that our EU partners have a legitimate interest, and being able to co-ordinate trade with it. Those 300 regulations, which are a very small amount of the whole, allow for things like dairy farmers moving milk over the border and back, which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree is necessary. They allow for smooth movement of trade. Those remaining regulations enable businesses in Northern Ireland to go about their business.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has claimed that the vast majority of veterinary medicines are at risk of being discontinued at the end of next year. That is also incorrect. He is right that there are ongoing issues that the Government are working hard with industry and farmers to address, and I am glad that they have been raised by Members today. However, he is simply wrong to say that the vast majority of veterinary medicines are at risk, and engagement with industry suggests no such thing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that the Windsor framework has caused shortages in medicines for diabetes. Again, that is incorrect. Various factors can sometimes give rise to gaps in medicine supplies across the United Kingdom. The overwhelming majority of medicines are in good supply, and we have well-established processes to manage supply issues. His claim that such issues are in any way a result of the Windsor framework, or are specific to Northern Ireland, is wrong.
The hon. and learned Gentleman held up the Good Friday agreement and asked where it demands that there be no border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. I know he has his own reservations about that agreement; perhaps that is why the facts have not been understood. That agreement was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, and the peace and security it has produced are premised in no small part on the normalisation of security. The absence of a hard border is an overwhelmingly good thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for quotes, and I shall oblige him. The agreement committed to a normalisation of security arrangements and practices, and committed the British Government to
“the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements”.
The common travel area has existed for more than a century, and is integral to the movement of people and goods on the island of Ireland.
Fleur Anderson
I am going to make some progress. To the Government’s mind, this commitment to normal security arrangements could not be met, under the common travel area arrangements, with a hard border of the sort that the Bill would institute.
The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that, come what may, he wants his part of the UK enabled to follow the rest out of the EU. I need not remind him that the whole of the UK left the European Union, and that the debate has been settled. We can see that he would prefer that damaging hard border for Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
First, will the Minister accept that the arrangements referred to in the Belfast agreement were security arrangements—army watchtowers and Army posts along the border? Secondly, despite what she has said about the common travel area, does she accept that guards are stopping and searching vehicles on roads in and out of Northern Ireland, to take people off them, because they believe that they are illegal immigrants? The common travel area is not even being respected by the Irish Government.
Fleur Anderson
There are absolutely minimal stops along the border. It is not a hard border, but circumstances would be very different under the Bill, which implies an ideological hard Brexit—
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful to the Minister, but could I just cautiously and gently urge her to draw back from the comments she has made about the movement and security around the border? One of the most incendiary things to occur during the discussions with the European Union and the British Government was Leo Varadkar showing a copy of The Irish Times that displayed a picture of a border post that was blown up by the IRA during the troubles, and suggesting that the trade arrangements could lead to the same thing. He was wrong then, and I think the Minister is in danger of stepping into that territory today.
Fleur Anderson
I hope the right hon. Member understands that I am talking about the difference between a hard border and a soft border. The Windsor framework enables the smooth flow of trade, which is good for businesses on both sides of the border and also safeguards the Union. The Windsor framework does not damage the Union; it actually strengthens it and ensures that it can continue.
Fleur Anderson
I will make some progress now, because time is running out in this debate and I want to get to the end.
On the consent vote, it is simply wrong to claim that all major decisions in Northern Ireland require cross-community agreement. As the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) pointed out, cross-community agreement was not required for Northern Ireland to leave the EU and is not a requirement for constitutional change, in line with the principle of consent in the Good Friday agreement. The reality is that the Good Friday agreement never envisaged a device such as the consent vote, so the arrangements for that vote were determined by this House and the amendments that it made to the Northern Ireland Act.
Let me briefly thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Members for North Down (Alex Easton) and for Belfast South and Mid Down, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and others who have yet to contribute. I am grateful to Members for raising many issues, which I will take away. I am also grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and others about continuing to speak, and about dialogue.
I turn now to the substance of the Bill. I shall set out three reasons why the Government cannot support it today. First, the Bill cannot be said to be compatible with international law. I know that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has made assertions about international law, but the absolute truth is that the Bill is premised on replacing the agreed measures under the Windsor framework with unilateralism and uncertainty. In the circumstances, that would constitute a breach of the UK’s agreements, which would be unlawful under international law.
This Government are committed to the rule of the law and to meeting the UK’s international obligations, and the Bill contains a set of unilateral measures that do no such thing. This is not an abstract matter; it is a matter of consequence. We must be clear that it is never in any nation’s interests to flagrantly disregard international law and treaty obligations. Doing so would weaken our standing abroad and our prospects for beneficial international agreements in the future, which matters, particularly for Northern Ireland.
As the House knows, the Government were elected with a mandate to reset our relationship with the EU and tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the operation of the Windsor framework, but there is significant potential for practical issues to be improved or addressed through the negotiation of such an agreement. That is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and it is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, but a nation that turns its back on prior commitments cannot hope to persuade others to enter new and beneficial arrangements.
I know that, as a proud Unionist, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will appreciate the potential benefits of such an agreement to Northern Ireland and to strengthening the Union, so I confess that I am somewhat baffled that he is promoting legislation that would be so detrimental to the prospect of securing future agreements. It is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, which is very bad for business. The Bill would create conditions in which businesses and citizens can never be certain about which rules will be respected and which will not. It would create uncertainty over the regulatory framework on which businesses in Northern Ireland now rely to trade, including the ability to trade across the island of Ireland without friction. It would do so automatically by bringing down a hard guillotine on the trading arrangements in just three months, leaving businesses no time to adjust. It would be an economic shock.
In my time working on international development campaigns, I saw at first hand at the World Trade Organisation what regulatory certainty and uncertainty can do for the prospects of small businesses, the jobs they create and the economies they contribute to. I can personally attest that it is better for those businesses to work on the basis of agreed trade arrangements than to leave them stranded in the choppy waters of regulatory uncertainty.
Secondly, the Bill does nothing to account for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. Let us be honest: these issues have been discussed, debated, analysed and dissected in this House for nearly a decade now, as other Members have said. They have occupied the political life of the nation for some time, and it is right that they have done so. The concerns of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and those of right hon. and hon. Members from the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party, are real and legitimate, and deserve to be taken seriously. But, although I understand and respect the strength of feeling behind the Bill, I say respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither this Bill, nor the similar variations on its proposal that have been advanced over the past nine years, do anything to address the practical issues in a more stable and sustainable manner than the Windsor framework addresses them.
Fleur Anderson
I am going to make progress.
As I said earlier, the core challenge remains the trilemma: how do we preserve the integrity of the UK’s internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and respect the legitimate interests of our EU partners in protecting their single market, just as we seek to protect ours? The Windsor framework provides an answer to a very difficult question. I say simply that, across several elections, the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members elected to this place have been elected on a platform of avoiding a hard border. For good reason, then, we need to support the Windsor framework.
Thirdly, the Bill would serve to prejudice the democratic decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly is making itself. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland initiated the progress for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. That vote is provided for in the Windsor framework and under domestic law, which was strengthened under the terms of “Safeguarding the Union”. It is now a matter for Northern Ireland’s elected representatives to decide on. I am pleased that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are able, as part of the functioning devolved institutions, to exercise the important democratic scrutiny functions included in the Windsor framework. The Bill would fatally undermine the powers that those in the Assembly have over scrutinising regulations that apply in Northern Ireland.
The Government will only support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that work for business, protect the UK’s internal market and uphold our international obligations. The Windsor framework does just that, and the Government are firmly committed to it, just as stridently as we are committed to the UK internal market and to Northern Ireland flourishing within a strengthened Union. Just as important is that we will be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about what is and is not possible, and what the trade-offs are with various options. There will be no more magical thinking; no reopening of the wardrobe into a political Narnia of mythical solutions to the practical issues that we must consider in respect of trade; and no more simplifications that work as soundbites but do not stand up in reality. At this crucial time, the people of Northern Ireland deserve honesty.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the Minister not agree that mutual enforcement is, in principle, about using what already exists in terms of trade? In the course of building on the Windsor agreement, might she consider influencing the EU to get rid of the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Fleur Anderson
I do not know where in the world mutual enforcement has worked. I understand how it can work in some limited ways, but not in the wholesale way outlined by the right hon. Member. I am afraid it is in the tradition of unreal answers to real and complex challenges to which the Windsor framework remains the only credible solution.
Claire Hanna
Will the Minister indulge me for a moment? Can we just kill off this canard about mutual enforcement? The Bill goes much further than suggesting mutual enforcement. It seeks to remove Northern Ireland from the European Court of Justice, and therefore from the single market. It is not just about in-market surveillance; it is about entirely removing our economy, including our agri-foods economy, from the single market. Does the Minister agree that that is why this proposal is magical thinking and why it is simply not on the table?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning one area in which this process would be disallowed. However, there is a long list of areas on which we are currently working, in which systems are working well, that would be disapplied. We could go back to 1880 and the Acts of Union, when there actually were differences between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK, and I could say more about those, but I will end my speech by saying this. I believe that if the Bill were passed, far from strengthening our constitutional settlement—although I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would wish that to be the case—it would weaken the UK’s constitutional foundations and its international standing immeasurably. It would not be good for businesses in Northern Ireland, and it would not be good for the people of Northern Ireland. For those reasons, the Government will be voting against the Bill today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
May I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), Madam Deputy Speaker, and say that my heart swells with pride to see you in the Chair? We are of the same vintage, as is the Prime Minister: the class of 2015.
Here we are on another Friday of private Members’ Bills. I have to say to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that although he and I were on the same side last week, along with the Minister, and I proudly marched through the Lobby with him—he made a passionate speech on that day as well—I am afraid that today I cannot support his Bill, for numerous reasons. The hon. and learned Gentleman—who is not even listening to me!—delivered his argument with his customary passion and dramatic flair, but I think that the Bill is actually quite dangerous.
Last week we were talking about safeguards and limitations of power. That debate was all about oversight. This week we have been talking about mutual enforcement, which removes all oversight. I am a bit worried about all this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister—who made a brilliant speech—that by seeking to disapply section 7A of the Windsor framework, which enables EU legislation to enter UK domestic law, the Bill undermines the Good Friday agreement, one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government or indeed any Labour Government, and attacks human rights protections. The Windsor framework only saw the light of day in 2023; it is not even a finished process, and the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to strangle it at birth. The framework was only the latest instalment of the divorce deal between Great Britain and the EU revisiting border arrangements. We all remember the referendum of 2016, which opened a Pandora’s box and a can of worms—stuff that we had never seen in this country before. I was a passionate remainer, and my constituency was 72% in favour of remaining. There were tears in playgrounds across Ealing and Acton the day after that referendum. However, I am mature enough to realise that the sky has not fallen in, so how do we make Brexit work? I feel that the Windsor framework is one of the things to mitigate. That is what we should be looking at, mitigating, not ripping up international treaties. I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan): we are still hopeful for trade deals with the rest of the world. If we rip up an international agreement now, how is the rest of the world to take us seriously? It is a fundamental breach of trust. Last week we were talking about assisted dying. People of my persuasion used to say that it would be “political suicide” to leave the EU. I have accepted that the sky has not fallen in, and I think that the Windsor framework is a sensible next step.
We 2015-ers have been through probably 20 years’ worth of elections in half the time. We had them every other year: in 2015, 2017 and 2019. Those Brexit years—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle remembers them—and those late nights that we had! John Bercow lived on site, in the place where we attended all those Diwali receptions the other day. It was about 1 am, and I remember Stephen Twigg, who was sitting behind me, saying, “Come on, John—we don’t all live here.” We had plenty of those late-night sittings. Brexit, to my regret, divided families and parties. Remember all those things we have put in the recesses of our minds? There was the Cooper-Boles agreement, the Dromey-Spelman amendment—all those things. This debate is giving me weird flashbacks; I am being teleported back to 2017! This is the bit we were getting to function—[Interruption.] Yes, that word “Brexit”. I do not think I have even said the word so far—I cannot bring myself to say it. There was “the Chequers approach” and DExEU. Two entirely new Government Departments were created—
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January.
Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act (Review) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January.
Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Spray Foam Insulation: Property Value
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The green homes grant voucher scheme was introduced in July 2020 under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The scheme was part of the Department’s green recovery from the pandemic and promised to contribute to the goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Some £1.5 billion of funding was made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer homeowners the opportunity to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency. Individual homeowners could apply for up to £5,000 of funding to cover two thirds of the cost of eligible energy efficiency measures.
Between September 2020 and March 2021, just short of 50,000 vouchers were paid to homeowners that could be used for a variety of improvements, including heat pumps, energy efficient windows and doors and, importantly, spray foam insulation. The exact number of vouchers given out for use on spray foam insulation is unknown. However, almost 14,000 vouchers were used for loft and pitched roof insulation measures which could have included spray foam.
Spray foam insulation is a form of liquid insulation applied with a spray gun, typically in roofs, lofts and attics. This is where the problem occurs. It has the potential to improve thermal efficiency if applied correctly. However, it can cause significant damage when it is not done correctly. Homeowners have reported problems in timber-framed roofs following installation. It restricts air circulation causing condensation that ultimately damages the property and has resulted in signs of decay and dampness in timber framed roofs.
Homeowners put faith in the Government’s recommendations and carried out this work with the promise of enhanced energy efficiency. Instead, they have been met with thousands of pounds of remedial works and difficulty in selling their properties. An unregulated trade of cowboy builders offering to carry out remedial work has also emerged. Homeowners are being convinced to spend thousands on improvements when they are not always necessary.
The Government need a cross-departmental strategy to address the issues arising from the green homes grant voucher scheme. We must see action to support affected homeowners with a compensation scheme, regulation of removal companies and steps to tackle the blanket ban that some mortgage providers have placed on homes with the insulation. There are important lessons to be learnt here to ensure future Government home improvement schemes do not have the same unintended consequences.
Spray foam insulation has the potential to cause such severe damage that many mortgage lenders have issued blanket refusals. BBC research demonstrated the varied approach mortgage lenders are taking on the issue. Of the 20 largest mortgage providers, seven have said that they refuse to lend on any properties with any form of spray foam insulation. The other 13 stated that extra information and surveys would likely be required and that mortgages would be offered only on a case-by-case basis. That is adding additional costs to people when they come to mortgage, remortgage or sell their home.
My constituent Tom described the utter devastation he felt when the sale of his house fell through after surveyors discovered spray foam insulation. It was only once the buyer informed Tom that they would not be able to get a mortgage approved on the property that he learned of the dangers of this type of insulation. Without the availability of grant money, Tom and his family would never have considered installing spray foam insulation. However, they wanted to do their bit for the environment through the green homes grant scheme.
There are lots of good people out there like Tom trying to make efforts to help reduce their carbon emissions and contribute to net zero, and they have fallen foul through no fault of their own. Tom applied for a voucher through a scheme that would cover two thirds of the cost of the upgrades and put in £1,000 of his own hard-earned money, too. After receiving a list of Government-approved installers, Tom and his family chose one that they believed met the standards to carry out the works.
After the sale of the house fell through, Tom began investigating potential remedial works to remove the foam and make his home suitable for mortgage. It soon became apparent that there were no affordable options. Tom has reported spending £4,000 on removal of the spray foam insulation, while another constituent, Norma, has been told that she will likely need to have all the roof timbers replaced due to the severity of the damage.
Earlier this year, the Health and Safety Executive published shocking data revealing that condensation could cause 25% of roof timber to decay within five years if spray foam was applied directly to roof tiles. However, the Insulation Manufacturers Association has warned that blanket bans on mortgages for homes with spray foam is leading to a new wave of rogue traders offering to remove foam for over-inflated prices, often causing greater damage in the process. It said that homeowners must not turn to cowboys for this removal service. When installed correctly by a regulated provider, spray foam is an effective form of insulation. It recommends that anyone with spray foam gets an independent assessment by a surveyor.
Prior to these conversations, the surveying industry had little knowledge of spray foam or how to adequately check its impact on roof timbers—that was what was leading to the blanket refusals. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Health and Safety Executive and insulation manufacturers have all worked to introduce protocols, which is a good first step to measure the impact of spray foam and ensure safe removal. It is imperative that we regulate rogue removal companies and stop them charging thousands of pounds to remove spray foam that could have been correctly installed.
Despite the previous Government having run and funded the scheme, they took a hands-off approach to the issue. We must not see the new Government follow that same approach. Instead, we need to see decisive action to support those facing the financial repercussions of the Conservatives’ lack of due diligence.
Several excuses have been used to justify the lack of action by successive Governments. Cowboy builders have been blamed for applying foam without the necessary expertise of proper surveys. While that has certainly contributed to the damage, that cannot act as a “get out of jail free” card for the previous Conservative Government.
There have been attempts to shift blame to the homeowner for using an installer that did not meet standards. In June 2022, when pressed on the possibility of redress for impacted homeowners, the Government argued that it was the responsibility of the installer and homeowner to decide whether to proceed with using spray foam insulation. However, all works using vouchers had to be done by a TrustMark-registered installer. TrustMark is a Government-endorsed quality scheme for tradespeople. The then Minister, Greg Hands, argued that the Government were not responsible for remedying the impacts of a scheme as TrustMark had
“a robust framework of operating requirements, including dispute management.”
Recipients of green grant vouchers were provided with a list of recommended installers to choose from, and my constituent Tom provided a copy of that TrustMark certification of lodgement that he received following the installation of the foam. TrustMark’s slogan is “Government-endorsed quality”. in this case, it is somewhat ironically branded.
While previous Governments have tried to wash their hands of responsibility for the disastrous impacts of the scheme, their involvement is well documented. TrustMark continues to operate as the only Government-endorsed quality scheme for home improvements. Understandably, homeowners trusted the recommendations and installers that the Government had endorsed. It was the responsibility of the Government and TrustMark to ensure that those installers were capable of carrying out the works to the necessary standard.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has previously raised concerns with the Government about the lack of impartial advice under the scheme. Retrofit advisers were often the same as installers and salespeople. If the Government continue using TrustMark to regulate contractors, greater due diligence is required to ensure that those contractors are endorsed and have all the necessary knowledge, experience and training to carry out work to the highest standards.
So far, the Government have not taken action to understand the breadth of the impact of spray foam on recipients of green homes grant vouchers. I tabled a number of questions that the Minister kindly responded to yesterday in advance of this debate. We do not yet know the true number of people who might be impacted, but it is estimated to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. There is currently no clear data to ascertain how many homes have been impacted, which is why the Government need to investigate this fully.
Those who put their faith in the Government’s recommendations deserve their fullest attention to remedy the repercussions. The Government should take some responsibility for the negative implications of using the endorsed installers and methods. So far, that is not happened. They have recommended that consumers seek redress under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. However, a number of these installers have since gone bankrupt, making it incredibly difficult to claim against them. Consumers are therefore having to cover the cost of removal and repairs themselves. The Government have attempted to rid themselves of responsibility by arguing that the availability of terms of mortgages were an issue for lenders. Multiple issues are at play, including difficulties with TrustMark’s dispute management system. Also, many of those installers no longer exist, and companies have closed, as has the green homes grant scheme.
There are growing calls for compensation for those who have been impacted by spray foam insulation to cover not just the cost of large remedial works but their contributions to the initial works. The green homes grant voucher scheme only covered two thirds of costs in most cases. There needs to be proper support for people who had spray foam installed. My constituent Tom is very lucky that he had family support while they moved, and they had the opportunity to move out for remedial works to take place. Nevertheless, he remains £4,000 out of pocket.
We cannot ignore the issues caused by spray foam insulation. Potentially, 300,000 homes have spray foam insulation, and we need support to ensure these homes are sellable. The Government must step in and ensure that mortgage providers are not unnecessarily withholding mortgages. We must also limit the unregulated trade of foam removal companies preying on vulnerable households and causing further damage at hugely inflated prices. I have already attempted to address that with the Department. It is evident that cross-governmental issues are at play. Where there has been legitimate damage to properties from people who have used green homes grant money, the Government must step in and take action. Lessons need to be learned for future Government schemes, too.
Is important not to be alarmist. People should not remove spray foam until they have had it checked by a reputable surveyor with the necessary training and experience to deal with this issue. It is understandable that mortgage providers have to lend responsibly, but blanket bans contribute to mass panic and fuel the business of cowboy builders. We must make sure that mortgage providers are properly regulated, too. This is a nationwide issue—although the numbers are still unknown, people have reached out from across the country as this issue has come to the surface recently. I have had conversations with a number of colleagues across parties. My hon. Friends the Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) are working hard to get support for their constituents who have been affected.
It is key that people put their faith in the Government’s recommendation. These were good people who wanted to work hard towards the goal of net zero and save a little money along the way. They should not be left thousands of pounds out of pocket because of it. It is crucial that we not only provide them with the necessary support, but look to the future to make sure that we prevent this happening again with any other schemes.
I do not deny that the green homes grant scheme was well intentioned. Such schemes are crucial, and I do not want to diminish faith in future schemes. However, we need to rectify the schemes of the past. If not, people will not trust the schemes of the future. I also appreciate that this is not an issue of the current Minister but one of the many legacies of the previous Conservative Government and the disaster that ensued. I would welcome meeting and working with the Minister responsible for repair and regulation, and to ensure that this does not happen again. I appreciate the time that the Minister has already given to this issue in advance of today’s debate, and I hope that she will continue to work with me to address this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and highlighting the stories of his constituents.
