House of Commons
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Mr Speaker, merry Christmas to you and all your staff. I put on the record my sympathy with everyone affected by water outages in Southampton; I discussed the matter with the chief executive officer yesterday.
We will have a public consultation in the new year on the formula that allocates flood defence funding, to ensure that the challenges facing businesses in rural and coastal communities are adequately taken into account. Protecting communities from flooding is a top priority, and later today I will have a winter flood preparedness meeting. I thank everyone who will be on duty over the Christmas period.
Dr Gardner
My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South has many farmers, some of whom are personal friends. On their behalf, I ask the Minister to update the House on the funds that the Government are making available via the farming recovery fund to support farmers impacted by last year’s severe weather.
Emma Hardy
The Government recognise the awful impact that flooding has had on the farming community. We are releasing £60 million via the farming recovery fund to support farmers impacted by last year’s severe weather—£10 million more than was planned by the previous Government—and £55.7 million has been paid out to over 12,700 farm businesses.
Richard Burgon
While the far right and shamefully even some MPs in this House are busy denying climate change and trying to turn it into the latest culture war, people in our communities are paying the price. More and more severe floods are devastating people’s lives, as we have seen again in recent weeks, and I am afraid it will only get worse. Does the Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the last Government left our flood defences in the worst state on record, and that fixing that has to be a national priority and a key part of preparing for climate change?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government left flood defences in a state of disrepair—the worst state on record—leaving 60,000 homes exposed. That is why this Government will invest £2.4 billion into defences over the next two years.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In Fylde, a number of new housing developments over the years have been constructed in flood areas where the developers knew that the construction sites had flooded, yet they still sold properties without disclosing that to buyers, and in some circumstances they had not constructed the flood defence requirements—the mitigations on site—to spec. Both residents and councils have felt powerless to get developers to correct what they should have got right in the first place, and a number of properties have flooded several times since people purchased them. What plans does the Minister have to give residents and councils more power to hold developers to account when they do not properly construct developments or disclose information about flooding?
Emma Hardy
I share the hon. Gentleman’s upset about the rules on housing and flooding not being implemented by the previous Government. We need more sustainable urban drainage in more developments, and it is important that it is built into planning applications to begin with. If he would like to contact me, I can look into the matter in more detail for him.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Across Huntingdon, flooding continues to be an issue that impacts a huge number of constituents, with flooding almost inevitable every time it rains. Alconbury flood group is a leading flood group in the constituency, and Charles Dalleywater has been a driving force in implementing flood mitigation measures, such as the recently opened alderman’s retention pond at Sallows farm that was planned by the flood group after funding was provided by Anglian Water, Huntingdonshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council. What funding is available from the Government to facilitate the construction of further retention ponds?
Emma Hardy
I thank all flood action groups around the country for doing incredible work for their communities. That sounds like a brilliant example. As I mentioned, we are investing £2.4 billion over the next couple of years. I hope to be able to give more detail in the new year.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and all your staff a happy Christmas, and thank all those who work in our food system for ensuring that we are fed every day and that, particularly at this time of the year, so many of our constituents can enjoy a traditional, wonderful British celebration.
The autumn Budget on 30 October confirmed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budgets for 2024-25 and 2025-26, and funding allocations for individual programmes will be determined in the upcoming months through the Department’s business planning exercise. We will update the House on the rural England prosperity fund in due course.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. Farmers in my constituency of South West Devon have highlighted the role that the rural England prosperity fund could play in the economic growth of our community. Given the publication of the English devolution White Paper this week, what conversations has the Minister had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how funding, such as the rural England prosperity fund, can ensure that devolution is a success for the countryside?
Daniel Zeichner
We are in constant dialogue with our MHCLG colleagues. I was delighted that areas with a significant rural population will on average receive about a 5% increase in their core spending power. That is a real-terms increase. I hope we can continue to work well to address the rural productivity gap of some 18%, which is a real challenge for all of us.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
May I take this opportunity to wish a very merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the hard-working House staff?
The Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years. That is the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. We are also investing £60 million into the farming recovery fund to support farmers affected by unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter. We understand concerns about changes to agricultural property relief, but the majority of those who inherit farmland after a death and claim relief will not be affected by the changes.