This Government are committed to ensuring that all energy efficiency installations are done to the highest standards, and that proper consumer protection and redress are built into the system. That matters because building and maintaining consumer confidence and trust are critical to our delivering our warm homes plan and upgrading millions of homes across the country. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the system works for consumers. This is therefore a very important and a timely debate.
We understand the frustration and the difficulties that some homeowners with spray foam loft insulation have experienced when obtaining finance. This problem followed the publication of now-withdrawn guidance from a surveyors association in December 2021. The guidance said that surveyors could not comment on the condition of timber roof structures, or properly assess the risks once installed, given the nature of the product.
In response to the problems that some homeowners were having when obtaining finance, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government worked with industry to publish several documents in 2023. These included a consumer guide, a code of practice for installers and an inspection protocol, alongside training for surveyors.
The Building Safety Regulator also completed research to understand moisture risk factors, which indicated that the risk is low if the relevant British standards are followed. Crucially, the inspection protocol now enables a surveyor to determine whether an installation was done properly and, therefore, to determine the risk level. This means decisions on mortgage products should be made on a case-by-case basis, and there should not be a blanket exclusion on mortgages.
I understand that progress is being made and, while some lenders will want to follow the advice of surveyors, most no longer have a blanket policy against lending where there is spray foam insulation. We are aware that just over 6,000 pitched roof insulation measures were installed using a voucher from the previous Government’s green homes grant voucher scheme, and some of these installations may have used spray foam products.
If products have been installed to the standard required under the scheme, we do not expect them to be removed. We expect that they are doing the work and are effective in the home. A surveyor should be able to use the available inspection protocol to make the proper assessment. Where the measure has not been installed correctly, however, homeowners should contact their installer or use the TrustMark dispute resolution process to seek redress. If the installer is no longer trading, the homeowner should contact the guarantee provider. The details of this should be in the paperwork they were given at the point of installation, or they will be available from TrustMark.
Although the system is working, we know that it is not working in too many cases and that people are falling between the cracks. We know that the standards and accreditation processes for Government schemes are too complex, and that accountability structures are not always clear. I am new to my role, but I am the first to admit that there is a job to do to improve the system so that, when problems occur, consumers get the right advice and redress without having to bang their head against the wall to get it. The Government are determined to address this.
The Government’s ambitious warm home plans will upgrade millions of homes across the country to make them warmer and cheaper to run, from installing new insulation to rolling out solar panels and heat pumps. We will review the consumer protection framework as part of this plan, ensuring clear lines of accountability and clear and easy redress mechanisms so that consumers can trust the system.
The plan will also outline the further action we intend to take to drive up quality and standards, and to support the supply chain to grow in size and competence. This will include investing in training and supporting trusted small businesses that work in the community to join the supply chain.
We understand that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and constituents across the country, face this issue, and we are looking into it to understand the size of the problem and what we can do in response. More fundamentally, people should be in no doubt that we are committed to building consumer protection and trust, because that is the only way we can take the country on the journey as we try to upgrade millions of homes.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the profile of this issue, for raising the stories of his constituents and the difficulties they have faced, and for giving us the opportunity to highlight the avenues that are available for affected consumers.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Correction
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Other Correction
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Melanie Ward
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The following extract is from the Second Reading debate on 29 November 2024.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend briefly mentioned coercion, and the well-held fears of many of us in the House about the risk of coercion, particularly for vulnerable people. What does he make of the fact that in Washington state, where the relevant law is restricted to terminally ill people like this Bill, last year 59% of those who went through with an assisted death did so because they feared being “a burden” to “family, friends or care givers”? In Oregon, the proportion last year was 43%.
[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1049.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward):
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend briefly mentioned coercion, and the well-held fears of many of us in the House about the risk of coercion, particularly for vulnerable people. What does he make of the fact that in Washington state, where the relevant law is restricted to terminally ill people like this Bill, in 2022 59% of those who went through with an assisted death did so because they feared being “a burden” to “family, friends or care givers”? In Oregon, the proportion last year was 43%.
Written Statement
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Domestic Murder Sentencing Reforms
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government have set out our ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Today, I am announcing that the Law Commission has accepted my request to undertake a review of the law of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. In addition, I intend to bring forward legislation to implement two outstanding recommendations in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC, which was published last year.
Law Commission review
The law of homicide was last subject to a thorough review by the Law Commission in the early 2000s. At that time the Government decided not to implement the majority of the recommended changes. In the almost 20 years since then, the problems identified in that review have remained largely unchanged, and, as society and the law has moved on, new issues have emerged. These include the interactions between the law on homicide and joint enterprise and the extent to which the law reflects a modern understanding of the effects of domestic abuse. Following the Nottingham attacks last year, the families of the victims have also called for homicide law reform, particularly with regard to how diminished responsibility should be reflected in the classification of homicide offences.
Our current sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago, and multiple, piecemeal amendments have been made to it since then. Recent concerns particularly relate to gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context. These concerns include the inadequate reflection of prior abuse in minimum terms for abusive men who kill their female victims, and disproportionately long tariffs for women who kill their male abusers.
I have asked the Law Commission to undertake a project to consider these issues, revisiting and building upon their report in the early 2000s. The Law Commission will review the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences, and this time also the sentencing framework for murder.
The Law Commission has already started work on a project reviewing the defences to homicide for victims of domestic abuse who kill their abuser. That project will continue under the umbrella of this full review of homicide law, allowing the Law Commission to consider the issue holistically, moving beyond defences to consider the homicide offences themselves and sentencing for this group of defendants.
The Law Commission expects to begin work on this review in early 2025, at which point they will publish a detailed timeline for the project. The terms of reference and more information on the review can be found on the Law Commission’s website.
The separate, independent sentencing review, chaired by the right hon. David Gauke, is due to submit its findings to me by spring 2025. The Law Commission review will take account of any relevant recommendations made in the sentencing review.
Domestic homicide sentencing review recommendations
We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take several years to complete, and the Government will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law, but it is not a quick one.
I therefore intend to take more immediate action in the short-term by implementing two of the outstanding recommendations made in the domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC. In opposition we welcomed this review and its approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides, while recognising that care must be taken to ensure that any reforms do not unduly punish cases that involve abused women killing their abuser. We did however call for more to be done, including implementation of more of the recommendations as well as wholesale reform of the sentencing framework for murder.
Therefore, alongside the Law Commission review, I intend to bring forward legislation to implement two of the outstanding recommendations from the domestic homicide sentencing review. These measures are statutory aggravating factors for murders involving strangulation and those connected with the end of a relationship.
In recent years strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare Wade KC as part of her review involved strangulation, all of which involved a male perpetrator and female victim. In over a third of cases, the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship, and in the majority of cases this appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. In all of these cases the perpetrator was male. A murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour—the final controlling act of an abusive partner.
While it is for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case, we expect that these measures, along with the recommendations implemented by the previous Government, will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases. I intend to lay a statutory instrument to implement these measures, and subject to consultation with the Sentencing Council and parliamentary timings, I anticipate that the legislation will come into force next year. These changes will extend and apply to England and Wales.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the families and organisations who have campaigned for change in relation to the issues that the Law Commission review will consider. These include the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Killed Women, and the families of the victims of the Nottingham attacks.
[HCWS286]
House of Lords
Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change
(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of York
That this House takes note of the importance of social cohesion and strong, supportive community life during periods of change and global uncertainty.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, on Monday 29 July this year, just before 11.50 am, police officers were called to a property in Southport, where children attending a dance school had been appallingly and ferociously attacked by a man with a knife. Three of the children—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice Dasilva Aguiar and Bebe King —died. Many others sustained terrible injuries, and a whole community and many families were devastated and traumatised.
Understandably, horror and anguish convulsed not just Southport but the whole country. Rumours quickly circulated on the internet that the man to blame for this attack was an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK illegally and was on the MI6 watch-list. This was not true. As a reporter put it a few days later, once lit, the torch paper of disinformation burned quickly. Although this rumour was quickly debunked, in the days that followed, as we know, riots broke out all over our country.
In Rotherham, close to my diocese, a hotel housing migrants was set alight. In France, the Libération newspaper called Britain a “Disunited Kingdom”. What do we make of this? How do we respond? What does it tell us about ourselves? I hope that this debate will be an opportunity to reflect on these things and on our common identity, of which our communities and institutions are such a vital part. I am very grateful to the usual channels for allowing us on these Benches to have this debate and to give this important issue space before your Lordships’ House.
The work needed to build stronger, more supportive and more socially cohesive communities must involve us all. Although the summer’s riots were fuelled by hideous extremist rhetoric, which came from mysterious places online, what happened took place on our streets and in our communities. While there were extremist forces at play, we also need to face the uncomfortable truth that, although the rhetoric was extreme, many of the people involved in the riots were not. We know from the courts that more than half of those charged with offences such as violent disorder came from the country’s most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods. This means places with the worst health outcomes, with lower levels of qualifications, where employment is at its lowest and where the impacts of austerity, the pandemic, a cost of living crisis and rising inflation have hit hardest, intensifying those feelings of being left behind. That was made all the worse by social media’s wildfire of disinformation, and has been fed by years of hard and soft extremist rhetoric.
I recognise and praise the years of important work done by reviews carried out by Dame Sara Khan, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as well as the ongoing work being carried out by many organisations, including the Together Coalition, British Future, Belong and many more. On policy, there is much expertise to draw on, and as such, many of the policy elements are known, but the deterioration of public services is a causal factor in the ignition of violence over the summer, and their revitalisation is essential reparative work.
Education, housing availability, employment and the state of the health service have all been further impacted by the cost of living crisis, and the well-being of communities and individuals is closely tied up with them. The housing crisis and unemployment, among other things, as we know, are most pronounced for young people, which is so significant when we consider issues of civic engagement. One in five councils is facing bankruptcy, which is an extraordinary challenge, given that they are such critical local agents for cohesion at a time when all our communities are changing.
The impact of the pandemic on each of these things was unprecedented, and I hope that noble Lords with expertise will explore this further. It gives me no delight to say that amidst all the public service challenges, the aftermath of Covid has put a strain on trust—and trust is critical; it is not an unlimited resource.
Perhaps most important of all is that we are living in an increasingly digitised world. When the pandemic struck, most of our gatherings and meetings went online. That was an important lifeline for us all at the time, but as a result, the changes in how we were already beginning to understand and relate to each other in a digital world accelerated. Now, there is an increasing reliance on AI and automated decision-making, despite a lack of ability to regulate sufficiently the technology we depend on so much. This cannot continue. The rise of misinformation on social media is undermining trust in democracy itself and in the rule of law. The Khan review found that freedom-restricting harassment is on the rise, and while the online world offers us so much, we have serious work to do to mitigate the impacts it will continue to have on our hearts, our relationships and our mental health.
Why should platforms be allowed to continue to call themselves platforms? We are in danger of losing the philosophical debate, for surely, they are public spaces and should be regulated accordingly, especially those where children are likely to go. Of course, I recognise, support and have worked in this House for the things we are seeing in the Online Safety Act, but more is needed.
All these things shape our relationships with one another and with the world around us. According to this year’s Woolf Institute diversity study, one in 10 people in England and Wales do not know anyone well enough in their local area to ask them a favour. We know the names—well, maybe not all of us here, but some of us —of those who live in Coronation Street or Albert Square, but we do not know the names of our own neighbours. This is a tragedy, for the very best of British history is built on neighbourliness, and the loss of what is sometimes called “the economy of favours” is one we should all feel deeply: a culture where we look out for one another, not because we are told to but because it would never occur to us to do differently. But these actions, which build cohesion, flow from values that need to be taught and cherished.
From a Christian point of view, I would therefore dare to add that values are best protected and communicated by beliefs, customs, rituals and practices: the very things that are the lifeblood of faith communities. The soft power, the stuff of social capital that builds communities, is what might be measured by the social fabric index. This takes into account a range of measures, including employment rates and civic infrastructure. As I have already indicated, reports tell us that 23 out of the 27 places that experienced disorder last summer had a well below median social fabric score. We therefore face the challenge of healing and rebuilding. Many expert reports and reviews call on the Government to work on a social cohesion strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s thoughts and plans, especially on a cross-departmental national social cohesion strategy, and I welcome the inquiry on community cohesion by the Women and Equalities Committee recently announced in the other place.
Of course, all this is related to the policy areas I have mentioned. Without equitable access to housing, education and healthcare, social cohesion will not happen; nor will we be able to preserve a democracy in which everyone participates. Yet fewer than half of 18 to 24 year-olds exercised their right to vote in the last election, compared to three-quarters of people aged 65 and above.
Across the globe, many other democracies face fragmentation, driven by increasing disillusionment and division. Time series data in the UK shows that trust in government has decreased over the last four decades, alongside continuing low voter turnout and decreasing confidence in political parties and, of course, other institutions, not least the Church. Participation in civic life is therefore essential, and it is clear that if someone does not feel they have a stake in the governance of where they are, they will not engage. I believe that one part of the solution to this is devolution. I am therefore thankful for the work of successive Governments to make this happen.
I recently had a very substantial cooked breakfast—no kippers, unfortunately, but it was a very good breakfast—with the recently elected mayor of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the first of these new bodies to combine rural and urban communities. What did we speak about? We spoke about values: where they come from, how they are nurtured, what happens when you lose them and how you get them back; and how it is shared values, shared story, shared belonging, and belief in a shared future that create cohesion and well-being across what can so easily seem to be insuperable difference.
These things are often best nurtured at a more local level, where people have a greater stake in the decisions that affect their lives. We need to be clear about this. Difference is a gift. We know from our observation of the natural world that it is biodiversity that creates mutual flourishing and the lack of diversity that can destroy the whole system. Our society is growing in diversity, especially ethnically and religiously, and we must embrace, celebrate and be curious about our differences, not scared of them. We will better understand those differences through governance at the local level, and this could be taken more seriously by government.
Having got this far through much my speech without really mentioning God, let me say again that these values, not least the values around our belonging to one another and the mutual responsibilities that go with it, are rooted in the Jewish and Christian scriptures that have formed so much of our national understanding, including the rule of law and the inherent and equal value of each person under the law.
The opening word of the Lord’s Prayer, which some of us say each time we come to this Chamber, is “our”, not “my”. Everything else follows. I might add that, in the New Testament, Jesus never asks us to love everyone. Loving everyone is sufficiently abstract and therefore relatively easy to do. Jesus asks us to love our neighbour. What that means is to love that very particular person who is sitting next to you—or perhaps in this place I should say opposite you—right now. Any vision of cohesion and well-being that is about the security of self at the expense of neighbour is not only insufficient for flourishing but doomed to miserable failure and economic stagnation, for we belong to one another in all our glorious diversity.
The local parish church and other faith communities provide a presence in every neighbourhood. The particular genius of the parish church and the parish system is that it preserves and communicates meaning, value and belonging in places where people can serve and be served, and discover fresh perspectives on what it is to be human and to be a human community.
In its report published this week, Theos notes that owing to their deep connection to and understanding of place, parish churches were central to the emergency response to the riots. The fruit of their relational work is seen, of course, in other faith communities. With others, the Church of England must continue to build and nurture these connections. This is happening up and down the country. I am inspired by, for instance, the peace walk that took place after the riots in Sunderland, the interfaith friendship that is happening in Smethwick, and the things I am learning from Muslim and Jewish groups that I work with in York.
“Social cohesion” is almost a verb: it is a process—something we work on and must continue to work on—and it requires active participation from us all. I hope experts and those with experience of interfaith work in the Room will be sharing their thoughts in this debate. It is incumbent on us in this place to articulate a vision of what it means to belong to one another, to build social cohesion and to nurture the values that will sustain us. I look forward to listening deeply to the experiences, contributions and examples of others.
Let me be clear: it is not just faith communities that shape this. There are so many community groups and others who give themselves to serving and building community. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has come today, on a Friday, to participate in this debate. I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, and to draw on his experience of the global factors at work, including climate change. If the generations growing up feel that there is no future for the planet, how on earth will they feel they have a future in their local community?
Finally, with all that has been happening in the Church of England in recent weeks, I felt that I should end on a more sobering note. Unless institutions are safe spaces for children, families and vulnerable adults, the things that we all long for and believe in will not come to pass. It is often said of government that security and safety is the first priority. The recently published Makin review has again revealed shocking failures within the Church of England to safeguard children, and, in this case, vulnerable young adults. I pay tribute to the victims and survivors who came forward to disclose the horrors that they experienced. My heart goes out to them and I apologise for these shameful failings. Moreover, I pledge myself to work purposefully for independent scrutiny of safeguarding in the Church of England and greater operational independence. These are the next steps that we must take, and we have much to learn from others.
I hope that this debate will be an opportunity for all of us to reflect, discuss and explore policy, to offer what we can as representatives of different places and different perspectives, to commit ourselves and to work across this Parliament to build trust and hope and, in so doing, build socially cohesive communities and institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know what the odds would be for someone being asked to speak immediately after an Archbishop on two successive days, but here am I, with a mood change from yesterday to today. Yesterday was perhaps elegiac and today might even risk being euphoric—we will have to see about that.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to be here and to contribute to this important debate, for which I thank the most reverend Primate. As I stand here, behind and above the Bishops, I am reminded that on Friday morning debates like this—accustomed as I have been to sitting on the other side of the House where I can look them in the eye—I always want to test the biblical knowledge of the Bishops. I begin, therefore, in sermonic mood, although I promise that I will soon release you from the captivity of that mood. This is really to challenge the Bishops.
The Bishops will know pretty well the opening verse of chapter 13 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. They will probably know it in the King James version—I see one or two of them who might just be in touch with something more modern—but, in the Greek, the word “philadelphia” appears in that first verse: brotherly love. If ever there were one word to encapsulate what I think is the driving force behind and the hoped-for outcome of this debate, philadelphia might be it. Because we like philadelphia and can wed our thoughts to teasing out meanings from that word, we tend to stop short and spend our time luxuriating in whatever philadelphia might be made to mean. But if you go on in the verse, you will find another Greek word, and it is equally important. It is “philoxenia”, which is a love of strangers. That complementarity of ideas seems to me to bring to our attention dimensions of the subject we are debating which it is important not to forget.
At the moment, I am prepossessed every working hour with preparing for meetings that I will be at on Monday, in Paris. I am a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe. I sit on its migration committee. Since I have been on it, we have been taxed with movements in the interpretation of the United Nations convention on refugees that have embraced, shall we say, wide extremes. The erosion of the original ideals of the convention have preoccupied the migration committee. It has been rather difficult for me, as a Labour member, sitting through meetings of the migration committee when the Conservative Government were putting through this House three Acts of Parliament that were at odds, I felt, with the lofty ideals of the convention, but that is not where I want to dwell.
The committee has given me the supreme honour of chairing one of its sub-committees. For a humble Methodist minister to be the chairman of a sub-committee is probably as high as it gets. I have fought very hard, since achieving that summit, to win time on the agendas of migration committees for the considerations of the sub-committee to be adequately dealt with.
What is the sub-committee? It is for diasporas and integration, which I think bears particularly on the issues before us today. I have worked with diasporas in this country for decades—Bangladeshi, Zimbabwean, Fijian, Ghanaian and many others. I belong to a diaspora: the Welsh on Gray’s Inn Road. I have won an hour on Monday—just one hour. I am hoping to persuade people that this subject deserves adequate attention and that we move from looking at the edges of the convention that we have all been worried about to the positive role that diasporas might play in shaping communities, as well as being places where people can gather for safety, cultural identity or whatever it is. I have prepared a paper that we will discuss on Monday with that in mind.
I am sure noble Lords will all want to know about the byzantine ways in which the Council of Europe does its work—I can see the look of longing on their faces. If I win enough signatures for the proposal I put forward on Monday, it will then go to the migration committee itself, where I will again have to win the arguments and support before it agrees to send it on to the parliamentary assembly in its full plenary body later in the process. I am rather hoping I can catch a mood here, because all my work with ethnic-minority groupings and diasporas suggests that they can play a terrific role positively to reshape the way we think about the multicultural society that we live in.
They are not just residual bodies where people can find safety, community and all the rest of it—a kind of passive receptivity—but agents for change in society at large. They can bring points of view to the attention of a larger society; they can shape local communities; they can add to the thinking of the rest of us. That is my hope, but I have to contend with two radically opposed understandings of multiculturalism. I have heard the term used in two diametrically opposite ways.
First is the idea that multicultural means there are all these microscopic bodies that we call diasporas, and they sometimes put their own objectives at the expense of others and form separate entities within the larger community. We do not want to live in a country with that kind of episodic way of looking at the way we organise ourselves. The other way is to glory in multiculturalism, which does not satisfy itself with one kind of cultural entity. It is an entity that can be enriched, receive innovation and stir the imagination for greater and more glorious things that we could all enjoy, if only we found the way to release the diaspora from looking inwards to looking outwards. There is already a lot of that happening. I am working with the Catholic agency for development, which is doing some map-making for diasporas, and I want to put all this thinking on to an evidence base.
Think of me on Monday. I now leave the debate for others to take further, but I have rather enjoyed this moment that started with the Bishops, and I have looked at the lowering of attention among the rest of your Lordships as the minutes have passed by.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a daunting privilege to follow both an Archbishop and a Methodist preacher, but I participate in this debate because it is one of the few occasions in the year when we can hope to hear from the Lords spiritual—I welcome in particular the most reverend Primate’s contribution—some spiritual guidance based on the gospels, rather than on the Labour Party manifesto and the latest progressive critique of the last Government.
I hope to achieve a positive response and some answers from the Lords spiritual to the sort of questions that engage me as both a Christian and a Conservative, which are rarely addressed because it is assumed—I hope to challenge this, but not in an aggressive way—that if you are a Conservative you cannot be a Christian, and if you are a Christian you cannot be a Conservative. I want to think particularly about the political implications, if any, of our Lord’s injunction to love our neighbour as ourselves. When Christ asked that question, “Who is my neighbour?”, he told us the parable of the Samaritan. I do not need to repeat it, but we can all agree that one thing that shows is that there can be no discrimination between Samaritan and Jew, between Christian and Muslim, between any different people, on the basis of their colour. That is a clear lesson of that parable, but some conclude that our obligations must therefore extend to the whole world, and that our job to love our neighbour as ourselves means that we must love everybody throughout the world equally. Dickens parodied that in Bleak House, in a chapter on telescopic philanthropy, in which he had the characters Mrs Jellyby, who devoted herself to the Tockahoopo Indians, and Mrs Pardiggle, whose “rapacious benevolence” was directed towards the tribes of the Borrioboola-Gha in Africa, to the detriment of the people of their own country and even their own families.
At the other extreme are those who interpret the parable as meaning only that we should help those we personally come in contact with, and that if we meet someone wounded by the wayside we should help them, especially if others are passing by. But even in a community where everybody was motivated by genuine, generous, Christian charity, leaving that philanthropy and charity to anarchically express themselves would mean that some people get a lot of help and others get no help.
The Church itself recognised at an early stage that it had to create an embryonic welfare state. It pooled resources and helped both its own members and others in the society around it. The earliest Church, in due course, became a sort of welfare state through the churches and the monasteries. Then, after the abolition of the monasteries, the state began to take over with the Poor Law and, ultimately, the modern welfare state. As a result, we have moved a long way from the original Samaritan, who acted voluntarily. We, as members of the welfare state, contribute compulsorily. The Samaritan did not say, “Oh, there is someone in need. I will pluck some money out of the Levite’s wallet and some out of the priest’s wallet and give it to him and claim virtue”. He did it himself with his own means. We have to participate in the welfare state, and we cannot attribute to the welfare state the same moral virtue as we do to the Samaritan. If we did, I would be the most generous person in this place, because as Secretary of State for Social Security I distributed £200 billion of your money, in modern money, to the poor, the needy and so on. But it was not my virtue: I was simply doing what society had decided.
Ultimately, the welfare state exists; we agree to do that, with compulsion on ourselves to contribute, because of a sense of national solidarity. Here, I think we get to some questions that are often ignored. Most of us feel a hierarchy of obligation: to our family, to our immediate friends, then to our nation—of course there is an obligation to people outside our nation, but it is primarily to our nation. I ask the Benches opposite this: is that okay? Is it reasonable that we have a hierarchy of obligation, feel more obligation to those in our own country than to those in others, and feel that other countries should themselves have their welfare states and look after their own people according to the means they have?
Well, I suggest that we have to, because we cannot be open to the whole world; we cannot because our welfare level is greater than the norm, or median, income in many of the countries in the third world. My first career was working in developing countries on aid and development programmes, and the level of incomes then was dramatically below what people on welfare in this country got—so we cannot, for that reason.
Anyway, if we do, to the extent that we do, we find that generous-minded people in this House, who all have their own homes, start allocating housing that would have gone to people on the housing list to people from abroad. That is why there is resentment if there is an excessive influx from abroad—and not illegally: I mean, over the last 18 months, we have allowed a net inflow into this country of the population of Birmingham. Where are we going to build another Birmingham before we can build a single extra house for the people already here? We rarely hear about that from those who find any criticism of mass migration to be improper.
That raises the question: should we accept anybody who manages to get here? It is apparently legitimate that we try to stop them getting here—we try to stop the boats and smash the gangs, and no one has ever criticised Starmer for wanting to do that, but it is a bit odd that, when people manage to get here nonetheless, they are then effectively awarded prizes, very often at the cost of the least well-off in this country. Matthew Parris equated it to a rugby match: you can try to stop people getting across the line, but as soon as they get across the line and touch down, they are granted the prize of five points and can try to convert it into a goal. That is a funny business.
Anyway, it is always the least poor who get here. When I worked in Africa and Asia, none of the poor people I was working among ever talked of the possibility of coming to Europe: it was beyond their comprehension, the costs of travel were so much greater, and the knowledge through media was so much less that they did not. Now, the people who do get here are those who have access to a few thousand pounds, perhaps £10,000, which is an enormous amount of money in those countries—and we are saying, “Oh, well, we’re generous. We’ll allow them to stay. We mustn’t try to stop them”. I simply ask the question: why is it reasonable to try to prevent them coming here but not fair to try to deter them from coming here, as we did through the Rwanda programme?
There are lots of issues that we—and I—have to wrestle with, and I would like the bishops occasionally to wrestle with them. Is it reasonable that we have national solidarity or is that an evil and wicked thing? Is it reasonable that we give priority to the poor in our own country while recognising that charity, although it begins at home, does not end at home? We may have to offer help to countries that are overwhelmed by some disaster, but then, normally, we should expect people in other countries to look after themselves and our duty is to the poor, needy and vulnerable in our own community.
Lord Bird (CB)
I really like the idea of speaking in this debate about community. I will start with a model that I invented and applied in a city—a town, actually, because it does not have a cathedral—in 2018. I had a conference in this town with the Big Issue and a number of other people, and we went and did something which we called an MCM, a “mercenary community model”. It was completely mercenary: there was nothing about love, kindness or community; it was all about mercenary concerns.
What did we do? We went to this town, which was stricken at the time because it had run into problems—I think the local government had been bankrupt or almost bankrupt. We chose the town randomly. We called the conference, got the biggest employer and other people to pay for part of the conference, and we did something mercenary. One of the things we did was contact some estate agents who had buy-to-lets—I think one had 150 of them. Every month, he had to cut the grass or pay someone to do it, and he had to do all sorts of other things: repair fences, fix windows and all that. We went to him and said, “We’re going to get you to buy the services from a local housing association who are trying to expand the number of their tenants who work”. I do not know whether noble Lords know but, on average, a housing association will have 70% of its tenants unemployed or economically inactive. This housing association wanted to expand its grass services and repair services and to take on staff from the people who were its tenants. Brilliant—we put somebody who had a social mission with somebody who wanted to look good. And, let us be honest: if anybody really needs to be looking good today, it is an estate agent.
We went to the local NHS. I do not know whether they all have this, but this one had this person—it is normally a doctor—who was responsible for social relationships in the community. We said to them, “You know what? There’s a bakery that employs largely women who have had many disasters in life: they’ve married the wrong guy, been beaten and thrown out, all sorts of things like that. They may have drink or drug problems”. This was a social bakery. We said to the NHS, “Wouldn’t it be a good thing if you bought your bread from them?” So it did: it bought nine thousand loaves a month. We did a number of things like that. I am sorry: this may sound as though I am making a joke—I am a devout ex-Catholic, so maybe I am allowed to say this —but I did not go there and say, “Isn’t it lovely”, and, “Let’s be nice to each other”; I kept looking for ways in which I could award people what I called a “social echo”.
What happened when Covid came was that we had managed to stitch together a community. I even produced a magazine for it, which I called Darning Street—sewing together the community. When Covid came, we had managed to do this, we had already laid the ground and done the work for old people who were on the edge of society, so to speak, and needed food. We knew who was in the community, and it all started from a mercenary desire to get people together and look good. I really believe in the power of getting people to look good. If Rio Tinto-Zinc wants to come and give me £5 million to spend for the benefit of the most disfranchised people in Britain, I am going to make them look good. That is how I got my money. I got the money to start the Big Issue from a large multinational company called the Body Shop. I went into business to make it look good, that is where I am.
I want some more grown-up thinking. I want to see Social Echo reformed. The problem with Social Echo, the reason it fell to pieces, was because it was all based on personalities, and if you change a few personalities, you fall to pieces. I have come just to give noble Lords an optimistic view of how we could rebuild communities if we started looking at who is in the community and what business functions in the community. Rather than a situation where you knock on someone’s door because you want to get a few bob from them to build something or other, what we really need is to find a way for people to trade with each other and by trading with each other, transform the community and build a better community.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, which always has a particularly important place in the calendar. I look back fondly at our debate this time last year on families and the really wonderful work that the outgoing most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did on Love Matters, helping people accept families as they are in the present world. These are not always wonderful—we remember RD Laing and the schizophrenogenic mother—but, for the most part, families are the building block of society. That seems to me to be the right place then to move into social cohesion, such a critical issue.
I am alienated by the Library briefing referring to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to give me my definition of social cohesion. Social cohesion goes back to Durkheim, the French sociologist and founder of sociology, 150 years ago; to Max Weber and Karl Marx trying to understand how societies would operate in the face of declining social and religious factors and the change in the workplace. They talked about social cohesion and the outfall of suicide, delinquency and deviance if social integration was not properly respected. Of course, in today’s world, social cohesion is even more difficult.
One reason I became Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when my boss had asked me to take a much chunkier department, was because my observation, as a social scientist, was that the framework that held people together was increasingly disintegrating. People were held together by the docks, the steelworks, the mines: that was the drumbeat of communities. In a world where people work from home, those common causes are no longer there, and it is the DCMS responsibilities that hold people together. Going to the Last Night of the Proms is an act of social cohesion. Going to the cup final at Wembley is an act of social cohesion: people are there together, regardless of their class, their background and so on. Museums, sport and galleries are all ways of creating social cohesion in a world where it is not always the Church that provides that cohesion. I regret that.
There was a time when political parties created social cohesion. Anybody who went to my constituency, when I was first an MP, joined the Tory party not because they were Tories but because they would meet nice people. I know that it was the same in a lot of Labour constituencies, but it is not like that any more. The work of the Church, and all faith groups, is enormously important because it gives meaning to life, it helps the needy, it helps the lonely and it helps people through the life cycle. The great thing about faith groups—religious, Muslim, Hindu, Christian—is that you celebrate birth, you celebrate adolescence, you celebrate marriage and you prepare for death. This is how we create communities that care for each other and understand each other. It was shocking, the most reverend Primate’s comment about people who are so obsessed with being online, they do not have a friend. How often do we see that with children? Their friends are their online friends. How dangerous and sinister is that?
I want to talk about this new development, articulated by Dame Sara Khan as “freedom-restricting harassment”. That is a rather fancy name, but we see it in the cancel culture in schools and universities—the idea that people are not free to speak the truth as they see it. The joy of the House of Lords is that we cannot be intimidated; we can say what we like without even having to be afraid of our constituents getting at us afterwards, as those who have been in the Commons will understand. I have spent many years in universities, as have many, and my message to graduates getting their degree is always, “University is the place where you have created your values, you decided who you are. It is not just about facts and knowledge, it is about wisdom, trust, values and what you believe to be right for the future”. The fact that our universities are particularly international in nature is all the more important, because the stranger factor is so sinister and dangerous, but if you have learned together, you work together and understand different cultures—how important that is for the economy.
Those of us who are followers of McKinsey will recognise that diversity is one of the critical factors in successful businesses. I applaud employers and I think we should say more about them in terms of social cohesion, and the work they are doing on diversity and inclusion. It sounds very woke but it really matters. Can you be yourself at work? Can you be the best possible person you can be? Can you give 110% of your effort? Because if you are feeling insecure about being of a different ethnic group, sexual orientation or whatever, you are not able, you are not liberated, to do the best you can in your economic enterprise.
How much more important is this now too, with all this working from home, which I have viscerally opposed? Except for women, or men, with childcare purposes, I will not believe that working from home is a healthy thing to do. We are social people. We need to go to work. Young people need to go to work to see grumpy old women like me at work, and grumpy old people like me need to see young people who will explain to them about TikTok. This is how we share values and how we change. The sooner we move away from thinking that working from home is a wonderful thing, I shall be delighted. I accept that it has transformed life for many women, and I will allow it there, but otherwise nothing will convince me.
On democracy, the most reverend Primate made really serious comments about people failing to vote, their alienation and disinterest. I get very angry when I hear people say, “All politicians are in it for themselves”. If you want to do it for £80,000 a year or whatever it is, working seven days a week, you try. I meet a lot of people in the business world who sneer at politicians, and that really winds me up big time, but there is an issue about the effect of social media. This is familiar. When we all went to political meetings when we were young—long ago—people would argue and debate. You would never leave a political meeting thinking it was 10-0 or 8-2, everything was divided, but social media is about assertion. There are no facts, no evidence, no logic; there is assertion, and this vulgarises and polarises debate.
I commend the most reverend Primate particularly on his presidential address at the York Diocesan Synod last March. He quoted Jonathan Sacks, with whom I used to work a lot, talking about the temptation for religious leaders to be confrontational, like politicians. He said, “I am trying to resist this temptation, please pray for me. And please resist it yourself”. He also said that with this divisive mindset:
“Choices must be set out as stark divisions. Not to condemn is to condone … A prophet hears not one imperative but two: guidance and compassion, a love of truth and an abiding solidarity with those for whom that truth has become eclipsed”.
It seems to me that that is what we have to do. I want to draw attention to the English-Speaking Union, which encourages young people to debate, to take each other’s sides in an argument, to speak with logic and rational purpose—to become the citizens we need.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a commissioner on the National Preparedness Commission. I am glad to be taking part in this debate today. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who has much to offer this House. I have the privilege of being Bishop of London, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that London is full of great diversity of political views. I extend an invitation to him to come and see where we wrestle with some of our Christian faith and politics.
The riots over the summer were a wake-up call to us all to prioritise community cohesion. There is much to be said about this, and I echo much of what my friend the most reverend Primate has already said. I am going to focus my remarks on two issues which are central to this topic but are particularly related to health, although they have a much wider application, and those two topics are trust and partnership.
First, on trust, as the most reverend Primate indicated, we have much to do to improve trust within the Church of England. Not least, we must ensure we have a greater survivor focus and introduce independent safeguarding and mandatory reporting. I join my friend the most reverend Primate in apologising for the shocking failures that the Makin report highlighted.
Moving wider, the pandemic was a world-changing event that impacted on all of us differently, but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House was horrified by the high death rate. We know that those from ethnic communities were more likely to have caught Covid, to have been hospitalised and to have died from it. According to ONS data, the Bangladeshi population faced a death rate five times higher than the white British population. The Pakistani population’s rate was three times higher. Even within these brutal statistics, we cannot properly communicate the extreme and severe loss that some communities experienced. We know that there were unequal health outcomes before Covid, but in some ways Covid demonstrated the scale of them.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, reminded us in the introduction to the first report of the Covid inquiry that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens. It is easy to see how the pandemic has damaged our communities’ trust in institutions, including the health service, and how that damage worsened during the events over the summer. We have already heard how important it is for us to celebrate and recognise our differences, and it is true that one of the greatest strengths of this nation is, in fact, our diversity, but the experiences of some receiving care with a lack of cultural competence tells us that we have a way to go. Part of this is a lack of understanding and celebration of difference for patients and staff. It is vital for us to understand our ethno-religious identities because they change our experience not just of health but of communities.
My Christian belief that we are all made in the image of God motivates me to ensure that we can do better here, but trust is key. Although having sufficient GP appointments available is important, what is more important is feeling confident that you will be listened to and understood. As we will no doubt be aware from our own communities, there were moments of brilliance throughout the pandemic in which faith groups demonstrated neighbourliness and commitment to service, even when people’s day-to-day lives were really restricted. There are lessons to be learned from their ingenuity in building support for their communities and about how to build trust out of a crisis situation. It is important that we recognise the huge amount of work carried out by faith groups while respecting the difference in values that we may have.
Partnership that utilises diversity is key to ensuring cohesion. Working for the good of a place that you live in and seeing a difference is one of the most important and fulfilling parts of our citizenship. We tend to have a greater appreciation and support for something we have helped to build, and it is good to see this encouragement being prioritised on my doorstep with the new City belonging networks established by the Lord Mayor and others across London. We saw wonderful examples of partnership working across local communities, faith groups, the NHS and voluntary and community groups where people in the midst of the pandemic worked together to provide community cohesion.
We are here to reflect on a moment of crisis over the summer, as is right. Indeed, the cumulative impact of previous moments of crisis in our nation and abroad, including serious conflict, mean that a time of fear and uncertainty, and even bereavement for some, is what they experience in the midst of their community. That makes it important that we work together. It is difficult but important work.
However, partnership and engagement with groups and people different from ourselves, particularly on the part of government, cannot be sought only during times of crisis or in reaction to a crisis. Sustained involvement that involves local communities over the long term is required to combat the short-termism of electoral cycles and funding periods. Some faith groups have been serving their communities consistently for generations. When this goes unrecognised, it is detrimental to trust. Indeed, building relationships over the long term and working in partnership are what will build resilience so that, when a crisis occurs, we are better able to cope.
We are encouraged by God in Jeremiah 29 to,
“seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare”.
I hope that this will be an opportunity for us to seek the welfare of our nation, communities and those who are different from us, for it is there that we find our own welfare.
Lord Sharma (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House, and it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I start by thanking your Lordships for the incredibly kind welcome that I have received. I have genuinely felt that I have been enveloped in a blanket of good will, and I sincerely hope that that is going to continue for some time. My supporters at my introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne have offered wise counsel over the past few weeks. I also want to put on record my thanks to all the House staff for all the support they have given over the past few weeks, particularly the doorkeepers, who have quickly worked out that I am not going to win any prizes in an orienteering competition and will gently point me in the right direction when I am going down the wrong corridor.
I know that convention dictates that new Members speak a little bit about their own background, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I keep that bit mercifully short because I want get to on to the substance of this debate—as they say in government, I will get into the detail of that in due course during my time here. To summarise, 14 and half years ago, I arrived in the Commons after a career in investment banking, proudly representing a constituency in my hometown of Reading. I served in a range of junior Minister roles before I entered the Cabinet as Secretary of State for International Development and then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and subsequently as president of COP 26, the UN climate change conference in Glasgow. I can tell noble Lords that they were all really quite interesting perches from which to observe an incredibly tumultuous few years over the past few decades.
Let me turn to today’s debate. As other noble Lords have noted, we are living through an era of increasing uncertainty and change. One of the biggest changes the world is facing, with profound impacts for social cohesion, is climate change. As I speak on this subject, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests. In particular, I serve as co-chair of the Rockefeller Foundation’s climate advisory council and I am an adviser to two finance firms: SEB and EQT.
I want to take your Lordships back for a moment to COP 26 in November 2021. That conference, resulting in the Glasgow climate pact, was agreed by almost 200 countries. Frankly—I say this not immodestly—it achieved more than many had expected when we started the whole process. We saw increased emission reduction targets from countries. We saw more finance put on the table from developed countries to support developing nations, particularly to help them adapt to the changing climate. We managed to go from less than 30% of the global economy covered by a net-zero target to over 90% by the time we got to Glasgow. Just about every G20 country signed up. For the first time, in 26 of these annual meetings, we managed to get the world to agree to phase down the use of coal.
COP 26 was also the first business COP. It was the first time in these meetings that we had the business community coming in real force and making commitments of its own. These included $130 trillion of private capital through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, committed to accelerating the decarbonisation of the global economy.
Despite that progress in Glasgow, at the time I described COP 26 as a “fragile” win. I said that the goal that the world agreed in Paris in 2015, to limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, was on “life support”. I said that because, although commitments are difficult to extract from countries—I can tell your Lordships, they are really difficult—getting those countries to implement those commitments on time is even harder.
Yes, there has been some progress on commitments made. In 2017, for instance, one in 70 new cars sold in the world was an electric vehicle; this year it will be one in five. On current trends, renewables sources are on course to generate close to half of global electricity by 2030. That is vitally important, as 75% of global emissions are energy related. But the reality is that the world is not doing nearly enough to cut global emissions and arrest global warming. Last year was the hottest on record. That record is expected to be broken this year, with 2024 set to be the first year to breach the totemic 1.5 degrees limit. Just about every day, we see the terrible impacts of the changing climate on millions of lives and livelihoods around the world—many billions of dollars of costs to infrastructure and business, all of it testing social cohesion. Ultimately, climate change does not recognise borders.
We also know that climate change exacerbates existing risks—water security, food security, migration risk—further testing social cohesion. In 2022, millions more people in the world were displaced due to climatic events than conflicts. Yes, many of them moved within their own countries or regions, but can we imagine what might happen if parts of the global South eventually become uninhabitable because of climate change? Where will these people move to?
But, just as the science has become starker and the risks posed by climate change have become clearer, countries and businesses have very much recognised the economic opportunities offered by pursuing a net-zero agenda—for jobs, for growth and for inward investment. However, one of the key constraints has been deploying finance at the scale that is needed; this was a key topic of discussion at the COP we have just had in Baku. Public finance is important, but the reality is that much of the finance required will need to come from the private sector. There is a shortfall in how much is being deployed annually, particularly in developing economies, where last year we saw cash outflows, not inflows.
With the right policy stimuli—planning reform, a green skills revolution and financial incentives for individuals and communities to take up green technologies and accept infrastructure locally—I remain confident that we will win the battle for net zero in the developed countries. But my concern is that we risk losing the climate war in developing nations unless we can significantly scale up the private finance needed to transition those emerging economies. There are ways to do this. I do not have time now, but I hope that this will be the subject of a future debate in this House.