Sir John Whittingdale
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the latest research, which shows that 75% of commercial farms will exceed the £1 million threshold and therefore will become liable for inheritance tax? Just to give him one example, a family in West Hanningfield in my constituency who have farmed for five generations say that they face a potential inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million. They say that it will put an end to all that has gone before and end the aspirations of their family. I plead with the Government to look at this again.
Steve Reed
Of course we hear the concerns, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the last year for which we have actual claims data available, over 75% of claimants would not be affected. Of course, most farms, like every other business, can do succession planning in the usual way so they do not have to pay any more than they need to.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Our hard-working farmers across Calder Valley want to earn a living from farming, not use their land to avoid tax. After 14 years of neglect by the last Government, which undercut farmers in trade deals, the sector is, however, becoming increasingly unprofitable. I welcome the Labour Government’s new deal for farmers and the 25-year road map to making farming profitable again. Can the Secretary of State assure me that Calder Valley farmers will get their fair share in this new deal and in the new improved countryside stewardship higher-tier scheme next year?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend will be aware that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), keep telling farmers that they are not in it for the money. We know that they are. They are businesses that need to make a profit, and our new deal for farmers, which includes increasing supply chain fairness, is intended to make farms profitable and successful for the future in the way they were not under the previous Government.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The autumn Budget put family farms in jeopardy. Those farms also need biosecurity to protect their futures. With avian influenza spreading, bluetongue still with us and African swine fever at our doorstep in Europe, biosecurity is national security. Central to that is the Animal and Plant Health Agency, whose headquarters in Weybridge needs a £2.8 billion redevelopment to protect farming and animal, plant and public health. The Conservative Government rightly started that work with £1.2 billion committed in 2020. I note that Labour has committed £200 million to support that transformation, but that will not touch the sides. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will complete the project in full, as the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs called for in opposition, and commit the remaining £1.4 billion to protect our nation’s biosecurity and prevent an animal disease outbreak catastrophe?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises an important point. However, I find it a little ironic that Conservative Members are calling for this Government to commit to spending that their Government never committed to. The Weybridge biosecurity facility is so dilapidated that it faces obsolescence by the early 2030s—that is the legacy that the Conservatives left. The £208 million that we have committed will start the process of improving those facilities, and through the spending review phase coming forward, we will consider how we can commit further funding to ensure biosecurity for farmers, which the Conservatives absolutely failed to do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all here and beyond.
Farmers in my communities and across the country are genuinely devastated by the Government’s family farm tax, which will affect many in my patch who are on less than the minimum wage, and by the 76% cut in the basic payment next year. Perhaps what dismays farmers across our country and in Westmorland even more is that the overall agricultural policy of this Government and their Conservative predecessors is to actively disincentivise farmers from producing food, despite the fact that this country produces only 55% of the food we need. That is a dereliction of duty by both main parties, and a threat to national security. What plans does the Secretary of State have to change his policy and back our farmers to produce food?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. I will repeat my earlier comments about agricultural property relief: the last year for which we have data available shows that the vast majority of claimants will not pay anything. Unlike the previous Government, who thought that farmers were not in it for the money, we want them to succeed, so we are embarking on a farming road map and a new deal for farming that will consider supply chain fairness and stop farmers being undercut in trade deals such as the one the Conservatives agreed with Australia and New Zealand. Our intention is to make farming profitable for the future; the Conservatives’ record is the 12,000 farming businesses that went bust.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. The Drinking Water Inspectorate requires water companies to monitor, assess and report on the risks from PFAS. We are aware of concerns relating to that, and officials are working on it.
Munira Wilson
Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for her answer and for offering me a meeting on this topic earlier this week—I look forward to pursuing it with her. Given the wealth of authoritative evidence on the harmful impact on human health of PFAS in our drinking water, and that Scotland, the European Union and the United States have all put PFAS guidance on a statutory footing, why do this Government appear to have no plans to do the same for England and Wales? Will the Minister consider amending the Water (Special Measures) Bill to that end?
Emma Hardy
As I have mentioned, this is an important issue, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail. Work to assess the risks of PFAS, and to inform policy and regulatory approaches—including banning or highly restricting certain chemicals and addressing issues caused by their historical use—is continuing. The nature of PFAS chemicals and their persistence once in the environment means that there are no quick fixes, but this is a global challenge. Innovation in suitable PFAS alternatives is needed, and we are working to harness industry leadership in the transition away from PFAS. I assure the hon. Lady that work on this issue is ongoing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, all the staff of the House, and all those in our public services who will be working over the weekend a very merry Christmas and a safe and successful new year?
The UK has a long history of championing the global conservation of endangered species. We are in the process of extending the Ivory Act 2018 to include four further species—hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale—in addition to elephants. The Government have also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies. We are considering the most effective way to do so.
Wera Hobhouse
It has been 10 years since the senseless killing of Cecil the lion. It is still legal to import hunting trophies into this country. There has for a long time been cross-party support for banning trophy hunting. In 2023, the Labour party asked the then Conservative Government, “What is stopping you bringing in legislation? Stop the dither and delay.” Why are this Government still dithering and delaying?
Mary Creagh
With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. This time of year brings festive cheer, but it also brings the Boxing day hunts. Alongside many of my constituents, I am keen to see an end to the smoke- screen that is trail hunting. Following the last Labour Government’s historic foxhunting ban, will the Minister confirm this Labour Government’s commitment to banning trail hunting once and for all?
Mary Creagh
We have indeed committed to a ban on trail hunting, which will provide significant protections to wild animals, including foxes and hares. Work to determine the best approach for doing so is ongoing, and further announcements will be made in due course.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
The public are sick and tired of the scandal of sewage polluting our rivers, lakes and seas. That is why we are taking immediate action to place water companies under special measures through a new Bill that will give the regulator the power to ban the payment of undeserved bonuses for polluting water companies and bring criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers. We are also carrying out the biggest review of the water sector since privatisation to shape further legislation that will transform how our water system works and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Mr Rand
Last year, there were 3,366 hours of sewage dumping into the rivers and streams of Altrincham and Sale West, leaving Sinderland brook, the Bollin and other waterways in a terrible condition. Will the Secretary of State outline further how the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill will ensure the end of sewage dumping into the rivers and streams of my constituency for good?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion for clean rivers in his constituency. As I said, the Bill will ban the payment of undeserved bonuses to water executives who are responsible for this kind of pollution, and will ensure instead that money is spent where it should always have been spent: on fixing the infrastructure, so that we can stop once and for all the kinds of sewage scandals that are creating the river pollution his constituents are so aghast to see on their doorstep.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Merry Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker.
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. While I welcome the limited measures that the Government are taking to tackle pollution from the water industry, there is an elephant in the room, because agricultural pollution is just as important a source of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. What will the Secretary of State do to tackle the problem of agricultural pollution with the same degree of urgency and focus, and how will he support farmers—who themselves stand ready to take action to tackle this problem—by providing the funding, support and clear regulatory enforcement that is needed for a level playing field?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue, and I recognise that over 40% of pollution in our waterways comes from agricultural run-off. Sir Jon Cunliffe and the commission he is leading will look at all sources of pollution into our water. The budgets for more sustainable forms of agriculture that we have committed to will seek to reduce the use of fertiliser, so that there is less run-off into our water. The farming road map that we are working on with the farming community is also intended to reduce the amount of run-off from agriculture into our waterways, and we are looking at moving to a whole catchment-based model. We are looking at all sources of pollution into water so that we can clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, from whatever source the pollution comes.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to wish you and all in the House a very merry Christmas.
Many customers are rightly concerned about Thames Water and the situation that company finds itself in. For the third time of asking the Secretary of State in this Chamber, will he confirm that he will not issue any regulatory easement to Thames Water in his discussions with that company, so that its environmental obligations and service commitments to its customers will not be reduced?
Steve Reed
The Government continue to monitor very closely what is happening in Thames Water, and indeed in all the other water companies. The only easement I have ever seen given to water companies over pollution was that of the previous Government, who turned a blind eye as sewage was flooding through our rivers, lakes and seas. This Government are putting the water companies under tough regulatory special measures—measures that the previous Government could have enacted, but failed to enact.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
As my hon. Friend knows, each week 8 million vapes—such as single-use, pod and big puff—are thrown away or recycled incorrectly, which is 13 vapes a second. That is why we have already banned single-use vapes and created 10,000 extra vape recycling points in store. We will ensure that online marketplaces and vape producers pay their share of electronic recycling costs in order to avoid the fires, which we know are so devastating.