Leaders around the world face many immediate challenges: war, trade conflicts and an increasingly fractured geopolitics which is picking at the very seams of the current world order. But, among all of this, the chronic threat from climate change continues to get worse. We need to treat this for what it is: a climate emergency. If we get it right, we can transition to a cleaner, greener and more prosperous world, with stronger and more cohesive societies. I look forward to advocating for that kind of world during my time in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend and congratulate him on his maiden speech. He has done so much in 14 and a half years, serving as a Member of Parliament and as a Minister and Secretary of State. Above all, as president of COP 26, he did the impossible, uniting nearly 200 countries to commit to the Glasgow climate plan. His experience and dedication will be invaluable in this place. I look forward to his future contributions and the impact that he will undoubtedly have on our thinking, particularly on climate change. I sincerely hope that the blanket of good will does not cool down in the meantime.
I declare my interest as a board member of More in Common. I welcome this vital debate, as social cohesion matters. It is not merely an abstract ideal; it is the very fabric of our national unity and resilience. It embodies our ability to pull together, rely on one another and foster a stable and prosperous society. Today, we face unprecedented pressures on social cohesion. According to research by More in Common, Britons increasingly feel that the United Kingdom is divided. Since January, the proportion of people who describe the United Kingdom as divided has increased from 57% to 78%. The main divisions people identify are between the rich and poor, between immigrants and those born in the United Kingdom, and between left and right.
Britons view the UK as atomised and individualistic. When asked to describe the sense of solidarity in the UK, 71% selected “It’s everyone for themselves” while 29% said “We’re all in this together”. Furthermore, 43% believe the United Kingdom is more divided now than at any time in their lifetime. Three-quarters of Britons are concerned about racism, Islamic extremism, far-right extremism and religious divisions. A broad majority are also concerned about anti-Semitism, at 62%, and Islamophobia, at 71%.
From geopolitical turmoil and global pandemics to economic crises and technological innovation, including migration, our societal bonds are being tested like never before. This reality demands our attention and action. I argue that neither the right nor the left of the political spectrum has all the answers. The centre might. That is where we must seek common ground before the sense of division and fragmentation is entirely hijacked by those who claim to be the only ones to understand British people and the only ones who can speak for them.
I will focus on three issues: migration, integration and foreign policy. Migration is an unavoidable and undeniable feature of our times, and as a nation of immigrants we must recognise the indispensable contribution that migrants have made to our economy and culture.
However, we must also face some hard truths. The surge in immigration has placed immense pressures on public services, creating an environment where social cohesion begins to erode, fostering an “us versus them” mentality that, as we know, stirs division and resentment. While there is no evidence that refugees pose a political, social, economic or security threat, polling shows that people are concerned. Those concerns should not be dismissed outright. This places a particular responsibility on Governments to find the resources to address the domestic implications of migration, while those not in government must respond responsibly.
The responsibility to help is determined not by geography but by adherence to universal human rights and values. It transcends religion, culture and ethnicity. We need not to be reaching for the lowest common denominator in our response to the refugee crisis, but to strive to live up to the highest ideals and our highest standards. Every country in the world—not just in Europe, not just here—must be part of solution.
We should also be mindful of the distinction between economic migrants who are escaping extreme poverty and refugees who are fleeing immediate threats to their lives. All people on the move in these tragic circumstances must have their human rights and dignity respected. We should not stigmatise anyone for aspiring to a better life, but refugees face immediate danger, persecution and death, and their rights are enshrined in international law. Effective reception and screening are crucial to ensuring that claims are assessed and protection is extended to those who really need it.
Secondly, integration must be a fundamental part of our immigration policy. Failing to integrate new citizens creates parallel communities divided not just by geography but by culture and identity. Effective integration goes beyond the English language. It requires bridging social and cultural gaps through comprehensive educational programmes that instil core British values of justice and fairness and promote community engagement through participation and volunteering.
We must not be shy about expecting a reciprocal relationship between new citizens and their new homeland. It is a two-way relationship. It is not only about accepting what Britain has to offer, such as security and opportunity, but about giving back. As someone who has experienced this process personally, I can say that being a citizen is not just about holding a British passport. It is about contributing to society, respecting and upholding British laws and values and strengthening those values through our individual and collective example.
On our foreign policy, we must reflect and strike a balance between the national interest and global responsibilities. I believe that in some cases, we have fallen short on both. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition at the Lord Mayor’s banquet that global problems increasingly manifest as local challenges. When it comes to the Middle East conflict, the impact on social cohesion in the United Kingdom is staggering. According to More in Common, 49% worry about the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK, 47% worry about the rise of Islamophobia, 55% are concerned that it will lead to increased tensions between religious groups and 58% are worried about the potential for increased Islamic extremism. I ask the Minister: what comes after the Prime Minister’s recognition of the impact of foreign policy on domestic policy and cohesion? What will change after that recognition?
We must recognise the pressure on our social cohesion, not only in migration and foreign policy but as a part of a wider crisis in global governance. Over the past 15 years the number of forcibly displaced people in the world has surged. The crisis is unsustainable and beyond the capacity of international humanitarian organisations or countries like ours to manage alone. It is driven by a systemic failure to resolve conflicts. Nothing tells us more about the state of the world than the movement of people across borders. We must look for long-term solutions. We cannot donate our way out of these crises, nor can we bomb our way out of them. We cannot solve the problem simply by taking in refugees. We need to find diplomatic solutions to end those conflicts.
Our historical commitment to defend freedom has often strengthened our national cohesion. We must continue that legacy as a source of collective pride and use it as a foundation to tackle the challenges of the day.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind the House that I speak as a non-affiliated Member of your Lordships’ House.
It is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, on his maiden speech. I know Reading well; indeed, I appeared at the Hexagon many years ago and, thankfully, the population of Reading has forgotten that. We will gain much from his contribution and his wisdom.
I congratulate my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, on opening this debate. Perhaps it is more worrying for him than for me that, as an atheist, I could probably have delivered 95% of his speech without flinching. I agree with everything he said.
We face very dangerous times. Politics has failed, as have politicians and institutions of state, when we choose power not to proceed positively but to punish and misrepresent. We then indulge in the politics of fear and hate to scapegoat and blame others. I believe we are better than that—we are all indeed better than that—but we are on the brink of failure, and I fear what may come. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York reminded us, the loss of trust takes everything in its wake.
Communities both at home and abroad are facing deep uncertainty, and we need to be radical in tackling the roots of disengagement, disempowerment and disfranchisement—the feeling of being lost, often, when you are still living in the place where you were born and where you feel you once belonged. That sense of not belonging, and loss of identity, is what others feel when they have no option but to abandon their roots, homes, families and language and seek a future elsewhere —migrants. One way or another, we have all been migrants and could so easily be again: in a mass of people who are wilfully misrepresented, tragically defamed and often presented as a threat by politicians and the media in order to gain or retain power over others.
We need to recognise at home and abroad that the problems that happen elsewhere are as important as if they are happening to us. Our communities need equality at their heart, along with respect and dignity, abiding by the same laws, with the same rights and protections that the law affords us. We must recognise that education nurtures and sustains throughout life, giving opportunities for all to change direction, and that information and education are at the centre of individual empowerment and the raising of aspirations.
We also need to recognise our historic obligations, that there is a moral imperative—and if that is not good enough, an economic imperative—in putting right the historical wrongs of our empire. We need to turn our backs on racism, fear and hatred and become the enemy of fear, hatred and racism, standing in the shoes of others, remembering that the denial of the rights of one person or group, especially the most defamed or misrepresented, is ultimately the denial of our own rights.
As politicians, we need to do more—more explaining but, above all, more listening. We need to call out what is going on in the world: to call out what is going on in Gaza, and not be accused of anti-Semitism when we criticise the Israeli Government for failing to abide by international legal obligations.
I put to your Lordships the voice of Sister Christine Frost, who has worked for 56 years in the East End of London. She says: “Community cohesion is one of the most valuable and priceless principles, which I believe politicians ignore at their peril. It enables communities to tackle racism before it can take root, so that we can re-own our common, rich humanity”. She continues: “Why, I ask my myself, do politicians sow so much discord and division? Because so few have walked in our shoes, experienced downright neglect, had to choose between heating and eating, know the cost of renting from greedy landlords or are forced to work two or three jobs, just to get by”.
I continue with her words: “Here in the East End of London, the disconnect between the rich and powerful and the voiceless and powerless can be very stark. It’s in our face. For us, community cohesion is the only glue holding us together. Our politicians could and should be using their authority—which we the voters have entrusted them with—to heal the evident disconnect and inequality of opportunity, health and care provisions, education and housing. Do you even know how unequal our society has become? Please don’t promote community cohesion as a cover-up; get down to the underlying roots and help us make this something real and lasting”.
Yesterday, reflecting on another woman who helped change the world, we gathered in Brussels to remember the Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead, who died just over a year ago. She did something: she challenged power and the institutions and religions that hold people back and deny women and minorities their rights while simultaneously talking about the good of scripture. She challenged her own Government and other Governments, her own party and other parties, to do the right thing. She stood against tyrants during her time in the European Parliament and as chair of the Afro-Caribbean and Pacific joint parliamentary assembly. Whether the obstruction, hatred or abuse was coming from a developed or a developing country, she called it out. She spoke truth to power, particularly when it did not want to be heard.
She changed the world for the better by facing down the criticism and getting on with the work, knowing that inequality is the enemy of us all, particularly those who have no voice. We gathered in Brussels to celebrate her legacy, and her work goes on. She empowered others. Arguably, that is all that we as politicians need to do: empower the next generation for all that needs to be done, the challenges we have to face and the battles that can be won only on a multigenerational basis. Then, and only then, will we truly address the problems and empower others.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on selecting this topic for debate, and thank him for bringing faith into the debate, which I will talk about more in a minute. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Sharma on his excellent first contribution.
I care greatly about this issue. As my entry in the register of interests discloses, I serve on a number of organisations in the Jewish community and related outreach organisations. Social cohesion is under real threat. A survey published in October this year by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, where I serve as president, demonstrates that more than one-third of British Jews have experienced anti-Semitic harassment, or worse, in the last year—a much higher proportion than the figures issued by the Home Office, which show only the incidents that are reported. Even this morning, at 4 am, the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne was firebombed while worshippers were inside. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in sending our best wishes to that community at this difficult time.
For decades, the Jewish community in this country has been the example par excellence of how to be part of a wider society and contribute to it while simultaneously maintaining its own sense of religious and Jewish identity. We can look at the contribution made to arts, law, business, philanthropy, science and, indeed, your Lordships’ House. But that is showing clear signs of change since 7 October. A study published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in October contains several indicators of Jews closing in on themselves, hiding their Jewish identity in public for fear of hostility, feeling uncertain or uncomfortable among non-Jewish friends, gravitating towards Jewish friends and retreating into the Jewish community spaces, where they feel safer, in search of solace and solidarity.
As president of a synagogue, I am always pleased to see more regular worshippers, but it saddens me that this increase is due to fear and concern for our presence. None of these is a good indication for social cohesion in Britain, and they all reflect a sense that it is becoming harder to feel comfortable or welcome as a religious or ethnic minority in this country. It has now reached the point where Jewish families are planning to leave the UK, as they no longer regard it as a safe place to live and bring up their families. I have spoken to many who have decided it is now time to leave.
Just a few weeks ago, the co-founder of the Outset Contemporary Art Fund, Mrs Candida Gertler, OBE, resigned from her role in the arts world because of vile, anti-Semitic sentiments, which she said seek “to marginalise and dehumanise” Jewish people. Worse, she pointed out that the institutions in the arts sector have failed to confront hate and
“allow prejudice to take root”.
These are not isolated incidents. The hate in the arts and literary worlds, which are now seeking to ban people who they call Zionists, sends a chilling effect down the spines of all Jewish subjects in the UK. We are sponsors of the Jewish film festival, which struggled to find cinemas to screen Jewish films. The cinemas provided all sorts of excuses as to why they could not do so. Even today, the Exeter International Dance Film Festival refused to screen a film about the Nova music festival in southern Israel.
Yesterday, Amnesty International, a somewhat flawed organisation, came up with a baseless report which has been described as a
“blood libel against the Jewish state”,
which will, of course, incite others to blame UK Jews for these grievances, as has been the case at Goldsmiths, where students forced the somewhat spineless college to remove the names of Jewish donors who had given in good faith to that college. We have seen anti-Semitism on campus, online, in workplaces and in the NHS. It has even been shown to Jewish pupils on the way to school, three of whom were glassed in Stamford Hill, with one girl receiving life-changing facial injuries.
CST found that, in the majority of anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2024, the ethnicity of the offender was provided and involved non-white offenders. A pattern is developing and there is a change in the demography of the offenders. It is clear that criticisms of the State of Israel’s actions, which are motivated by self-defence after 7 October, morph into hostility against UK Jews.
That includes actions by the UK Government, who, although having helpfully clarified that there is no genocide in Gaza, confirmed by the fact that there is no direct targeting of innocent civilians, then took the purely political action of banning arms sales and, unlike France, enforcing the ICC’s morally corrupt decision, which they must have known would lead to an increase in anti-Semitism and fuel such things as the marches in London, which simply terrify the Jewish community. Some 66% of British Jews avoid going to city centres when demonstrations happen, for fear of their safety. One such march, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, took place last month past my synagogue, Westminster Synagogue in central London. It stopped for seven minutes outside our synagogue, shouting the genocidal, inciting slogan, “From the river to the sea”.
What can be done? Outreach instances such as the brave visit to Preston mosque last month by Manchester’s Jewish leaders, for which all parties should be congratulated, was promptly condemned by 5Pillars. A protest at Birmingham University has called for “Zionists off our campus”. We know what they mean. So, will the Government tie their approach to extremism in with their approach to social cohesion? Extremism is not only violent behaviour, and the continuing crossing of red lines is a threat not just to the Jewish community but to national security.
The Minister can be of great assistance. I call on him, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, did, to convene the moderates—people who are like-minded and feel they can work together and do something together. I have worked with the marvellous Council of Christians and Jews. There is not a council of Jews and Muslims; I do not know if there is a council of Christians and Muslims. Such initiatives need a little help, and perhaps the Government might think further about how to be the catalyst for dialogue and constructive conversations.
We need to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in today. Do we want to live in one that loosely and brazenly condemns minorities as guilty simply by virtue of their religious or ethnic identity, or for their profound and legitimate feelings of attachment to a country elsewhere, as well as to Britain; one that allows a complex conflict in another part of the world to spill over on to the streets of this country in ways that make some of our citizens fear for their safety and withdraw into their siloed communities; one that tolerates speech and behaviour that is hurtful, offensive or downright racist, but is too scared to call it out for fear of a backlash?
This country has long been known for its decency, tolerance and openness. However, the experience of the Jewish community over the past year suggests that it is rapidly losing that reputation. It has often been observed that a rise in anti-Semitism is like the proverbial canary in the mine: a sign of increasing social tension or even collapse. We need the Government to have a plan and to enact it. Speeches are fine, but it is actions which are now needed. We are seeing a rise in anti-Semitism here in Britain today. The data is extremely clear, and the implications should be too.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, wow—what a thought-provoking debate, and we are not even half way through. I thank the most reverend Primate for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, on what was an outstanding and sobering maiden speech. I look forward to hearing when there might be more time to discuss the issues he raised. It was also lovely to be reminded of the legacy of Baroness Kinnock. What a lovely debate so far.
I want to focus on something of quite a practical nature: the role of volunteering in bringing communities together, especially at times of change and in this time of global uncertainty. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—the NCVO. It is the largest membership organisation for the voluntary sector in England and speaks up on behalf of 16,000 members, from the very largest charities down to very small local community groups. We know that these organisations are often at the heart and soul of our communities. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, by communities, I mean communities in the widest sense—communities of interest, communities of concern and communities that bring together those with shared values, not just communities rooted in place.
Resilience for our charities and for our communities go hand in hand. Local charities are deeply rooted in our towns and villages, as we know. They create spaces for us to connect and support local causes. As we have heard, during the pandemic, after the invasion of Ukraine and, as the most reverend Primate said, following the summer riots, we saw how crucial it was for people to come out on to the streets to support their communities and tidy up—to do those very basic things, and hold each other in creating a sense of hope. The contributions of communities and volunteers extend beyond crisis, although they are perhaps most visible in crisis; they represent the spirit of citizenship, which, as we have already heard, is so vital.
Volunteering is a cornerstone of civic participation. Research from 2023 showed that children who volunteer are more likely to become active voters, even if they come from homes where politics is not a big topic around the kitchen table. Who cannot have been encouraged to hear on the radio only recently about the Scouts going out delivering Christmas cards and doing all the things that young groups do with such incredible enthusiasm?
Unfortunately, formal volunteering is in decline. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s Community Life Survey showed a drop in monthly volunteering from one in four people in 2019-20 to one in six people in 2021-22. That is a significant change. Pro Bono Economics highlights a longer-term downward trend, with a decline of over 10% in formal volunteering since 2015. This is worrying for small grass-roots charities which depend heavily on volunteers, as well as for the larger, more famous groups. Recent data from the VCSE Data and Insights National Observatory at Nottingham Trent University shows that six out of 10 charities are struggling to recruit volunteers.
We have an opportunity to turn that round, with the right approach to policy-making. The NCVO’s Time Well Spent survey gives us some insights as to why fewer people are volunteering and what might help to reverse the trend. Flexibility is key. Many non-volunteers said that they would be more likely to volunteer if opportunities were more flexible. Satisfaction is lower among disabled volunteers, those from deprived areas and people from minority backgrounds. This suggests we can make volunteering more inclusive. Financial concerns also play a role, especially among young volunteers, with only half feeling confident that their expenses would be reimbursed. We know from the Community Life Survey that people from deprived areas are less likely to volunteer with the high cost of living playing heavily on their minds. This could be something that the Government need to worry about getting worse.
Despite these challenges, there is a lot of untapped potential, as 62% of people who have not volunteered in the last three years said that they could be encouraged to volunteer. There is a huge opportunity for government to support the voluntary sector. I would like the Minister and those he collaborates with in government to think about a few policy areas.
I am not expecting any rabbits out of the hat today, but the first thing we should look at is the right to request paid leave for volunteering. I have worked with many blue-chip companies around the UK that want to support their staff to volunteer, so let us make this something really easy for people to request. That would allow more people to give their time without putting too much pressure on business and public services.
Secondly, we should look at amending Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act, to ensure that reasonable time off for trustee duties could be allowed. We do this for school governors, who already get time off under this legislation. Trustees could play a vital role in improving the levels of volunteering. They are the ones who lead charities; let us give them, as we do school governors, some time off to do that vital job. There are currently 100,000 trustee vacancies, so that could be improved with positive policy thinking.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that everyone—and this is a big one—claiming benefits can volunteer without fearing they will lose their benefits. Volunteering should not be seen as something that undermines a person’s availability to work. It is not something that means that they are less likely to find their way back into work. Volunteering can build confidence and experience, and allow people to make a valuable contribution to the community. Let us think about that in a positive way.
Policy decisions can, I am sure, have an impact on volunteering. Volunteering is essential to safeguarding our social cohesion; as we have heard, it is the glue that keeps our communities together. So, volunteering is vital for the future of our communities. We need to turn the decline around and I am absolutely positive that, with the commitment of this Labour Government, that can be done, to draw on their collaborations across government and to think of volunteering as a positive, not a challenge, to our communities. Thank you.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Sharma on his impassioned maiden speech and welcome him to the House: he will make a great contribution.
How do we define social cohesion? What do we mean by social solidarity, shared values and social mobility? Finding unity in the midst of our diversity is our task. It is a social contract between different communities and an acceptance and championing of the liberal British values of freedom of speech, equality under the law, freedom of expression, democracy, fairness, equality of opportunity, mutual respect, neighbourliness, philanthropy and kindness. It also means a shared understanding of what makes our country: culture, civic engagement, history and heritage. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in its 2023 report listed
“sense of recognition”
and
“sense of belonging”
as key to social cohesion.
Notwithstanding the big global events—including conflict and uncertainty abroad—that have been discussed earlier, we have to address the realities of life and the challenges here in the UK. Frankly, the UK has never been richer, healthier, more peaceful and safer. Yet, things are going wrong and people are unhappy. Many people do not feel a sense of community and cohesion. They feel alienated from politics and government, bystanders in their own country and at the margins of decision making and economic prosperity. As far back as 2011, YouGov found that the majority of people agreed with the statement:
“Britain has changed in recent times beyond recognition, it sometimes feels like a foreign country, and this makes me feel uncomfortable”.
Certainly, mass uncontrolled and unfettered immigration has been disastrous for true community cohesion, because it has occurred without the imperative of true integration and the upholding of our social contract. It is a fair social contract: welcome to the UK, try to speak English, work hard, obey the law, do not claim benefits, respect the UK’s enduring traditions, and make and build a better life. Mass migration has undermined social and community cohesion, as has hyper-social liberalism, globalisation and ultra-individualism.
On 28 November, the Prime Minister said that Britain had been subject to
“an open borders experiment … This happened by design, not accident … Brexit was used … to turn Britain into a one nation experiment in open borders”.
We have seen the consequences: the stalled per capita GDP, which has catalysed ghettoisation and social isolation, embedded welfare dependency and put huge pressures on our public services. We have seen the pernicious impact of social media among young people—as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York stated—with the woke mind virus spreading and exacerbating discord between disparate groups by sex, gender, class, race, religion and ethnicity. We have seen the inability of Governments to deliver the most basic public services, despite record-high taxes and the burden on the working poor and small businesses while regulators fail to deal effectively with market distortions, dysfunction, monopolies, oligopolies and crony capitalism.