James Asser
Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a very happy Christmas.
I thank the Minister for her reply. We are all keen to increase recycling, but too often the opportunities for recycling electronic waste are very limited, meaning that it goes into mainstream waste, leading to increased pollution and hazards. We are seeing an increasing number of bin fires starting with vapes, which, as she has highlighted, are a particular problem. Will the Government consider what opportunities there are to work with local authorities to increase recycling opportunities and, in particular, to ensure that the public are aware of the downsides of not disposing of electronic waste properly?
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. My own city council in Coventry has introduced small electrical item take-back points in its libraries, which is an example of an excellent council innovating. I recently visited the Currys recycling plant in Newark, which shows the importance of recycling electricals to ensure that the gifts of Christmas past can be conserved and used for many Christmases to come. More importantly, last-minute Christmas shoppers will get £5 off a new product—I hear that air fryers are very popular.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and all a merry Christmas.
We know that electronic and similar goods in landfill can leach into our waterways and affect water quality. Will Ministers reintroduce water restoration funding, as part of the package of measures they were talking about earlier, so that the River Tone and bathing stations elsewhere across the country can benefit from cleaner water?
Mary Creagh
Our policy is certainly intended to tackle fly-tipping and stop persistent organic pollutants entering the environment, but I will have to consult the Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), before answering on that detailed point.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Dredging can be a useful option for managing flood risk, usually as part of a wider approach, where it is technically effective, cost- effective and does not significantly increase flood risk for others. Of course, we need to adopt the best solution for each place.
Richard Tice
I wish a merry Christmas to one and all.
My constituents in Boston and Skegness are very concerned that the Environment Agency is unable to properly maintain riverbanks and properly dredge rivers in order to protect homes and livelihoods because of the very demanding requirements of Natural England regarding the protection of badgers and water voles, which means that the priorities are wrong. Will the Minister meet me and senior people at the Environment Agency to ensure that we get these priorities correct?
Emma Hardy
Dredging used to be commonplace, but some evidence shows that it can speed up flow and potentially increase the risk of flooding downstream. There are currently no plans for any further dredging in Boston and Skegness, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the EA area manager to discuss this further.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We all know that food security is national security, and most of us also recognise that the impacts of climate change and nature loss pose a significant risk to domestic production, so it is very important that we use our land carefully. Consequently, the Government will be introducing a land use framework to ensure that we protect our most productive agricultural land.
Blake Stephenson
High-grade agricultural land in Mid Bedfordshire has been farmed for generations, and it is critical for our food security and our freedom, but it is under extreme pressure. We have talked this morning about climate change and flooding, and also about the Government’s family farm tax. What has not been mentioned so much is urban sprawl, which is a major threat to high-grade agricultural land. We live in an uncertain world and we need our country to feed itself. Considering the threat, will the Minister guarantee that high-grade agricultural land will be protected by this Government?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and refer him to my earlier comments: we see more and more pressure, and there are so many things we need to do on our land to house and feed people, so it is important that we have a proper structure in place. It is widely acknowledged that the current planning system does not necessarily do that. The previous Government promised a land use framework; we will actually deliver it.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I share customers’ anger about the water bill rises announced by Ofwat this morning. Customers have been left to pay the price of Conservative failure after the previous Government let companies spend millions of pounds on bonuses and shareholder payouts instead of investing in our crumbling sewerage infrastructure—if you find cracks in your house and do nothing about it for over a decade, the problem gets worse and the cost of fixing it escalates, and that is exactly what has happened to our sewerage system. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill to curb unjustified bonuses. Money earmarked for investment will be ringfenced so that it can be spent only on infrastructure, rather than bonuses and shareholder payouts, as happened under the Conservatives. I have appointed Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead a commission into the regulation of the water industry so that the failures that led to today’s bill rises can never happen again. This Government will end the Tory sewage scandal once and for all.
Danny Beales
Recent investigations have shown that a lack of investment in drainage infrastructure has contributed to significant flooding in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. How will water companies including Thames Water be held to account where their lack of investment blights communities through repeated flooding?
Steve Reed
The Government of course recognise the importance of and need for a robust drainage system, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Government failed to ensure adequate investment to maintain and upgrade it. Water companies have a duty to ensure that the area they serve is effectively drained. This includes drainage of surface water from the land around buildings as well as the provision of sewers.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I wish a merry Christmas to everyone in the House, and also to everyone in our farming, food, hospitality and water sectors. But not everyone will be able to celebrate Christmas. In recent weeks, a farmer took himself off to a remote part of his farm and killed himself. The message he left his family, who wish to remain anonymous, is that he did this because he feared becoming a financial burden to his family because of changes to inheritance tax. This is the human cost of the figures that the Secretary of State provides so casually. What does the Secretary of State say to that grieving family?
Steve Reed
I extend my heartfelt sympathies to that family, but I think it is irresponsible in the extreme to seek to weaponise a personal tragedy of that kind in this way. Where there is mental ill health, there needs to be support for that, and this Government are investing in it. The right hon. Lady knows from the last year for which data is available that the vast majority of claimants will pay absolutely nothing following the changes to agricultural property relief.
Victoria Atkins
How heartless and how extraordinary that the Secretary of State is more discomfited by being presented with the facts of the consequences of his policy than the reality of what this policy ensures. I was a Minister for seven and a half years, and I have never seen a policy have the consequences that this one has. [Interruption.] Members of the public will see Labour Members reacting in that way because I have dared to present them with the facts. We know that there is a tragically high suicide rate among the farming community. The National Farmers Union gave evidence about this, and the Secretary of State has been told repeatedly. Will he collect data on a monthly basis of suicides from farmers, farming families, landowners and family businesses, so that we, the House and the outside community can understand the human costs of this tax policy before it comes into force?
Steve Reed
Mental health services are the responsibility of the national health service, and the former Health Secretary, who broke the NHS, is in no position to lecture anybody about public services. She was no friend of the health service and mental health services, and she is no friend of farming. Some 12,000 farms went bust on the Conservatives’ watch. They failed to get £300 million out the door and into the pockets and bank accounts of farmers, and they signed a trade deal with Australia that undercut British farmers on environmental and welfare standards. I hear the posturing, but it is this Government who are standing up for farming.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on this important issue. The Association of Drainage Authorities is on the flood resilience taskforce, and the statutory instrument will be laid as soon as parliamentary time allows.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to get our act together. This is the shortest set of topical questions and I will not be able to get many Members in. We have to remember what topicals are always about. I hope you have got the gist of the question, Minister.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The point that farmers need to get a better return from their business is well made, and that is exactly what this Government will be addressing.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to your team and to colleagues across the House. My constituents have long felt the impacts of flooding, and many residents have been isolated in rural areas after a storm. I have recently produced a flooding report. Will the Minister meet me to discuss it, so that I can support the work of the Department?
Emma Hardy
There is a very easy and short answer to that: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the scandalous situation that the previous Government left our waterways in, with record levels of pollution and raw sewage filthying our rivers, lakes and seas. I have appointed Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead a commission to review governance and regulation so that we can stop it ever happening again.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I welcome the landmark £5 billion agriculture budget announced in the Budget, which is the biggest-ever budget for sustainable farming. My farmers in North Northumberland desperately need that money. In that context, what more can the Secretary of State do to push for his Department to get that money out the door in a way that the previous Government did not?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was extraordinary, was it not, that the last Government managed not to spend £300 million of the farm budget. We are determined to ensure that we do better. I wish him and his farmers a very merry Christmas.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Incineration permit breaches are a matter for the regulator, the Environment Agency, but we are reviewing energy-from-waste capacity across the country and will be making a statement imminently.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Hanukkah to those who are observing.
What action are this Government taking to promote the purchasing of British-grown and seasonal produce through their public procurement framework?
Daniel Zeichner
We are absolutely determined to ensure that we see more British produce bought across our public sector. We will come to the House with our plans in due course.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It would be helpful if the Secretary of State encouraged Sir Jon to engage with parliamentarians across the House. The necessary changes that he has outlined will take time, however. The truth of the matter is that if those who currently have responsibility were to change their culture and focus on outcomes for customers, rather than their own internal processes, we might see earlier improvements.
Steve Reed
There will be an opportunity for Members to engage with Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission in January, and I am sure that the right hon. Member’s Committee will want to do precisely that. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is going through Parliament right now, is intended to make quick changes to the system. Sir Jon’s review will give us the chance to reform regulation and governance for the long term.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I recently met the Alde and Ore Estuary Trust, which has long been campaigning and fundraising to refurbish and secure flood defences on the Alde and Ore estuary. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the trust’s projects and the barriers to progress?