All these phenomena undermine the essence of community and social cohesion. It is why we have seen a rejection of the tired, visionless, managerialist political consensus in favour of communitarian politics: the politics of somewhere rather than anywhere, which recognises the importance of cultural and geographical rootedness for human well-being. It also sees local and national identity as wholesome and important, and values well-established traditional structures: family, sports clubs, village, town, county, country, parish. The ethos of social and economic liberalism by contrast represents selfish, egomaniacal, consumerist individualism. This gives rise to a lack of purpose, hopelessness, sadness, depression, lack of self-worth, worklessness and crime.
There was a time when many people would look to the traditional institutions, such as the Church of England, for guidance in a troubling world. But no more. The report published this week by Civitas, entitled Restoring the Value of Parishes, is a salutary and depressing critique of the leadership and management of the Anglican Church. I implore those on the Bishops’ Benches to return to the core role at the centre of our local and national life. Their centrality is vital in nourishing the parish network and providing spiritual sustenance, pastoral care, moral clarity and a framework to an anxious and discombobulated flock. My Church has lost its way and I hope and trust the Anglican family will recover its sense of purpose under a new leader.
Despite this, there is still hope. The UK remains one of the most successful examples of a multi-ethnic democracy in the modern world. I am indebted to Policy Exchange and its recently published report, A Portrait of Modern Britain: Ethnicity and Religion, which highlights the importance of fostering shared experiences and the bonds of social trust between different ethnic groups and across generations. It makes the sensible point that the term “ethnic minority” is increasingly meaningless. The Indian diaspora is different from the Afro-Caribbean, African, White British or Chinese communities and their experiences. But all believe:
“On balance, throughout history, Britain has been a force for good in the world”,
and:
“Children who are raised in Britain should be taught to be proud of Britain and its history”.
Indeed, we should celebrate such inclusive patriotism, our country’s record of industrial and scientific achievements, our proud history of parliamentary democracy and our abolition of the slave trade, when Wilberforce was not only the MP for Hull but also a Conservative. We should celebrate Magna Carta and our role in destroying the evil of Nazism and fascism in the Second World War. We should celebrate too our unifying moments, such as the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony in London, the vaccine rollout and Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
Over 50% of black and minority-ethnic Britons believe that someone of their race would be treated fairly in this country, and only one-fifth disagree. I endorse the report’s recommendations and invite the Minister to address these specific suggestions: a new national integration strategy, with the public sector equality duty interpreted to have integration at its heart; the creation of a statues of national celebration commission to identify historical British figures deserving of a statue, across all classes and ethnic groups; children to be taught to be proud of their national heritage and British history and traditions; reducing UK immigration dependency by developing new apprenticeships and skills bursaries; the Government agreeing to revivify the strategy to tackle place-based health inequalities; and for government agencies to disaggregate larger groups that are both ethnically and religiously diverse.
In conclusion, we live in a great country with a glorious history and heritage of which we should all be proud. Our challenge, for us and our children, is to bequeath a nation with a future that is safe, prosperous, proud, happy and united.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I rise to contribute to this important debate with gratitude to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for bringing our attention to the vital issue of social cohesion and the strength of supportive community life in an era of rapid change and global uncertainty. The Motion before us touches the very essence of our shared responsibility to uphold the values and practices that bind our society together, particularly when faced with challenges that so easily divide us.
Social cohesion is not merely the absence of conflict. It requires the active presence of respectful relationships, opportunities for meaningful participation and a shared sense of belonging. A society that cultivates these qualities not only survives periods of uncertainty, but thrives within them.
Drawing on my experience of working with disadvantaged individuals and communities, I would like to offer four key observations that I believe can enrich this discussion. First, social tensions are often framed in terms of divisions between groups of differing backgrounds. However, some of the most painful and damaging rifts arise within communities, and even within families. Disputes over norms, roles and expectations can fracture relationships just as deeply as cultural or religious divides. In my work with marginalised communities, I have witnessed individuals ostracised within their own families due to entrenched attitudes or outdated customs. Such internal divisions weaken the social fabric and diminish a community’s ability to act collectively. Addressing these fractures requires us to move beyond broad categories of identity to examine the relational dynamics that corrode cohesion from within.
Secondly, education remains a cornerstone of social cohesion, enabling individuals to navigate both change and resistance to it. Education fosters empathy and understanding, particularly during times of transformation. It also serves as a pathway to social mobility, equipping individuals with the tools they need to engage fully and confidently in society. However, education must extend beyond the acquisition of knowledge. It must be a process that cultivates dialogue, mutual respect and a shared understanding of our interconnected world. Curricula that include diverse perspectives and histories—both local and global—can counteract polarisation and promote a sense of common purpose.
Thirdly, cultural expression and the preservation of heritage are powerful instruments for building cohesion and resilience. When communities have the opportunity to share their traditions and their perspectives on shared heritage, they develop a stronger sense of identity and belonging. This, in turn, fosters mutual appreciation of diversity, enriching society as a whole. Community festivals, arts initiatives and storytelling programmes can break down barriers, replacing suspicion with solidarity. By creating spaces for cultural exchange, we allow trust and understanding to flourish.
Finally, I wish to underscore the corrosive impact of comparative disadvantage. When communities feel excluded from opportunities or experience restricted access to services, feelings of discontent and alienation often follow. These disparities breed resentment, fuel a sense of injustice and erode the very foundations of social cohesion. The recent economic challenges faced by many in the UK underscore the urgency of addressing such inequalities. A society that ensures fair and equitable access to opportunities and resources is one that builds cohesion and resilience. As we work to strengthen our communities, we must remain steadfast in supporting those who have been left behind.
In conclusion, social cohesion is not an abstract ideal but a practical necessity for navigating times of change and uncertainty. It demands commitment at every level of society, within families, communities and institutions alike. Education, cultural exchange and an unwavering focus on equity and inclusion are indispensable tools in this endeavour. I commend this House for recognising the importance of this issue and I urge us all to continue fostering the conditions for a more unified, supportive and resilient society. Thank you.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I thank the most reverend Primate for his very moving opening to the debate, and I congratulate my new noble friend Lord Sharma on his quite excellent maiden speech. We are extremely lucky to have him on our Benches and I welcome him as a Member of this House.
You do not need to be a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House, as I have the privilege to be, to appreciate how much change and global uncertainty we face. In our committee’s report, Ukraine: a Wake-up Call, we looked at lessons the UK should learn from the war in Ukraine, where social cohesion and cohesion of purpose have played a central role in all stages of the Russian invasion, showcasing them as essential components of defence.
Yet, here in the UK, defence has become something other people do; it is delivered by our Armed Forces, with the action usually taking place in some remote foreign field. This detachment and lack of understanding of what defence really means is becoming apparent in the debate around defence spending. No Government of any colour, it seems, are concerned about announcing increasing spending for the NHS, but the debate about why, how and when we might want to increase our percentage spend on defence is hampered by procrastination and vague promises.
Given that Russian forces have continuously targeted critical national infrastructure in Ukraine, and that here in the UK we experience numerous cyberattacks from malicious actors—only this week the National Cyber Security Centre highlighted the gap between the risks we face and our ability to mitigate them—is it time that we looked to the Scandinavian “all of society” approach, where we ask for more collective preparedness? Both Sweden and Latvia have recently released booklets with information about how civilians should react in a crisis or conflict situation. The Czech Republic has launched grey-zone exercises for the private sector. Germany has a long-standing tradition of social resilience, predominantly through its Technisches Hilfswerk—THW—a federal agency that provides training in disaster relief and boasts thousands of volunteers who provide rapid and efficient technical relief in emergencies anywhere in Germany and often across Europe. These solutions are as relevant in a crisis caused by extreme weather events as they are in a public-health emergency or a conflict.
In preparation for today’s debate, I came across the UK’s equivalent, the website prepare.campaign.gov.uk. I consider myself an interested and relatively well-informed citizen in this space, yet I had no idea before now that this existed. Can the Minister tell us whether they are any plans to develop the Prepare campaign and to raise its public profile? Does he know how many unique visits the website has had to date? He might have to write to me on that.
My experience in the healthcare and disability sectors have illustrated that there are too many areas where our society is not cohesive or well prepared. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to the Covid inquiry module 1 report, which concluded that emergency pandemic planning
“generally failed to account sufficiently for the pre-existing health and societal inequalities and deprivation in society”,
and that there was a
“failure to engage appropriately with those who know their communities best, such as local authorities, the voluntary sector and community groups”.
Essentially, our pandemic plans were made by fit and healthy individuals who failed those with pre-existing health issues because of a lack of understanding of what services were essential to them. In my organisation, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, I see such a lack of understanding filter through everyday life, not just emergency planning. Our charity’s mission is therefore to build a stronger, more supportive community for our beneficiaries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, referred to the NCVO briefing. As it says, charity resilience and community resilience go hand in hand. Local charities in particular, as the noble Baroness said, have deep roots in our communities. Yet these organisations, of which mine is but one, which are delivering essential services that the state cannot provide, are feeling threatened like never before thanks to the increased costs of employment, together with reduced funding opportunities. This will affect beneficiaries as well as public services.
The sector is facing a perfect storm and, as I have said before, I am deeply concerned. We face a situation in which organisations are closing due to cash flow, not because of their effectiveness or their impact. The charity sector is in crisis. If they are not shutting, they are cutting.
Social cohesion and strong, supportive community life are indeed essential, but too often there is a sense of “them” and “us”. This Government, I am afraid to say, seem to think that all things public sector are good, and that those of us in the private, charity or any other sector can just be squeezed a bit more to pay for it. This is unsustainable and short-sighted during challenging times.
Instead, I suggest that strengthening and protecting the UK’s national resilience and its critical national infrastructure is the responsibility of us all. It cannot be left just to government, the public sector or the military. We need a collective understanding of the risks and a collective effort to mitigate them. Only then, I believe, will we strengthen our community life and foster greater social cohesion.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his powerful and thought-provoking opening remarks. With any Motion this broad, there are multiple angles to discuss, and I agree with many of the points already raised. From individual families to local charities, many bodies in society deserve credit for binding communities together, but one essential group has been largely overlooked: the business community.
In a few weeks, many of us will be heading out of London for Christmas. I will be returning to Barwick-in-Elmet, a village on the outskirts of Leeds, less than 20 miles from York Minster. If one considers a village such as Barwick as a microcosm of the country at large, it is easy to see the importance of local businesses to community life. With its three pubs, two grocery stores, a fish and chip shop, a pizzeria, a café, a hairdresser and even a bike repair business, it is a hive of entrepreneurship. In contrast, other villages nearby do not contain any businesses supporting the immediate local community and feel like soulless commutervilles as a result.
Why are these businesses important? All too often, we forget the invaluable role that local businesspeople play in these communities—the corner shop owner who checks in on your elderly parents and notices when they do not pop in for their regular Saturday newspaper or midweek pint of milk, or the publican who throws regular social events to bring the local community together, which help alleviate the loneliness of people living alone. Understanding the role that businesses play in local communities is therefore an essential component to properly understanding how to promote social cohesion. This observation is not limited to villages. As villages grow into towns, and towns grow into cities, the important link between economic change and social cohesion becomes even more paramount.
We can tell a lot about the economic fortunes of an area from its architecture. I was in Liverpool in September for the Labour Party conference—and, yes, my attendance did raise a few eyebrows. I used the opportunity to revisit both the city’s cathedrals, and it struck me that both buildings very much track the prosperity of that great city through the 20th century.
Liverpool’s Anglican cathedral represents a desire by Victorian and Edwardian grandees to build the largest cathedral in the country, with the largest pipe organ to boot, whereas Liverpool’s Catholic cathedral had similar ambitions—to be the second-largest church in the world, with the largest dome—but had to be scaled back to a more modest, modern structure when Britain’s financial difficulties after the war became very apparent. You can see similar juxtapositions across towns and cities in the north of England: impressive Victorian town halls standing alongside more modest buildings as areas became less affluent. What application does this story of transition have for building strong community life?
First, let us examine a more recent economic transition. In the 1980s, the Government of the late noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, moved away from the previous model for funding Britain’s coal industry, where high state subsidies kept the sector afloat. Privatisation had many merits, but the process had a devastating impact on the communities involved, and the way the transition was handled has been a source of regret for the architects of those changes. For example, in 2009 the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, wrote the following, which is worth quoting at length:
“Those mining communities had good working-class values and a sense of family values … Many of these communities were completely devastated … The scale of the closures went too far. The damage done to those communities was enormous”.
In this one example we can see how rapid economic change, while potentially necessary on a macro level, can have dramatic negative impacts on a local level. The key is to properly manage the transition. For this specific sector, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has done tremendous work supporting the towns and villages affected by the pit closures.
I now turn to the present day. Our society is facing two profound economic changes. The first—much discussed in this House, including in my noble friend Lord Sharma’s passionate maiden speech—is the transition to a net-zero economy. The second, very much underdiscussed, is advances in automation and AI.
At this year’s TUC Congress in Brighton—one I did not attend, sadly—it was notable that both the GMB and Unite unions raised strong concerns about the net-zero transition on the grounds that there are not as yet equally skilled and equivalently paid jobs for workers in the oil and gas sector to transition to. They described the Government’s proposals for North Sea production and the extending of the energy profits levy as “premature and irresponsible”, and their position was summarised in the pithy slogan, “No ban without a plan”. Rather than merely considering the net-zero transition on a national level, we therefore need to have a much more honest conversation about the impact of this transition on individuals, families and communities on a local level.
This transition will affect not only Scotland. We are already seeing the effect in Wales, where Port Talbot saw the loss of 2,800 jobs this year, and in communities right across the country, often in areas that are already poorer than average. We therefore need to factor in these societal consequences when we discuss the net-zero transition.
We also need to consider the effect that automation and AI will have on the economy and our society. At the UK’s AI Safety Summit in 2023, Elon Musk predicted:
“There will come a point where no job is needed. You can have a job if you want to … for personal satisfaction, but the AI will be able to do everything”.
A recent report from the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested that without adequate management, the AI transition could result in 8 million job losses and no benefit to GDP. Its best-case scenario, though, was no job losses and a 13% boost to GDP.
I am confident that we can ensure the best-case scenario occurs, but the transition will require careful thought and proper planning—otherwise, the impact on community life will indeed be grim. More broadly, we need to do more to properly acknowledge the positive role that the business community plays in creating prosperity and engendering social cohesion. After all, economic transition is one of the biggest changes facing the country.
Strong, supportive communities are immensely important to us all, but unless we properly acknowledge the crucial role of the business community in our society, we will be ignoring the essential glue that binds us together—the businesses that pay our wages, pay tax to fund our public services and train people and offer them a ladder of opportunity. That is why we must always remember that successful societies require successful businesses.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I too am grateful to the most reverend Primate for securing this debate and setting its tone. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, for his impressive speech, and look forward to many more contributions from him in this Chamber. I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and realise that there is more that unites us than divides us. Indeed, there are overlaps with many of the contributions from the Benches opposite in what I am about to say, because I want to speak of a particular place and of particular people.
I begin with Liverpool, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, mentioned. It was David Sheppard who, as Bishop of Liverpool, ordained me deaconess in Liverpool Cathedral and helped me to understand the stresses that port cities experience as global trade and human migration patterns shift. Port cities absorb, endure or thrive on the consequent change. Bishop David and his Archbishop and Free Church colleagues were well aware that social unrest was a symptom of the impact of felt injustice and a stimulus to work to create justice and peace. “Better together” was their theme and their motto in a city divided on economic, racial and religious grounds.
By contrast, my adopted city of Bristol has a long-established tradition of riot. In 1831, as the city expanded and industrialised, there were violent protests focused on a local magistrate and the Bishop of Bristol; both men were opposed to the Great Reform Bill. The jails and the bishop’s palace were destroyed. The cathedral was set on fire. In 1980 and 1986, after years of tensions, violent unrest erupted between the police and those who had arrived after the Second World War at our invitation from the Caribbean and who were the descendants of those enslaved and traded from Africa by Bristol-registered ships. A sense of profound injustice continued to counter the peace and prosperity of the city, which remained fragile.
However, at the same time in the 1980s it was John Savage, a business leader and entrepreneur, formed by Anglicanism’s bridge-building tradition, who led the Bristol initiative to build common ground between the estranged tribes of the city council, the Society of Merchant Venturers and the entrepreneurs and industrialists of the city. John, now a lay canon of the cathedral, understood that, as with so many other places, as the psalmist puts it, a vision is essential if the people are not to get out of hand.
John’s articulated intention was to create a city which by 2050 would be a just, sustainable, healthy and hopeful environment in which all of us could live. There are, flowing from his Bristol initiative, programmes and plans to implement that vision in conversation with the city council. That is the underpinning of Bristol’s one-city commitment, drawing together public, private, voluntary, creative and community organisations. The one-city partners meet fortnightly. They include vice-chancellors, hospital and social care leaders, the community leaders of our many communities and the whole of the not-for-profit sector.
We meet quarterly in a major gathering, sense the stresses which are emerging and look to causes and collaborative responses. Currently, our focus is on reducing knife crime and school absenteeism. The one-city approach was fundamental to our Covid response and to enabling honest debate after Colston’s statue was felled. We are seeking now to forge a new narrative which reflects the experience of all Bristolians. The one-city approach has sustained a culture which nurtures bridging and bonding links and relationships, builds trust and allows for change. My diocese, the parishes and the cathedral play their part. Last year, following prayers as the Ramadan fast ended in an adjacent building, the cathedral welcomed its Muslim neighbours for their grand iftar in the nave itself. St Mary Redcliffe, for a while the preserve of Bristol elites, has re-embedded itself in its local and often marginalised community, particularly welcoming refugees. Easton Christian family centre and Anglican church school and community hub has become, in the name of Christ, a place of prayer and service for all people in a parish that is almost entirely Muslim.
All this has buttressed the bonds of peace, so that when tensions arise around migration, faith and race do not overspill and fall apart. The Church stood in solidarity with other communities to protect the asylum seekers in the hotel in Redcliffe during the riot—the one riot—that we had. Police and demonstrators then communicated to prevent further unrest. The one-city commitment survived and was stress-tested. However, it remains fragile, dependent on healthy state, business and voluntary enterprises. The stresses are now considerable. St Mary Redcliffe and the cathedral need major works to improve accessibility and reduce their carbon impact. They await news from government about the renewal of the listed places of worship grant scheme. Without that 20% grant, projects costed at hundreds of thousands of pounds are now at risk. More seriously, it is the sense of the reduction of the impact on our outreach and our bonding and bridging capital which is crucial. Similarly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, the national insurance increases have had a huge impact.
So I look for some reassurance that the Government will respond to the enterprising work that is being done in cities such as Bristol to build the bonds of peace and to renew the justice in our divided city.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, there is now clear evidence that social cohesion is important for a plethora of outcomes, from life expectancy and health to fostering a sense of belonging and improving people’s well-being and mental health. This is a timely debate. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York is right to note the current context of underlying fragility that people feel in the wider world around them. Others in this debate, including my noble friend Lord Sharma in his excellent maiden speech, have referenced the importance of this global context.
I will make three points. First, what is clear is that this is an area where a lack of consistent measurement and data is holding back progress. We know something about the various components that feed in here; many have been spoken about already. For example, income levels, employment rates and access to quality schools are all important. Similarly, we are all very familiar with some of the challenges that the digital innovations of recent years have brought about, altering significantly the dynamics of how people interact in both positive and negative ways.
The think tank Onward has done excellent work in this area, looking in detail at social trust specifically. What is striking from its research is just how inadequate talking about this is when focusing primarily on a national pattern. Adjacent neighbourhoods can have incredibly contrasting levels of trust; for example, Sheffield, which was scored in the research as the most unequal local authority in England, had net trust scores ranging from 29% to minus 31%. More needs to be done to draw all these different threads and variables of research together in a comprehensive way. I urge the Minister to consider what more the Government can do to measure and track, on an ongoing basis, social cohesion and the strength of community life in the UK.
Secondly, from what data is available, there are some clear implications for policy, and we should take note of them. We should do more to look at how social connection can be fostered as a test of policy. This is as important as addressing downstream impacts such as loneliness. As Onward’s work has shown, this means looking at policy that drives strong local relationships, as well as positive social norms, reducing levels of crime and increasing democratic participation. It means that we also need a significant hyperlocal strand to policy interventions around trust. Linked to that, we should consider the role that the charitable sector plays in creating strong, supportive communities and do more to ensure that it can thrive. The potential impact of the Budget announcement about national insurance contributions has been raised many times in this House, including today, and is a serious concern. The Government need to make scaling capacity in the charitable sector a priority.
A long-standing issue in the sector that many, including the Centre for Social Justice, have called out is around addressing contracting decisions for the provision of social services. It is still the case that small and medium-sized charities can struggle to compete with larger organisations, and that a greater focus on things such as multiyear certainty would help. There is more that local and national government can do to ensure that small and medium-sized charities are given a greater proportion of the funding than currently. A review of capacity building in the sector should also look at leveraging more private philanthropy and consider match funding, as well as the role of clusters, centres for excellence and incubators.
Thirdly and finally, given its importance, this is an area that does not get the attention it should in our national discourse. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton for his focus on the big society and the work he did in attempting to get people talking about strong community and why it matters. This is not just a matter of policy; it requires a cultural rethinking of what we value as a country. We need to talk about the importance of social connection, understand it and value it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in the wake of the summer riots, the Prime Minister said:
“This is a problem that has deep roots in our society, and it’s a job for all of our society to help fix it”.