Emma Hardy
Each time I come here for questions, I promise that I will not arrange to meet as many Members, and each time I fail. I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Last year I visited the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton project in Loddington. May I commend the contribution that it can make to defining sustainable intensification of agricultural food production? Perhaps it would be a suitable place for a DEFRA ministerial away day early in the new year, to help with the use strategy.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I am a great admirer of the Allerton project and have been meaning to visit it for a long time. My officials are working on a visit, and I am really looking forward to engaging with those people, because they do great work.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Tim Farron
It is related to the questions we just had. Thank you for granting the point of order, Mr Speaker. At 7 o’clock this morning, entirely foreseeably, Ofwat announced bill rises of 36% for water bill payers around the country, which is an increase 14 times larger than current inflation. We know that a large proportion of that rise will be spent on paying off the debt of water companies: a debt incurred simply by paying dividends that were unearned and bonuses that were undeserved. Is it in order for the Government to have known that was coming but not to have come to the House to make a statement, which would have allowed us to hold them to account for their failure to ensure that Ofwat has the teeth it needs to hold the water companies to account?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I have received no notification from the Government of such a statement, but he has certainly put his point on the record and I am sure that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
Mr Speaker, I will start by taking this opportunity to wish you, your team and Members across the House a very merry Christmas.
Every single victim of knife crime is one too many, and this Christmas there will be some constituents, including my own, facing the heartbreaking reality of a loved one who is no longer with them due to knife crime. That is why, as part of our plan for change, the Government are 100% committed to tackling knife crime.
David Taylor
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
I have had reports of people carrying machetes in Livingstone Walk, an area in Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead, with the Dacorum local crime unit investigating one incident of alleged robbery at knifepoint. Knife crime is not our only issue in Hemel; we have the highest rate of antisocial behaviour in the county, and we are the most dangerous town in Hertfordshire. That is a direct result of Conservative Governments taking 20,000 police off our streets nationwide, removing 60p out of every pound from local authority budgets and failing to act on antisocial behaviour. What further steps is the Solicitor General taking to ensure that violent thugs are not allowed to run riot and are brought to justice?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter. Knife-enabled robberies surged under the previous Government, which is why the Home Secretary has made tackling these offences an urgent priority. Enforcement is key, and that is why we are putting police back on the beat with a named officer for every neighbourhood.
Jas Athwal
I commend the Government for acting swiftly to ban ninja swords, seize zombie-style knives and crack down on the illegal online sale of these weapons. It will reassure communities such as mine in Ilford South, which sadly knows all too well the deadly effect of these weapons, with a number of heinous attacks this year where teenagers lost their lives. What are the Government doing to support the victims of knife crime and their families?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Many of our constituents will have gone through the same pain as his. That is why we are taking strong action on knife crime, banning lethal weapons and working to ensure that dangerous blades do not end up in the wrong hands. This September, it became illegal to possess zombie-style knives and machetes, and we are bringing forward legislation to ban the ninja swords to which he refers.
Sarah Coombes
Merry Christmas to you and the team, Mr Speaker. A couple of weeks ago, people in West Bromwich were met with the terrifying sight of young people wearing balaclavas and wielding machetes running around the town centre in broad daylight. It was a shocking, dangerous incident that has put people off going into the town centre. What is the Solicitor General doing to work with other Ministers to crack down on these zombie-style knives and ensure our town centres are safe?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear about that shocking incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and she is right to raise it in this House. These kinds of weapons have absolutely no place on our streets. That is why this Government took quick action to ensure it was illegal to possess machetes. I hope and expect that there will be timely prosecutions in this case.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I congratulate the Solicitor General on taking up her position. As a former trauma surgeon, I have seen at first hand the devastating effect of knife and other serious violent crime, so I welcome the Government’s specific commitment to halving knife crime within a decade. However, on the broader commitment on serious violent crime, no specifics have been provided to date. Will the Solicitor General tell the House which crimes are to be included, and the date by which that will be achieved?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that knife crime is still too high—more than 50,000 instances in the year to June 2024. He is also right to highlight that this Government are taking strong action to combat knife crime. We know that effective local policing is vital to tackling knife crime, which is why we are putting 13,000 more police and police community support officers on our streets, because we are determined to make our streets safe. The Home Secretary has also commissioned a rapid review to understand how these weapons are sold online and delivered to under-18s and identify gaps in legislation and the most effective ways to stop this.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Last month, Thames Valley police’s Wokingham neighbourhood team attended Bohunt school in Arborfield, where they presented to young people the dangers of carrying knives. Early intervention is key to deterring children from violence, and police officers play a crucial role in that. What conversations has the Solicitor General had with her Home Office colleagues on the link between police officer numbers and effective recording of the prevention of knife crime? Has the Solicitor General expressed concerns to her colleagues about the potential decrease in the number of Thames Valley police officers?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight these issues in this House. Key to prevention and early intervention is our programme of young futures hubs and prevention partnerships. Our young futures hubs will bring together services to improve the ways that young people can access the support they need, and our prevention partnerships will proactively identify the young people most at risk and map youth service provision to ensure there is a clear understanding of the support available in each area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I thank you for all your kindness to everyone in this House in the past year. I wish the Solicitor General all the best in her new role.
I share hon. Members’ concerns about knife crime, which is truly horrific. The impact it has on families is great. I have a specific question, so I am happy to receive a written answer. How many under-18s across the United Kingdom in the past 12 months have been: (a) cautioned; (b) charged; and (c) convicted of knife crime offences?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. He will appreciate that I do not have those statistics to hand, but I am more than happy to write to him.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Reliable and effective local policing is the foundation for keeping all our constituents safe, whether they live in a city, a town or a rural area. That is why the Government are putting more police officers and PCSOs on the beat. Our plan for change will ensure every neighbourhood has a named contactable police officer in their community to deal with local issues.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Representing a rural constituency, I am aware of the ongoing problem of agricultural vehicle theft. In Calder Valley, vehicle crime counts for one in every 20 crimes committed. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, passed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) as a private Member’s Bill, was restricted to the re-sale of specified equipment. However, 18 months since it received Royal Assent, the statutory instrument needed for it to be enacted has yet to be laid. Will my hon. Friend act where the previous Government did not?
The Solicitor General
We are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, which aims to prevent the theft and re-sale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting, as my hon. Friend describes. He will know that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention takes this matter very seriously and is working closely with the automotive industry to ensure the most robust responses possible to these crimes. I am also happy to raise the matter with my hon. Friend’s local chief Crown prosecutor.
Rachel Hopkins
Farmers across Luton South and South Bedfordshire have frequently raised with me the issue of fly-tipping on their land. I welcome the Government’s commitment to implement stronger laws to prevent fly-tipping. Will the Solicitor General, working with colleagues across Government, also commit to review and update sentencing guidelines for courts to make prosecuting fly-tippers more consistent and ensure more stringent fines are applied for the worst offenders?
The Solicitor General
Fly-tipping is a scourge both in urban and rural areas, which is why we are clamping down on it by forcing environmental vandals to clean up the mess they create. We are taking a cross-Government approach, aligned with our safer streets mission. I am sure my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that, working with ministerial colleagues, we are setting out a new strategy that will address antisocial behaviour and fly-tipping, and restore public confidence in policing.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Solicitor General
The Government are committed to tackling criminality of all types. We have set out our plan for change, which includes putting 13,000 more police officers and PCSOs on the beat, and bringing back neighbourhood policing. Next year, the Crown Prosecution Service will receive an additional £49 million of funding to help recruit and train more prosecutors, enabling them to focus on securing justice in all cases, from minor offences right through to the most serious crimes.
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Lady for that reply and I appreciate the additional resources, but what my constituents, and I am sure constituents up and down the country, want to see is robust effective policing and prosecution of what is low-level crime in the great scheme of things, but which can be a real curse, particularly on our housing estates. Can the hon. Lady give an assurance to my constituents that there will be real robust and positive action?