That was in the summer of 2011, and the Prime Minister in question was the one to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Porter of Fulwood, just referred: the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who, at that stage, was talking about the broken society and the need to fix it. If it was broken then, my goodness, it is broken now.
In the meantime, we have had commissions and reports. The Library briefing gave us an indication of just how many bits of paper have been produced on the issue of social cohesion. Last year, the Church of England produced its report, Love Matters—of course it does; I have no doubt that Richard Curtis will make a film about it at some stage. The point is that society is still broken. From the relative comfort of these Benches, we are producing many more thoughts and ideas about what the problems are, but what we really need to start getting to grips with is what needs to be done.
We know the root of much of the problem. As the most reverend Primate indicated in introducing the debate, this year’s riots were concentrated largely in areas of sustained deprivation. Years of talk of levelling up have done absolutely nothing to improve their situation—indeed, in many cases, it has simply got worse. There are different problems, and various aspects of them have been spoken of today. It is not all to do with finance, although there is no doubt that more money for local authorities would make a difference. Properly used, it could lift living standards and bolster communities. But, rather than dwelling more on the problems, I will try to limit my remarks to a couple of groups of people where there are particular issues and I have small thoughts as to how we might begin to improve things.
The first group I will concentrate on are white working-class boys. They feel deeply underprivileged, and in many cases unloved. They do not know where they are going and they are fearful. How do they respond? Many of them look for leadership. Unfortunately, the leader many of them seem to have found is Andrew Tate. I do not want to dwell too much on Andrew Tate, but that appalling perpetrator of misogyny, and many other things besides, has a huge following, and many of them are young British men and boys. He is clearly not doing them any good, but nobody appears to have been able to take his place—and unfortunately, Nigel Farage says that Mr Tate is somebody we should all listen to.
If your Lordships do not think this is an important problem now, politicians soon will. A poll earlier this year showed that among 16 to 17 year-old boys, if they were given a vote—which of course they will soon have—35% of them would vote for Reform, and 35% of them would vote for Labour. Very few of them would vote for the Conservatives, but of course that may change. As it happens, the young ladies were rather more sensible: only 12% of them would vote for Reform. That 35% figure should frighten us. It is not Nigel Farage they particularly warm to; they warm to something different from what is being offered normally—to what has been the traditional politics of this country. They want change.
When there was a riot outside a hotel for asylum seekers in Manchester, a boy who was taken to court, a 12 year-old, had to wait while the judge summoned back his mother, who had gone on holiday to Ibiza the day before the boy was due in court. In one microcosm your Lordships have an example of this boy’s problems. He was a child of a single parent who thought it appropriate to go on holiday the day before he was due to be sentenced in court. No wonder he was described by the judge as showing
“the worst type of feral behaviour”
because what had he been shown? He knew little better.
What people such as that need is of course the six-month parenting course his mother was going to get, although I do not think that will change things. I suggest that sport may have the ability to do that, so I would like to see the Government doing more to get these disaffected youngsters into sport, which can be a force for good, showing them how to engage in teams and become a useful part of society.
The other group I would like to talk about is elderly people. Much has been said already about loneliness, but 2 million people aged over 75 live alone. More than a million of those, according to Age UK, go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member. It does not need to be like this. These are people who could be a useful resource. We saw examples after Covid of “granny friends”: elderly women and men being paired up with little children to try to get them to be sociable and to learn what they need to know—and they need to know quite a lot. One of the Government’s latest milestones is that 75% of five year-olds should be school-ready when they are going to school. The fact that 75% is the target tells you all you need to know. These children need help, and we have an army of elderly people sitting at home alone who could provide that help. Again, I ask the Minister whether he has a plan to mobilise the capacity that is there to help these children, to build families and to help rebuild our communities.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Sharma. He has delivered an important maiden speech. I look forward to hearing much more from him. Indeed, we have heard many fine speeches today.
My theme is the misuse of the term “community”. It can be the enemy of social cohesion. Let me explain. Smaller and close-knit communities can be exclusive of others. Overstrong religious and cultural beliefs too often lead to bigotry and dangerous intolerance. If we are to be serious about wider cohesion and the people of this country living in harmony, we must face up to the misuse of the word “community” as code by some who seek special treatment to the exclusion of others.
It is not surprising that immigrants of whatever race, colour or belief find initial integration not easy. The Jews who came here in the second half of the 19th century faced discrimination and hostility, so this is not a new problem, and nor is it unique to these islands. But if we look at the last 175 years, we see what those Jews have contributed. Here I echo my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Of course immigrants look for support on arrival, and they find it, naturally, among others of similar background who are already established here. In this way, communities of such immigrants grow in size. Since the last war, Britain has had immigration on a large scale: incomers with very different religious and cultural beliefs from around the world. They have tended, for understandable reasons, to stick together at first, but those with education, confidence and encouragement have blossomed and engaged with wider society and moved outwards. They have become British, in the true sense. People come here to live because they believe that the British way of life has something of value for them.
Strong belief in a particular religion or culture is, by definition, exclusive. If we are not careful, this can be an aggravating factor. It is the enemy of toleration. Informed observers have made the point that religious beliefs and customs have heightened differences in our big cities. People of one kind group together for support, and then one community feels threatened by another which has grown or is perceived to have intruded. Each community looks inward and becomes defensive, intolerant and possibly aggressive. This is not the social cohesion, or the strong community of people, that we want in this country.
Moreover, to stick to one’s own group or community is, economically, a form of social protectionism. Ultimately, it limits not just personal growth but economic growth for those who adopt this approach.
Where do we go from here? We have to broaden outlooks. We have to stop favouring so-called communities, in the wrong sense, when we mean, at worst, informal ghettos. We have to encourage the people of this country to think of themselves as British first. Our political leaders must not pander to interest groups based on such criteria as race and religion. We are all subject to the same laws; we are all equal before the law. Let us hear no more pleas for the interests of particular communities where this is simply shorthand for “me first” or “our group first”. We are the citizens of one nation, with the same rights and obligations.
In this respect, like my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I commend a recent paper by Policy Exchange, A Portrait of Modern Britain: Ethnicity and Religion. Given the short time available, I plucked just two of many good points. The first is that:
“The children of Britain should be taught to be proud of their national heritage in an inclusive manner that reflects Britain’s history and traditions”.
The second point is that government and public bodies should address equality and social mobility primarily
“through a class and poverty lens, not a racial one”.
Political leaders must not look for votes on the basis of ethnic or religious interests.
I will give two examples of the dangers that we face if we do not do something. First, in the summer of 2022, Leicester saw a period of religious and ethnic tension, predominantly between British Hindus and British Muslims of South Asian origin. The causes were multifactorial. Religious beliefs and customs are said by informed observers to have heightened differences. Each community felt threatened by the other. Secondly, as we have heard from others, at the end of July and in early August of this year, far-right, anti-immigration protests and riots occurred in England, within the United Kingdom. This followed the mass stabbing in Southport on 29 July, and those riots were fuelled by false claims circulated by far-right groups that the perpetrator of the attack was a Muslim and an asylum seeker. That added to broader Islamophobic, racist and anti-immigrant sentiments that had grown up leading to the protests. We have to put a stop to those beliefs of false anti-immigrant sentiments.
At the heart of this lies the wrong sort of separateness: people sticking together for understandable reasons but leading to long-term disharmony and danger for us all. Let all of us who are in positions of influence, especially the media, stop this talk of the “such and such” community. The term “community” has become dangerous code for “my group” to the exclusion of others—it can encourage sectarian divide. To cohere, we must all be British and nothing else. We must learn to love our neighbours; to be exemplars of tolerance and to welcome outsiders and strangers—as I always read “xenia”—or foreigners. In turn, those outsiders who come to live in this country must learn what it means to be British and embrace what is best: tolerance and respect for the rule of law. Then we shall all be proper members of our communities in their true and best sense.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my voice, which I lost last week when I had a cold. I am now recovering, but I sound like a diseased animal, and I apologise for that. As I am going to touch on housing, I declare my interest as listed in the Register of Members’ Interests: I chair a small property company that owns agricultural land and rented properties.
I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on a powerful and compelling speech. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who I got to know when he was chairman of the Bar Council; he always imparts great wisdom. Incidentally, I was also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, mentioned the late Baroness Kinnock, who was a remarkable Member of this House. I was privileged enough to be her successor as Minister for Africa in the Foreign Office, in the coalition Government in 2010, and it was an incredibly difficult task to follow someone of her stature.
It is very sad, in many ways, that the other most reverend Primate is not here today. He made an incredibly moving speech yesterday. This was going to be his debate and, on this side of the House, anyway, having spoken to my colleagues here, I can say that the vast majority of us regarded him as a truly remarkable leader of the Church, a true Christian and someone of great principles and stature who was a commanding presence in this House. I can understand why, after the Makin report, he decided that he had to take personal responsibility for the institutional failings of the Church of England, and I am very glad that the most reverend Primate and, indeed, the right reverend Prelate, mentioned the failings of the Church. They were grave failings, although I have to say that, since the Makin report, police officers have come forward to say that there was nothing that the most reverend Primate himself could have done, after he was installed, to make more information available. It is very sad that he was not able to go on his own terms and to maybe have a farewell tour around the diocese and abroad. Many of us on this side of the House—I speak for a number of colleagues—feel that it is sad that the House of Bishops did not show great unity and that there was a breaking of the ranks in this. That was not a particularly compassionate or Christian thing to do to someone who has made a truly remarkable contribution to the Church and to this nation.
I would like to concentrate on housing. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, including the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, social cohesion depends on families being content, having good housing and building neighbourliness. Of course, climate change is important as well, and I congratulate my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, on what was a really important speech. It brought home to this House the exceptional knowledge he has of climate change and the truly remarkable contribution he has made. If I may say so, many Ministers have come and gone in different departments, but very few have made the impact and contribution that he made to the climate change talks. The work he is doing is ongoing, and we are very fortunate to have him among our number in this House.
Just as good housing can lead to good neighbourliness, secure families and social cohesion, bad housing can lead to all sorts of other issues and problems, such as bad physical and mental health, and offender recidivism. Shelter recently published a report pointing out that some 30% of people leaving prison had previously been homeless, and that approximately 40% of them will go on to reoffend. Getting housing right is incredibly important.
I want to touch on three main areas that I think are in crisis. I do not have all the answers, but I want to suggest some solutions and to talk about what the Church itself could do. I have been close to the Church of England both in my former constituency and where I live now, and if one looks at the three sectors of housing, they are all facing different crises.
First, let us look at private sector housing. There is bound to be an immediate observation that there is this feeling of intergenerational unfairness. After all, in the last 20 years, the cost of houses has gone up on average by 200%. Wages in the period from 1996 to 2022 have gone up by 24%, so many young people who aspire to own a home are now finding it incredibly difficult, given that you have to find a deposit of £70,000, on average, in the south-east. So of course, we need new homes.
I want to pick up on a point made in other debates: that somehow there is a crisis, in that there are fewer planners than ever before and not enough planning decisions being taken. The problem is not that; it is that land that has permission is not being built out. That is nearly 1 million units not being built, which is a serious problem that needs addressing.
On private rented housing, which has now overtaken social rented housing, it is incredibly important that we encourage the best landlords. The worst landlords are dreadful, but the best set the highest possible standards. However, when we try to bring up the worst, we must not bring down the best, and that is why I would use incentives. For example, I would look at a landlord’s charter and at making sure there are more regular inspections. Maybe fewer diversity officers among councils and more environmental health officers would help with those inspections.
On social rented housing, I am not in favour of getting rid of the right to buy, which has helped social cohesion. Why can we not have a “one out, one in” system and use those funds to build more housing association houses? That is exactly what some of the best housing associations in East Anglia are doing.
I think I am right in saying—if not, the most reverend Primate will correct me—that the Church of England and the Church Commissioners own 350,000 acres in the dioceses around the country. I will share some examples from Norfolk. In one village, a bit of glebe land of 10 acres sold recently, and the parish were keen to have four or five housing association houses built. In another village, a strip of land of about two acres, next to the church graveyard, was up for sale. Not too far away, a farm belonging to the diocese of about 200 acres was for sale.
Why can the Church of England not set up its own housing association? Let us look back at the great history of the alms houses. I had a look at the Archbishops’ report, Coming Home, which has many pleas for more help for the homeless and those in housing need, but no long-term vision. There is no long-term radical thinking about practical Church initiatives to help with housing. So, my one plea today to the Minister, the most reverend Primate and right reverend Prelates is this: can they look really urgently at setting up housing associations across the different dioceses, where they can use their land to make a real difference to housing in this country?
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for having spent most of the session in my office but, after yesterday’s Covid jab, I think it was better to collapse in the office rather than collapsing here. If I suddenly fall over, your Lordships will know it is of only minor seriousness.
I am listening; I have listened all the way through the debate. Lots of policies are being suggested as to how we can do things to people, but the overwhelming message that I get everywhere is that people are fed up with politicians doing things to them. They want to be left alone. They want to live their lives without hassle. The more I go into the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the huge swathes of basically unorganised middle-class and working-class communities that I have represented for 18 and a half years, that is the theme: “We don’t want hassle in our lives. If there’s hassle, sort it out; then, just let us get on with things”.
We are taking our eye off the ball. I declare my interest, having been appointed by the Prime Minister to advise on anti-Semitism. I do not get paid for it, and I am not Jewish. I get a lot of grief from it—an awful lot of grief. My wife and daughter have been threatened with rape online. People have been arrested, jailed or convicted in other ways. We got the full hat: from the left, from the right, from pro-Iranian forces—the whole lot. We have Iran on our backs at the moment. We are having to deal with people. It is a bit of a pain.
So why do it? Perhaps it is because I have been well brought up, I might suggest, rather immodestly. Also, being outside the community has a certain advantage. The difference is fundamental, and it is very important that noble Lords understand it. When I go home, I am not Jewish. When I go to sleep and in the middle of the night, I am not Jewish. Therefore, it does not get to my soul in terms of who I am, my identity or my future in this country. Yes, it is lots of grief I could do without, but what I see, hear and, I think, understand is exactly how people in the Jewish community, and the Muslim community, feel—atomised, isolated, hassled and disempowered. They feel that we are not doing enough about it because what they really want is just to get on with their lives.
As part of that process, I invite the Minister to come to Eaton Hall, which does imam training. It has not engaged with the Government for 20 years. It has 115 mosques and I think 55 imams in training. He and his boss would be very welcome. I think it would be very useful.
I fear that we might go for the easy routes. I am all for bishops, vicars, rabbis and imams holding hands and having meetings, but in the real world, from what I hear in the Muslim and Jewish communities, that is not going to be happening in the next 12 months. We have got to rebuild that, and it will not be short term. We have to be honest and realistic about where we are. When there is conflict going on, when people are angry and taking sides and when they can see grievances in front of them, the more we can bring people together, the better, but we will also need to run parallel strategies of engaging separately in order to be successful in the next 12 months. I suggest that the political environment might be somewhat more difficult than before, not easier. That is fundamental to what the Government should be thinking about.
I hesitate to give any advice to the Bishops, but I could channel my inner Michael Caine and say just read the Book. Matthew says quite a lot. Matthew 19, verse 24 is early on in the New Testament, so it must be important. It is not hidden away. It says,
“it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”.
Bishops in the Church of England are making the same mistake we are making. It is right to deal with the misuse of power and to shuffle the pack. People come and people go because of that. I dealt with huge numbers of survivors of sexual abuse in some torrid meetings, and I still represent some who have not seen justice. But the bishops and we need to think about how we are misconstruing power, and that is a bigger problem. We are not seeing how it works. We are happy to be in the meeting room, here or in the tearoom, in our comfort zone. I would quite like—in fact, I am asking for—access to Lambeth Palace and for it to join me in an event on anti-Semitism. If I get the traditional hobnobs and tea from the Church of England, I will be well in my comfort zone, so I am not eschewing that.
However, we do too much in the comfort zone and not enough dealing with people we do not understand—of thinking about and going to places that we are not comfortable in. If there is any point to the House of Lords, we need to get our act together, because we do not have electoral pressures. If people are saying that the best model is not to have some replica Chamber, that is fundamental because I do not think we are doing our job nearly well enough. The bishops are a microcosm and no worse than anyone else but, comparably, how much time do they spend in here and how much dealing with declining numbers of pupils, declining buildings or the problems of connecting with communities?
Out there, we have an avalanche of children not attending school. I am a trustee of an academy chain. Parents used to say: “School is rather good; it’s free childcare. Get the kid out; I want them out; it will be good for them. I want them away and out of the house”. They are now saying exactly the opposite. They say: “School is no good; I didn’t like it. I want them in the house. There’s no need to go; they’re happier in the house and they have hassle at school”. That is a fundamental crisis in our society and I do not think the Government have put it as a top priority. This should be a significant cross-party priority.
What kind of society are we trying to build? I am looking at it and thinking that I do not have the freedom to do the things I would like to do with my grandchildren. You cannot, as I did, go through meadows or fields. You struggle to find trees. It is congested and overpopulated in the mountains. We are taking away what people use. I do not call it escapism; I call it real life—the bits that take the hassle out of people’s lives. We in this House need to spend an awful lot of time thinking through how we can influence that. It strikes me that that is not a role that could ever come, however good it is, from the other place. That is something we should be good at with our combined expertise.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as well as the local social cohesion that many noble Lords have mentioned, we need national cohesion. We need events that bring us all together, such as hosting an Olympics, a royal wedding or a Coronation. Some of the best of these events are hosted for us by the established Church.
I take note of the apology from the most reverend Primate. I am mindful of not throwing stones—I was a government Minister in the Department for Education during the pandemic—but I believe that there are more actions, some of which I will outline, that need to be taken at speed, as well as words that are needed for the victims. One has only to glance at social media to know that the actions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in her demeanour yesterday in your Lordships’ House spoke more than words to many of the victims.
I am aware that, for many, the state of the high establishment is irrelevant. Many people cannot name the archbishops and the historic resignation has passed them by. But for victims and these national moments of cohesion, the integrity of this institution matters. I note just one connection to a victims’ network related to another review by the Church of England on Soul Survivor. I also covered safeguarding while in the department and I am on the PCC of my local church.
I am also aware that, under the Standing Orders, I must not ask questions of the Church of England, only questions about matters for which His Majesty’s Government are responsible. Could the Minister outline for victims of abuse within the Church of England, in the absence of an independent structure, to whom they should send their concerns? I have signposted various internal Church of England reviews, internal staff and maybe even MPs. I am also now aware of Safe Spaces.
If I was contacted about a school, I would send them to Ofsted. If it was about medical treatment, I would send them to the CQC. If it was about a mosque, of course, the Charity Commission would be seized of this matter. Even here in Parliament, there is an independent safeguarding board. There is still no trusted independent avenue of redress for victims to go to, and that has been the case for too long. I guess the synod and legal processes of the Church of England make our Erskine May look like a “Dummies guide to legislating”, but no one is above swift best practice when it comes to having robust safeguarding processes.
I ask the Minister: is it the Charity Commission, the Minister’s own office or the Victims’ Commissioner to whom these people should go currently? Can the Minister look at ensuring that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommendation to put in place such an independent structure, which was given to the Church of England about four years ago, could have such a timetable?
The failure to achieve that in a timely manner is only one example given to the Select Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House, on which I served, where victims come forward at great personal cost to a public inquiry but recommendations are not enacted. I am mindful that the Government are usually the biggest culprit in that, but the good offices of the Government could be used to deflect the temptation of the long grass for the Church of England when the scrutiny of the media may have moved on to other matters.
Safeguarding issues are also making some people nervous about getting involved with young people. Volunteers and employees doing such work are one of the building blocks of local social cohesion. We need a better way forward. Reviews of the Church of England such as those of Makin and Scolding are being queried, with no one really knowing what a proper independent review is. What are the standards for an independent safeguarding review? We call it that, but are we clear what independence is? How many chairs of IICSA were there before Alexis Jay was settled on? Can the Minister please consider whether, akin to the Nolan principles, there should be standards or principles of what an independent review is and who can be an independent chair? They could be used by many institutions.
A proper inquiry or review heals wounds and brings cohesion if it engages victims properly. It was humbling to learn on the Select Committee that Bishop James Jones, the retired Bishop of Liverpool, chaired the Hillsborough review on a non-statutory basis, meaning that there was no power to compel witnesses or documents and victims did not even request lawyers, such was their trust in the panel—so it is possible. But when it comes to statutory reviews, His Majesty’s Government, and in these circumstances the Church of England, have to give away some of their power and control and allow the victims to be consulted in creating terms of reference by an independent chair, at the very least.
While I appreciate that there have been laudable attempts by the Church of England to engage survivors, the lack of independence has hampered that process. Introducing standards for a safeguarding review should ensure justice for victims but also for those whose careers are affected by outcomes. Much uncertainty for parish clergy has been created by suspensions and a resignation following the Makin review.
While I thank God for our free media, without which there would have been precious little redress, being able to garner media pressure should not be the sole criterion for sanction. While they might not command the same sympathy as the P&O ferry employees, clergy are in fact not employees and are outside virtually all the normal protections of employment legislation.
There are other institutions struggling with redress processes and culture—the CBI, Yorkshire County Cricket Club and the BBC, to name but a few—but those that are able to swiftly implode, clear out some of the staff and the board and reset the culture, such as Yorkshire County Cricket Club, seem to be able to resurrect themselves. The BBC and the Church of England, with their unique governing structures, seem to be vulnerable to grinding victims and staff through multiple spin dryer-like internal processes.
The nation needs—that is a lofty claim, I know, but I believe it is the nation—a swift, independent, probably judge-led redress for these victims and any other historical cases or reviews to be dealt with before a new Archbishop of Canterbury takes office or there is a royal occasion to host. We also need to know whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who called publicly for the most reverend Primate’s resignation and for a root-and-branch clear-out, is the Church of England’s equivalent of Alan Bates to the Post Office.
It is the victims who need this the most. They are crying out for redress on social media. This was a torrid case of abuse. Particularly at this time, to think that men were beaten until they bled is devastating to us as Christians. The most reverend Primate is right: this is putting a strain on our trust. I could not help thinking, as I prepared this speech, of victims in South Africa abused in the last years of John Smyth’s life who would not have so suffered had the police and Church authorities in the UK told their South African counterparts earlier and more effectively—victims who then watched the established Church host and the Archbishop crown our King. How can this not be a matter for His Majesty’s Government?
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, I am sure that on these Benches and more widely, all of us as Bishops will register and take to heart the searching and challenging words of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and I thank her for them. We recognise the urgency and centrality of independent scrutiny in the life of our Church.
The UK is home to communities that are richly diverse and in which people of different cultures, beliefs and faiths live alongside one another. Social cohesion acts as the bridge between those differences. It enables us to live well together, providing resilience to communities when faced with adversity and enabling us to coexist peacefully, but as demonstrated by the riots this summer, this kind of social cohesion can no longer be taken for granted. The consequences of growing divisions should not be underestimated, and we must not ignore the increasing threat of erosion that the social cohesion binding us together faces.
In recent years we have seen the impact of global events being played out in our neighbourhoods, and those effects have often been particularly felt by faith communities. Following the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on 7 October last year, there was a major spike in anti-Semitic hate crime in the UK, and the levels of anti-Semitism recorded in 2024 remain horrifically high. Members of the Jewish community have expressed feelings of anxiety and fear, and a survey of British Jews carried out by Survation last month reveals that 77% of respondents feel less safe living in the UK since the attacks. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, spoke powerfully and wisely about this.
There have simultaneously been increasing threats to social cohesion within many of the communities where Muslims live. During the riots in the summer, we witnessed mosques, Islamic community centres, hotels and refugee advice centres being targeted and threatened. A climate of fear was created through the spread of misinformation online regarding the perpetrators of violence being motivated by Islam. While national and international events can act as triggers for social unrest, I believe that these incidents are not isolated events but reflect insidious tensions that had been building long before the events themselves took place. It is therefore necessary that our approach to building social cohesion should be preventive and long term.
One particularly valuable tool in building cohesion that I have witnessed and participated in over the years is interfaith work. In 2013 I was serving as Bishop of Woolwich when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally and very publicly murdered in the street in Woolwich. Widespread rioting and unrest were predicted at that time but did not materialise. I think that at least one reason for that was the long and strong history of interfaith work in Woolwich, which had woven a texture of local community that was too tight-knit for any butcher’s knife to tear apart. Interfaith work and dialogue can dissolve barriers of mistrust, ignorance and fear and in their place build unity and cohesion, fostered through relationships founded on shared understanding and common ground.
I highlight in particular the work of the Near Neighbours organisation, which clearly takes its name from our Lord’s parable of the good Samaritan and which I think embodies the principles of philadelphia and philoxenia that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, reminded us of.
Near Neighbours started life by using the network of local contacts that parish churches have across the country. It works to bring people together in communities that are religiously and ethnically diverse, so that they can get to know each other better, build relationships of trust and collaborate to improve their local communities. They work through several local hubs across the country, involving local leaders and distributing small grants to local initiatives. That localism is important because it is those who are rooted in local communities who understand best the challenges and needs of their communities.
A recent report published by Theos, which was mentioned earlier by the most reverend Primate, echoes this, and affirms how local churches and faith communities bring key strengths and assets to cohesion work that are often difficult to replicate in other organisations and structures. Can the Minister say what steps those responsible for cohesion policy are taking to consult and listen to faith communities when developing a social cohesion strategy? In light of what many of us considered to be the lamented demise of the Inter Faith Network for the UK, how are the Government planning to build connections with, and support, grass-roots and local faith communities?
Education is vital. In Leicester, a city that I know well—one that, as has been mentioned, has wrestled with its own challenges of cohesion—the St Phillip’s Centre provides training for new police recruits, as well as workshops for schools to educate pupils on different faiths and the importance of respect. What steps are the Government planning to take to support educational initiatives that promote faith literacy?
Recent events have displayed the dangers of fractured communities. My hope, going forward, is that the value that faith communities provide in nurturing social cohesion will be recognised and utilised, and that, ultimately, we strengthen and build communities in which we not only coexist alongside one another but all belong to one another.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow a fellow Orielensis, although I am afraid I have a few years on the right reverend Prelate—several, actually.
I would like to speak directly to the leaders of the Church. As a member of the Church, about which I care deeply and that is why I am speaking, I speak in some despair and in sorrow rather than anger—but with a little bit of anger as well. I join my noble friend Lord Bellingham in regretting the manner in which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was, frankly, driven out of his post in a sort of witch hunt. Who, even 40 years ago, seeing John Smyth taking young adults to a shed at the bottom of his garden and flogging them, did not know that that was, at the very least, weird and creepy? It was not the most reverend Primate who was to blame; it was a huge number of other people who did not take action.
I saw that the most reverend Primate’s speech was criticised for some levity. I read the speech—I was not here, unfortunately—and I thought he spoke very well. People must move on; he has taken responsibility for the whole Church, and the Church—and we—should be grateful for that.
I turn to the role of the Church in social cohesion, which I would have thought was pretty central and fundamental to the role of the established Church of England. I am speaking here of the Bishops’ Bench, which I note is no longer the Tory party at prayer. I fear that the hierarchy has lost touch with the Church as a whole. It has lost touch with a lot of parish priests, and it has lost touch with people in the pews. I am one of those people in the pews. I can speak only for myself, but I know that a lot of people agree with me.
As I sit in church on a Sunday, I see a Church that is dying on its feet. It is becoming more and more irrelevant. Congregations are dwindling, as we all know, yet, frankly, the Church is to a certain extent fiddling while it burns. Let me quote, if I may, from the most reverend Primate in last year’s debate, when he said:
“You could get rid of the House of Bishops tomorrow and it would be years before anyone noticed the difference, but if you get rid of parish priests, the whole thing would collapse overnight”.—[Official Report, 8/12/23; col. 1704.]
Let me illustrate this with the diocese of Leicester, where I live. A hundred years ago, there was no see of Leicester; every parish had a priest. Now, we have two bishops in Leicester—I am not criticising either of them, by the way; I get on well with Martyn Snow—but we have no priests in the vicarages. Indeed, I live in a benefice of 11 parishes which has not had a resident priest for over five years. There is no local guidance or leadership except by volunteers, and that is not quite the same.
Let us talk about guidance at the highest level. In his speech, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said that institutions play a “vital part” in cohesion. The parish church, which I believe he referred to as well, is an institution throughout this country of England. He also talked about Christian values. He referred to
“values that need to be taught and cherished”.
I could not agree more.
In the Covid pandemic, when society desperately needed leadership, the churches were closed. What was all that about? What about the education of children under the coronavirus restrictions? Perhaps many people did speak out, but I did not hear bishops saying, “This is outrageous. We are damaging the future of our children’s education for, frankly, nothing very much”.
In my diocese, parishes cannot get churchwardens, and one of the reasons is because of things such as faculties. Have noble Lords ever tried to get a faculty through a diocese? It is absurdly bureaucratic, and it seems that sometimes the Church is more interested in bureaucracy than in the mission it should be pursuing.
I rejoined the PCC after several years, and at the PCC meeting last week, the churchwarden—who is a woman who I would guess is in her late 30s, and who has two children—said, “Oh God, the resignation of the Archbishop will lead to yet more safeguarding training”. We all want to be safe but does safeguarding training work? Has anybody done a study as to whether it works? Of course it does not. We knew John Smyth was a wrong ‘un at the very beginning; we did not need safeguarding training for that.
The churchwarden also said, “The only children in the church are my two—why do I need to do safeguarding training?”, which is exactly what my wife said when she was churchwarden some 20 years ago. She had to do safeguarding training, yet our children were the only children in church. So please, do not weigh down volunteers, when there are no priests, with bureaucracy. Let us rely on good values, good judgment and good human nature until we are proved wrong.
Institutions and tradition, of which the most reverend Primate spoke, are part of the cohesion of society. At the 60th D-day anniversary in the cathedral, which was very good, those marvellous words of Spring Rice, “I Vow to Thee, My Country”, to the beautiful music of Holst, were replaced. We had—I am paraphrasing; I apologise—“Let’s all hold hands and dance around and be nice to each other”. I am sorry, but it was “I Vow to Thee, My Country”. I sung the old words, your Lordships will be surprised to hear. If I might say so to the most reverend Primate, we do not need more strategies. We need to return to the Christian mission of a Church based on Christian values. Let us look at the membership of the Church and stand up for it.
I will try to encapsulate what I want to say: let the Church of England look after its own, with parish priests, and not criticise all those, such as myself, who hold conservative views. I sat through the debates on Rwanda and so on, where I was told that, basically, I was being unchristian because I wanted to do what I think most of other countries in Europe are trying to do in offshoring illegal migrants. Let us realise that conservative values, funnily enough, are based in Christian tradition—I am not knocking socialists or left-wing values—so let the Church of England look after the people of England and its congregations and look for a spiritual renewal in society.
Before I close, I will give another illustration. While parishes are desperately trying to raise money through church fêtes—or whatever it might be—the Church is giving £100 million to right the wrongs of slavery. You cannot do that; it was over 200 years ago. To cite something that I wrote previously: I feel no guilt for the actions of past generations, nearly 200 years ago. As an historian, I know the history of slavery: the Arab and tribal raiding parties that delivered slaves to the coast of west Africa; the abolition of the slave trade in 1807; the work and sacrifice of the West Africa Squadron in the 19th century; the total abolition of slavery throughout the Empire in 1833; and the expeditions to prevent slavery in Ghana, Benin and elsewhere, which were costly in British lives as well as African ones. I recommend the book Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild; he is not a Brit but an American, so he is not particularly pro-British.
Certainly, our ancestors did many wicked things that are totally unacceptable by today’s standards, both before and after 1807. But revisionist history used to be despised as the work of dictatorial regimes in the 1930s, not something associated with a democratic nation that favours free speech, debate and scholarship. I use this as an example of the confused priorities of the Church, of which I remain an active member, while it struggles to exist.
In fact, there is modern slavery. I went to Sudan 20 years ago, where apparently there has been slavery between raiding parties, although that may have ended. Certainly, there is forced labour—aka slavery—in Xinjiang province. I would like to hear more about that, rather than the past wrongs of 200 years ago. I say to the Church: please stand up for the people of England and the people of the Church of England.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on calling this important debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, on his impressive and thoughtful maiden speech.
The poet reminds us that rivers and mountains interpose to make one people implacable foes. It is not only geography that divides what Sikhs call our one human family; it is also human prejudice and bigotry. Most of us like to believe that we have no prejudices, and that prejudice is confined to the ignorant few. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prejudice, or a fear of difference, is inherent in us all. We are all genetically programmed to be wary of difference. In less enlightened times, even left-handers like me were regarded with suspicion—the Latin word for left is “sinister”. The challenge before us is to recognise and discard irrational prejudice against fellow members of what Sikhs call our one human family.
Religion was meant to make us better human beings, but much of the conflict in the world today is between different religions or subsets of religions, each claiming superiority of belief and a unique access to the one God of us all. We all know what happens when two boys in the school playground each claim, “My dad is bigger or stronger or better than your dad”. The end result is fisticuffs—and it is the same with religion.
Guru Nanak, who lived in the 15th century, was a witness to such conflict. India had been invaded by Muslims from the north, bent on converting to the one true faith those whom they saw as inferior Hindus. Hindus regarded the invaders as uncivilised barbarians. In his very first sermon, Guru Nanak declared that, in God’s eyes, there is neither Hindu nor Muslim, and that God is not interested in our different religious labels, but in what we do for others. He went on to criticise the discrimination against women practised by both religions, emphasising their complete equality.
Throughout history, religions have created walls of supposed superiority of doctrine and favoured links to God, strengthened by negative attitudes to others. Some of the denigration of others has become embedded in religious scriptures, masking important commonalities between faiths. In the New Testament, for example, written decades after the passing of Jesus, it is claimed that Jesus said:
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.
Well, that rules me out to start with.
The denigration of others does not square with the life and actual teachings of Jesus, who applauded the kindness, goodness and compassion of others, as in the parable of the good Samaritan. Equally, the following verse, attributed to Jesus, deflects us from his all-embracing teachings:
“For I say unto you that unless thy righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven”.
Jesus Christ repeatedly showed his respect for women, yet Saint Paul justifies misogyny. He says:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”.
I have given some examples from the Bible which portray a negative image of others, which can be used to justify extreme and negative behaviour towards others. Time does not allow me to quote from other religious texts, such as the Koran, also written years after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad, which are sometimes used to justify violent behaviour towards others.
While most people are decent and law abiding, a few can be persuaded to focus on negative attitudes to others embedded in religious texts and engage in acts of terrorism in the belief that they are advancing the one true faith and will be rewarded by God. Today, there is an urgent need for religious leaders to put negative and dated texts in their true historical context and deprive misguided extremists of justification and motivation. This is the only way to prevent extremism in society. Appointing commissions of inquiry and collecting hate statistics will not make an iota of difference. Different religions are, in essence, guidebooks for our journey through life—what to do, what to avoid—and imperatives for responsible living. It would be absurd to suggest that a particular guidebook for a tour of France is the only guidebook and that all others are false.
Many years ago, I helped to start the Inter Faith Network, which has just been mentioned, to promote dialogue and understanding. While it helped to promote a superficial respect for different faiths, the one thing we did not talk about were the actual teachings. We would meet, exchange pleasantries and common concerns, enjoy tea and samosas and then go away, each convinced that our beliefs and ethical values were superior. This came home to me when I heard an internet talk by a Muslim vice-chair of the Inter Faith Network. He was talking to a Muslim audience, saying that he felt sorry for people of other faiths, for they were all going to hell.
What normally passes for religion is an amalgam of culture, superstition and ethical teachings. Culture can be good or bad and it changes with time. Rituals and superstitions are, in essence, merely meaningless. I am sure that the one God, the creator of all that exists in the vastness of his universe, would not be motivated by the prejudice and favouritism attributed to him.
Respecting seeming diversity is generally seen as a way of community cohesion, but for real cohesion and mutual respect we need to look beyond superficial difference to underlying commonalities. Our different religions are overlapping circles of belief which have more in common than the seeming differences. At the time of the millennium, I was a member of the Lambeth group. Although we were from different religions, we had no trouble in formulating priorities: ethical values that would carry us to the 21st century. They ended up in a drawer in Lambeth Palace. Today, we need to dig them out as a blueprint for greater cohesion and understanding of what Sikhs refer to in our daily prayer as the well-being of the one human family.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate on calling this debate on a very important issue: how, in a diverse and increasingly divergent society, we hold our country together. He is absolutely right to focus on that challenge. It has also been a very special debate because of the maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Sharma, and he is welcome to this House. He may think, in this his first debate, that he has strayed into a multiple edition of “Thought for the Day”: he has had about a fortnight’s broadcasts during this debate. Debates in this House take many characteristics; this is a distinctive debate and we have many others in many different styles.
I particularly appreciated a point which the most reverend Primate made, which I would like to develop, when he referred to institutions and their importance. If I may say so, sometimes we have talked about social cohesion as if it is feeling good about each other, a kind of social glue that we pour over our society and somehow hold ourselves together better as a result. Those instincts are admirable, but if I may say so, I found the intervention from the Cross Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, particularly refreshing because he explicitly said that he was not going to appeal to those instincts. The real challenge of holding a society together is doing so without requiring admirable and highly motivated behaviour, however desirable that might be. Holding a society together, we should think much more of like drystone walling than somehow pouring glue over it. One of the insights, particularly in the Conservative tradition, is that institutions really matter if you are trying to hold a place together, because institutions are places where individuals interact more than once. The more that people find themselves interacting over time, the more co-operation develops because of mutual exchange and mutual benefit, without requiring high levels of saintliness or holiness.
That faith in institutions to which the most reverend Primate referred is, I have to say, one of the strengths of the Conservative tradition and also one of the things that holds us together as a nation state. It is not blood-and soil-nationalism; it is belief in a set of institutions which are of benefit to all of us, whatever our moral beliefs, our social, cultural or religious background. That is a very important strand to hold on to as we think about what holds us together.
I will make one other brief point. We have not really focused on what I think is the social contract of greatest significance in holding us together as a society, and that is the social contract between the generations. Over our lifetimes, we take out when we are dependent children and perhaps when we are elderly, and we may well at other times of our lives pay in or contribute. Those exchanges between the generations—some needing help, some offering help—are, I think, the most important single feature of the social contract. If we came into this world already independent, not requiring support and sustaining, I am not sure that society would exist in anything like the form that it does. This reciprocity and exchange between generations happens within the family and within society and is of mutual benefit.
I will now stray into extremely dangerous territory by, in the presence of the Bench of Bishops, making an observation about the 10 commandments, most of which are—I can see my noble friend Lord Brady turning towards me, looking shocked; I am going to stick with it. Most of the commandments are absolute. There is one commandment, which is often formulated in a much more contingent, almost contractual form, and that is the commandment about relations between the generations:
“Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the earth”.
It is very interesting that this commandment suggests some mutual benefit. It is interesting to speculate—I am sure lots of learned theologians have done precisely that—why you might think that honouring your father and mother made your life longer on earth, and why this itself should become a moral principle. Is it that if you show that you are honouring your father and mother, your children are more likely to honour you? Is it that this of itself is a worthwhile activity? But there is a hint, if I may say so, even if we go back to the biblical text, of some understanding of reciprocity and mutual benefit in the exchanges between the generations.
I notoriously argue that it so happens that one generation—the baby-boomer generation—has done particularly well out of this generational contract. Sometimes I am accused of being a generational warrior, promoting conflict between the generations. But actually, I am trying to appeal to what I think is one of the most widespread instincts that holds people together from a very wide range of social and cultural traditions: namely, the desire that our children should have a better life than we have. My view is that an appeal to our shared obligation to the younger generation is one of the most powerful, mutual and widely spread beliefs that would unite people, regardless of their prior religious or cultural commitments. I see it as a cause that would unite us.
There are many ways in which we can do more for the younger generation, from the practicalities of day-to-day economic policy, helping them get a foot on the housing ladder, to helping them build up the kind of assets that are a great advantage as one goes through life. However, we also heard in that excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Sharma another obligation we have to the younger generations: we have produced far more carbon dioxide during our lives than we can possibly expect them to produce, and we need absolutely to rise to the challenge he set in his excellent maiden speech as one of the most important single ways in which we can discharge our obligation to future generations.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for successfully balloting this important debate, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sharma on his maiden speech. He not only has a degree in applied physics but qualified as a chartered accountant, and then has a wealth of experience over many years in both the private and public sectors. I can see that he will make many valuable contributions, based on real-life experience, to your Lordships’ House.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition are committed to fostering social cohesion, strong communities and strong local economies. Indeed, our aim is to work tirelessly and constructively with the Government to promote these ideals into real action, not just words. I will first set out where we are today on social cohesion and focus on the work that the previous Government undertook in order to make progress.
The strength of our communities and local economies is shown at its best during difficult times. I think noble Lords will all agree, without exception, that the Covid pandemic remains a powerful example of a time when communities throughout our United Kingdom came together to support each other during an incredibly challenging period. This was referenced by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to Darning Street, and my noble friend Lord Jackson talked about the vaccine rollout.
Every one of us can remember the amazing efforts that volunteers made to ensure the most vulnerable residents had the food and other essential household goods they needed throughout the pandemic, with volunteer groups taking huge steps to support their neighbours and communities. The Make a Difference campaign saw thousands of laptops donated by men, women and families all over the country, so that as many schoolchildren as possible had the tools that they needed to enable them to continue their education while being confined to their homes. It was an unbelievably difficult period for many.
We are reminded of the vaccination campaign. In January 2022, the chief executive of NHS England paid tribute to the more than 100,000 people across the country who stepped up to the plate and supported the vaccine rollout. Among them were 48,000 volunteer stewards and 17,000 volunteer vaccinators.
More recently, we have seen communities come together in the face of flooding, following severe weather events such as Storm Bert. Just yesterday, it was reported that a volunteer in Northamptonshire has taken two weeks off work to lead a team of volunteers to help residents of the Billing Aquadrome, who have been affected by flooding. On the night of Storm Bert itself, I saw farmers in the local community going out on their tractors to warn drivers in advance of the rising flood-waters, and going further down the road and towing any unfortunate drivers for whom the waters were already too high. These are just two of the hundreds, if not thousands, of stories of the selflessness and bravery that people have shown during challenging times.
A strong community is the foundation stone of where we live and who we interact with. It can be our identity and essence; it can be a driving force for good deeds and doing the right thing. We know what we can achieve when we work together—it can be ground-breaking. That is precisely why strong communities matter.
However, we know that social cohesion can be challenged. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, all mentioned the riots we saw this summer. The riots were entirely wrong, not to mention unlawful. There are elements in our society who fall short of the values that we aspire to, and we must join together and speak with one voice in condemning violence. Whatever the purported motivation, violence of any form, whether on our streets, in our shops or in our homes, is never acceptable and is an affront to everything that we stand for.
It is critical that we seek to understand what went wrong, not just this summer but in previous events. We must establish the root causes of these crises and address them head-on. We have to bring those who committed criminal acts to justice, while at the same time seek to heal divisions wherever they appear. The riots showed that there is clearly much work to be done to bring our society together.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to build kinder and stronger communities, rooted in our core national values of tolerance and mutual respect. Let me repeat that: tolerance and mutual respect can be the only way forward, as was well referenced by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.
When in government, we made a conscious and consistent effort to boost support for communities across the country through our landmark levelling-up program. Between 2019 and 2024, we put left-behind communities first, injecting cash directly into local authorities and community-led projects to revitalise our high streets, local pubs, community amenities and local schools. Through three rounds of our levelling up fund, we awarded £3.8 billion to 216 projects, including the restoration of community-owned assets, from Haigh Hall in Lancashire to Alford Manor House in the Lincolnshire Wolds. Both these assets are now set to be restored for the benefit of local people, bringing residents together and strengthening the community.
Community pubs up and down the country also play a vital role in bringing people together. Our £150 million community ownership fund supported hundreds of local groups to buy assets, such as community pubs and leisure centres. Our landmark school rebuilding fund is delivering major rebuilding and refurbishment projects at school and sixth-form college buildings across England, with buildings prioritised according to their condition. Since 2021, 518 projects have been announced under the scheme, delivering school buildings that communities can be proud of.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York mentioned that difference is a gift. My noble friend Lady Bottomley talked about diversity. My noble friend Lady Helic talked about anti-Semitism. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley gave an incredibly powerful insight into the frightening challenges that the Jewish community in the UK currently faces. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield talked about attacks on mosques.
We took action against the fear of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate by delivering £70 million for the Community Security Trust over four years and £29 million in support of mosques last year alone to keep them safe and secure. We supported places of worship of all religions, through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, helping to restore places of worship in every part of the UK. The Government must look at our efforts to stamp out religious hatred and foster mutual respect within the UK, and build on that work. We hold our heads high on the record of the previous Government and our work to restore the high streets, pubs, leisure centres, community facilities and schools that are at the centre of community life in so many parts of our amazing country.
The current Government have now taken up the challenge of supporting community cohesion, and I would like to put a number of important questions to the Minister. Can he confirm that all the projects focused on strengthening our communities and our local economies announced under the previous Government will be honoured? Can he confirm that the Government will deliver the funding allocated through the third round of the levelling up fund, on time and in full? Finally, the Government have scrapped the future operation of the levelling-up agenda. Can the Minister set out what additional support left-behind communities can hope for under this Government?
In conclusion, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York flagged the importance of neighbours. My noble friend Lady Helic talked about integration and my noble friend Lady Porter talked about well-being and health. Social cohesion makes for a strong community; it makes a local economy; it drives prosperity; it drives success; it drives health and well-being for everyone in that community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for tabling this Motion. It is both a privilege and a responsibility to stand before your Lordships today to address a topic critical to our shared future: the need for social cohesion and strong, supportive communities in an era defined by rapid change and global uncertainty. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, for his work and dedication shown to tackling climate change, especially during his time as president of COP 26, and for making such an eloquent maiden speech.
In times of change and uncertainty—political, economic or global—it is easy to feel overwhelmed. The challenges we face can seem insurmountable, but history teaches us a powerful lesson: communities that stand together emerge stronger. Our society is woven together by thousands of local communities—communities where people look out for each other. Neighbours might not speak every day, but they notice if something is wrong, they check in on each other and they work to make things better. From grass-roots community groups to parish and town councils, people come together to improve their towns and cities, supporting one another and tackling local issues head on.
In uncertain times, it is cohesion across these communities that enables us to navigate disruption with confidence. Social cohesion can provide stability when the world feels unstable. Whether responding to a crisis such as a natural disaster or navigating long-term challenges such as economic shifts, the ability to collaborate and trust one another is the foundation for progress.
In recent years, we have really seen this truth play out. During the Covid-19 pandemic, communities came together to support the vulnerable, adapt to new realities and care for one another. People volunteered, shared resources and built networks of support that transcended differences. Places of worship transformed into vaccination centres, providing vital support services. They opened their doors to serve their communities, ensuring that vaccinations were accessible to everyone, including the most vulnerable. The work during the pandemic was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I thank the noble Lord for providing such an optimistic view of the pandemic. These acts of solidarity proved that even in crisis our collective strength can overcome great challenges.
The violent disorder that followed the tragic incidents in Southport this summer showed just how fractured our social fabric can become when the flames of discord and hate are fanned. Yet there was an extraordinary response of unity and solidarity across the country. Faith leaders, local organisations and residents came together to host dialogues and provide support to those affected.
When I visited Southport, after the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, soon after the tragic events it suffered, I heard incredible stories of resilience and courage: stories of those people who came out the morning after the unrest, working as one to rebuild the walls of the mosque, clear up the damage on their streets and put their community back together—a point made by noble Lords across the House. Their efforts reminded us that even in the face of fear and anger, the power of community can prevail.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and there are many issues related to social cohesion, periods of change and global uncertainty that I could cover. I will address some of the specific issues raised today, first, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I was pleased to hear of the launch of the new inquiry into community cohesion by our esteemed colleagues on the Women and Equalities Committee. The questions they have posed will help build our shared understanding of social cohesion and related issues. I look forward to hearing more about their work.
The most reverend Primate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, spoke very clearly about the issue of social media. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a new set of laws to protect children and adults online. The Act will give providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and to take down illegal content when it appears. The strongest protections in the Act have been designed for children and will make the UK the safest place in the world to be a child online.
On the pertinent point about misinformation and disinformation, it is unacceptable that people are using social media to cause damage, distress and destruction in our communities. We will pursue criminal behaviour online just as we do offline. Where people can be identified, we will take action and ensure that those who incite hate online face the consequences. The Government have been proactively referring content which breaches terms of service to social media companies for them to assess and take action. The Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary has met social media platforms to make clear their responsibility in tackling the spread of hate online. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will look more broadly at the role of social media following the disturbances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and others mentioned Dame Sara Khan’s independent review into social cohesion and resilience, which made a range of recommendations to build cohesion and strengthen democratic resilience in the UK, including the concept of freedom-restricting harassment. This Government are always keen to see constructive proposals to address the threats we face and bring our communities together, so we are looking at that review.
The most reverend Primate also talked about poverty. Clearly, many communities are struggling with the effects of deprivation and poor economic growth, exacerbated by the increased cost of living, as mentioned across the House. If left unchecked, such conditions can increase vulnerability. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing, low civil participation and poor community cohesion leave communities more at risk of extremist narratives, disinformation and conspiracy theories. For instance, seven of the 10 most deprived areas of England witnessed disorder over the summer. Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Hull, Manchester and Blackburn all experienced violent disorder and are ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England. My department is undertaking work to understand how social and economic factors play a role in harming social cohesion and is developing a more strategic approach to supporting communities and societal resilience more broadly.
We need to eradicate child poverty. This is something that we have to work on. There is no silver bullet here, but the answers lie in tackling pay, benefits, work, housing, education and health. This is not just about policy; it is about priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made an important point about young, white, working-class males. We are determined to ensure that no one is left behind. Every young person must have the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations and play a part in our society. Our work in the opportunity mission aims to break the link between background and success to ensure that all children are able to reach their potential and thrive, including white, working-class boys—one of the lowest attaining groups in our schools. The mission will also tackle the national challenge of school absence, including by bolstering young people’s sense of belonging.
The Government were elected on a manifesto that stressed a partnership approach with local authorities. Together with local leaders, we will develop ambitious, long-term local growth plans and capitalise on existing strengths to deliver new opportunities and maximise potential. This is why 75 towns in the UK that were originally selected will receive a package of up to £20 million funding and support: a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Information on the new programme, including a revised prospectus and technical guidance, will be published in due course. These documents will set out the strategic objectives for the programme and how they will enable communities to deliver work in their areas to deliver the Government’s missions.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York also talked about devolution. The Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, with landmark legislation to expand devolution across England and devolve further powers to local leaders with local knowledge and skin in the game to drive economic growth and empower communities. This legislation will be coming soon. This cannot all happen overnight, but change starts now. Our ambition is for a new, stronger partnership between central and local government, recognising that each area has different strengths and that local representatives know them best.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, talked about faith engagement and faith leaders. The Government celebrate the central role of faith in our national life. Faith inspires a great number of people to public service and provides help to those in need. This Government are committed to harnessing the power of faith for national renewal, helping us to make progress against our missions and to improve social cohesion and resilience. My ministerial colleagues and I have been meeting a wide range of faith and belief leaders and representatives and interfaith practitioners, and have been heartened to hear about the important work they undertake to foster good relations in our communities. Let me be clear. In a few weeks, I will as a Minister have visited and engaged with all faiths across the country, not just the major faiths. I think that is important. One of my first engagements was at the Board of Deputies, where I talked to Muslim and Jewish leaders about how they can build better relationships.
My department was pleased to support the recent running of Inter Faith Week, and we still fund a number of partners delivering excellent cohesion programmes in local communities, which we know contribute to positive interfaith relations. I have heard calls about the importance of faith literacy in government and our public services, which I will consider carefully as part of my wider work as Minister for Faith.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, talked about hate crime, and it is shocking that recent Home Office statistics show that 71% of all religious hate crime constitutes anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. We will be tackling this problem, and we will soon announce our approach to dealing with Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I also assure the House that the Government are not focusing on combating anti-Semitism and Islamophobia at the expense of hate crimes against those of other faiths. We are clear that all forms of racial and religious discrimination are completely unacceptable. Our focus is on building a strong culture of cohesion where diversity is celebrated.
I know that global events pose challenges to our communities in the UK. Prejudices and fear no longer remain confined to distant conflicts. They cross borders and directly impact our communities, as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Leigh of Hurley. I add my solidarity to the Jewish community in Melbourne who have suffered an atrocious attack in the synagogue.
The 7 October attacks, along with the ongoing war in Gaza and developments in Lebanon, have a profound effect on communities here in the UK. More than a year on, divisions still exist. Communities are feeling traumatised, isolated and less safe, while some individuals and groups seek to perpetuate further discord. However, I have been heartened by the efforts of individuals and communities to preserve vital local relationships, and our work with Muslim and Jewish communities to strengthen unity and ensure that everyone feels safe is ongoing. The Government are developing an integrated, cohesive approach to tackling these challenges, which will address racial and religious hatred and strengthen cohesion across all communities—more will be announced soon.
The Government strongly condemn the thuggery and racist rhetoric seen during the violent disorder in the summer. It has no place on our streets or online. The noble Baroness, Lady Porter of Fulwood, asked what more we will be doing. My department is leading a cross-government effort to support the recovery of the towns and cities affected and to develop a long-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues. We have launched a £15 million community recovery fund to support 20 areas that have been affected. This support package will be distributed to local leaders, allowing them to partner with local communities to direct the funding to the areas most in need and how they see fit to best support their communities’ recovery. That is just a start.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Willetts, alluded to climate change. Tackling the climate crisis is essential for our economic growth and our efforts to protect current and future generations. In November we announced new climate goals at COP 29, including reducing emissions by 81% by 2035, and the Prime Minister has called on other countries to bring forward ambitious targets. Of course, the Government are always mindful of the impact that wider global change and uncertainty, including climate change, can have on migration, while always ensuring that our immigration system is controlled and managed effectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, talked about emergency preparedness—I will write to her on that statistic about websites. The Government are aware of the changing risk landscape over the coming years. MHCLG will look to go further in strengthening local resilience forums, following the recommendation of the 2021 independent review of national security risk assessment, which informed local resilience forums’ risk assessment. Those forums now have more dynamic risk information and a new analysis of chronic risks, including climate change, to inform long-term thinking.
The noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths talked about immigration. The UK has had a long, proud history of welcoming people from other countries. The country will always need migration. Our new Plan for Change document sets out how we will deal with legal and illegal migration.
On immigration specifically, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he believes there are legitimate concerns about immigration. Net migration is too high. The Government are determined to bring down historically high levels of legal migration and tackle the root causes behind it. By creating a fair and properly managed system, we will reduce net migration back down to sustainable levels.
On asylum, the Home Office has a legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, by providing appropriate support which usually includes accommodation. We engage with local authorities and key stakeholders as part of the process throughout the United Kingdom. We continue to identify a range of options to reduce the use of hotels, and it remains the Government’s ambition to end their use to ensure better use of public money.
On the point on education made by the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Loomba, our schools, colleges and universities provide a critical opportunity for people to learn and interact with those from different backgrounds, culturally, religiously and economically. These interactions can influence the cohesion dynamics of communities around schools, while shaping the worldview of emerging generations of students.
The noble Lord, Leigh, talked about extremism. The Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review—or “sprint”—in July, to establish a new approach to counter extremism, and the Home Office will be taking that work forward.
On housing, the Government are committed to kick-starting economic growth and getting Britain building and we will deliver 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed a settlement of over £5 billion for housing investment in 2025-26 to boost supply. We are acting quickly, but we will not be able to solve the housing crisis overnight. That is why the Government will publish a long-term housing strategy next year, which will set out our vision for a housing market that works for all.
The noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Bellingham, talked about homelessness levels, which are far too high. This can have a devastating impact on those affected. As announced in the Budget, funding for homelessness services is increasing next year by £233 million compared with this year. This increased spending will help to prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and help to prevent rough sleeping. This brings the total spend to nearly £1 billion in 2025-26.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about child abuse, the Church and John Smyth. I am horrified by the serious and violent child abuse perpetrated against children by the late John Smyth. My thoughts are with the victims of these awful crimes, and their families. The recent independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of the allegations raised serious concerns about safeguarding and transparency. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to tackling all forms of abuse against children. We commit to write to the noble Baroness specifically on her numerous questions.
Noble Lords raised a very important point about Leicester and how we can learn lessons from there. The noble Lord, Lord Austin, is chairing an independent review of the unrest. The review panel will establish what happened, the factors that contributed to these events and what could be done differently in future. It is an opportunity to understand the different factors that played a role in the unrest and how the Government, the city of Leicester and other local authority areas can learn from it. It is not an exercise in apportioning blame to any communities, groups or organisations. We will hear the panel’s recommendations in the new year. The priority is to hear from those who know their city best: community organisations, elected representatives, official bodies and, most importantly, local people.
This Government recognise the need to strengthen and reinforce communities’ social cohesion and societal resilience, which impacts our ability to respond to change and uncertainty. For too long we have relied on the resilience, resourcefulness and goodwill of individuals and our amazing voluntary, charity and faith sectors. Successive Governments have left people to simply muddle along, without the commitment, strategies and policies necessary to support communities to shape their own lives.
Key parts of the social fabric that once tied us together—community centres, youth clubs, sports grounds, cultural venues—have reduced in number, leaving fewer opportunities for connection. Since 2001, the number of pubs has fallen by 26%, and the number of libraries has decreased by 28% since 2005. Today, fewer than half of Britons report being in a community group. This Government are committed to ensuring that communities across Britain are safe, united, and resilient against the threats which this country faces. Since the summer, we have been working across the country with councils, faith and community leaders and other key partners to talk to them directly about their challenges—I have been up and down the country doing this.
In conclusion, I would like to reassure the House that we are determined to take a long-term strategic approach to building social cohesion and community resilience. My department is leading cross-government efforts to transform this landscape over the years to come. I am talking not of quick fixes but of a commitment to working hand-in-hand with local government, communities, the voluntary sector, business, the charity sector and anyone of goodwill to address and overcome the root causes of division and discontent.
So let us not underestimate the power of unity. In times of uncertainty, we can choose to come together rather than drift apart. We can build a future where everyone feels valued, every voice is heard and every community is a source of strength. As the saying goes, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”. Let us build a society where, no matter what challenges we face, we face them together. I will finish with the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and his spiritual guidance—let us celebrate diversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, said in his speech, having united 200 countries, let us unite our country.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken today for the breadth of perspectives and experiences that we have received. I also thank again those who have made a debate happen on a Friday.
I have a few assurances to make. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, described himself, I think, as an ex-devout Catholic. My dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was slightly concerned that he agreed with me so much. It just shows how close he is to the Kingdom of God.
The Archbishop of York
I remind the House, as I think I have said before, that I speak myself as a lapsed atheist, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, because of that, I consider myself to be a sinner in need of grace. I do not pretend to be anything other and all sinners are welcome, whatever their political party. We stand as equals before God. I know that is how it feels to him, but please let him not think that. Whoever we are, we are welcome in the House of God, and all these other things, including our robes, do not matter.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and I assure him that, although I did not specifically speak of condemning violence, I absolutely condemn all violence, as do all of us on these Benches, and support the rule of law. I hope that was implicit in what I was saying. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that the Church of England has acted, since the Housing Matters report, to set up a housing association and a housing development agency and I will ask colleagues to write to him with details of how that piece of work, which the Bishop of Chelmsford is leading on, is developing.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, as ever, for his moving words. They showed the deep connection between peoples of faith. I am reminded that Jesus nearly always made the hero of some of his most famous stories someone of another faith—we will come to the Good Samaritan in a moment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, that we are inherently social. That is a really important starting point that immediately binds us together, one with another.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Church of England is the local church. What matters is the Church on the ground, serving our communities day in, day out, which is also why I have to pay tribute to all volunteers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, including church volunteers. I for one am glad that church volunteers now do safeguarding training, because it makes the Church a safer place. I did it myself two weeks ago: I regularly do safeguarding training and it is a good development in the life of the Church.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that we need to pay attention to power: it is an important thing for all of us in positions of responsibility. The Church of England needs to be a humbler Church. I recognise that I stand here knowing that our Church has been humbled by these failings and we are determined to learn from them. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her probing questions, which she could not ask us directly, but I heard them and I want her to know that. I also want her to know that there are many bishops asking these probing questions, not just one bishop. Proposals that will be coming to the General Synod of the Church of England in February are our response to the IICSA proposals and other reports, which we have been and are working on, towards independence.
I thank the Minister for his positive responses to the points that have been raised in this debate and for his undefended approach, which is something that we all need on these issues, where we know we all have so much to do and where we can all so easily fall short.
I affirm and support the Church Commissioners for the work they are doing, which is not about trying to go back 200 years but about building a better future. If we face up to our mistakes in the past, be it mistakes in safeguarding or, in that case, the horrors and evils of slavery, and build a better future then we all benefit because we build a better and more just society.
I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that it sounds like we need another cup of tea, brother. We do that from time to time; it is a bit battering but, as I have been saying to people recently when they ask, “How are you, Archbishop?”, I am battered but not yet fried. Still, we are humbled, and there are many things that he has put his finger on that the Church of England needs to address. Let us have another cup of tea, because there is so much investment going on in the Church of England on the ground and we need to address that. However, it was not the Church that closed churches in the pandemic; that was the Prime Minister.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for what he said about intergenerational community. I remind him and the House that the faith community is probably the only place left in our society where generations meet.
Lastly, I have to rise to the bait that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dangled before me early on about the good Samaritan. He asked himself a different version of the very question that the lawyer asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”, though the noble Lord put it like this: “Is there a hierarchy of obligations?” I dare to suggest that he got his answer from his own Benches, not least from the powerful, important and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sharma. We are in a climate emergency, and that teaches us that our well-being and survival are tied up with that of our neighbours across the whole world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, made a moving speech—these were not her words, but they are what I heard—about building coalitions of good will across difference, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that a lot of good work is going on at the local level with people of different faiths working together. Andy Burnham has initiated such work in Greater Manchester and I am involved in trying to get that started in York and North Yorkshire, while my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol spoke about the One City initiative in Bristol. All these things are based on the idea that we belong to one another.
In fact, as a Christian—sorry to go all theological, but the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, did ask—we believe that God is a community of persons. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we who are made in the image of God are at our best when we build communities that give and receive a reciprocity of the love that we see in God and which we try to mirror here on earth.
So is there a hierarchy of obligations? When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbour?”, he did not actually answer that question. He asked another one—“Who is neighbour to you?”—and told a story, one that we all love because it makes fun of people in power. He said there was a priest and there was a lawyer, but they did not do what common decency and the law require. They failed. As I say, I speak here as someone who knows our Church has failed.
So, who will be the hero of the story? The people listening, who know this story, think it will make fun of the lawyer and the priest; the hero will be the ordinary man in the street—the good Jew. But Jesus turns it on its head. The hero is not who you expect it to be. The hero is the stranger. The hero is the foreigner. The hero is the heretic. Worse than that, the hero is also wealthy, just to rub salt into the wounds.
That is the person who ministers to you. So, is there a hierarchy of obligations? I would put it differently. There is the human community, of which I am a part. I have obligations and responsibilities to my neighbour, whoever they are, and I want to build a society—this, for me, is a fundamentally spiritual and Christian point—where I can love my neighbour and my neighbour can love and serve me. I welcome all in trying to build such a society.
I will finish with an illustration of the power of the good Samaritan, who is a neighbour to you when you are in the ditch. Let us imagine Donald Trump in a ditch, and that it is an illegal Mexican refugee who gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is the power of the story, and that is the challenge before us about loving and serving each other. I welcome the conversation and the debate. I will be praying that we can rise to that challenge and build a more socially cohesive world.