The Solicitor General
I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman calls this kind of crime low level. I know from experiences in my constituency that these issues can affect daily life and really blight communities, so yes he has my assurance.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I wish you and your team, Mr Speaker, and everyone in the House a very merry Christmas, and I welcome the Solicitor General to her place. However, I am afraid that it will not be a merry Christmas for all my constituents. Rural crime in North Cornwall is on the rise, from rural theft to increased drug trafficking. County lines drug gangs are grooming and recruiting children as young as nine to traffic drugs, while elderly and vulnerable constituents have been cuckooed in their own homes by the gangs. What steps is the Solicitor General taking to work with the police to increase the number of prosecutions of the ringleaders of these ruthless gangs that blight our communities and expose our young people to violence and crime?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is right to raise this important and pressing issue. We know that those who commit such crimes, including crimes in our rural communities, are some of the most manipulative criminals in society. The Crown Prosecution Service supplies early investigative advice to law enforcement agencies to build strong cases and ensure the robust prosecution of those involved in county lines. I am determined that we will continue to do everything we can to prevent young people from being drawn into crime and to stop this exploitation.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Solicitor General
One of my priorities as Solicitor General and the priority of the Director for Public Prosecutions, whom I met earlier this week, is tackling the intolerable backlog in our courts and transforming the way in which we support victims of crime. The Prime Minister has set out our plan for change, which will restore confidence in our criminal justice system. We have worked with the CPS to make recent changes to its processes in order to improve communication with victims, strengthen the victims’ right to review scheme, reduce the rates of victim attrition, and reduce delays.
Sir John Hayes
You will know, Mr Speaker, that Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society”,
but injustice reigns when victims feel that the cause of their plight is being neglected. Such was the case in Sutton Bridge, where a constituent of mine, a six-year-old girl, suffered the dreadful event of indecent exposure. The man was known in the community and was reported by the father of the child, and CCTV footage was available. When crimes of that kind are not investigated properly, people lose their faith in justice. We must deal with those crimes, in the interests of the very justice that Edmund Burke recommended.
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear of the incident in the right hon. Member’s constituency; that is indeed appalling. It is vital for this type of conduct to be taken seriously, and policing is key to that. We need more police officers and police community support officers, which is why, as part of our plan for change, we have promised to put 13,000 more police officers and PCSOs back on the beat with a named officer for every neighbourhood. We also need to improve the experiences of victims within our criminal justice system, and that includes better communication between victims and the CPS.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, and congratulate the former Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on her promotion to Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with this Government’s pace.
Given that the Crown court backlog stands at over 73,000 and trials are being listed for 2027, victims are awaiting justice for an unacceptably long time, with the consequence that many no longer feel able to support the process. How is the Solicitor General working, through the CPS, to ensure that victims facing a wait of between two and three years for trials stay the course?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind words, and I look forward to appearing before his Committee on 15 January. He is right to say that we need to be doing much more to support victims. He alluded to the review of the Crown courts; he will also know that the Lord Chancellor is taking steps to reduce the Crown court case load by increasing funding for sitting days, and further sitting days were announced yesterday—an extra 2,000, I believe.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade as part of our plan for change, and securing prosecutions will be key to that. Our commitment to tackling violence against women and girls in this way is unprecedented, and it will require a wholesale change in how we think about and deal with these kinds of offences. Only through a truly cross-Government effort can it be achieved. As Solicitor General, I will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to ensure that we deliver on that commitment.
Matthew Patrick
May I welcome my hon. Friend to her place? I know she will do a fantastic job. Crown Prosecution Service guidance recognises that perpetrators of economic abuse harm their victim-survivors not just during a relationship, but long after it has finished. When will CPS guidance be updated to reflect post-separation controlling and coercive behaviour being made a criminal offence, and what training on recognising such abuse is offered to the CPS?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been working on this issue with survivors of economic abuse, and I know that he cares about it very deeply. Domestic abuse can take many insidious forms, and we must do everything we can to ensure that we are equipped to spot it and tackle it. The guidance to which he refers was updated earlier this year and is under regular review. I can also confirm that the CPS will take part in a further knowledge-sharing event on economic abuse, which will be delivered for police and prosecutors as part of the domestic abuse joint justice plan.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
My family knows what domestic abuse looks like, but the law does not. That is because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law, which means that many abusers are convicted of things like common assault or actual bodily harm. For victims and survivors, that does not reflect the full gravity of the offence, and it also means that abusers qualify for early release schemes. Women’s Aid is backing my Bill, which would create a dedicated set of domestic abuse aggravated offences in the law. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss my Bill, so that we can better respect and protect survivors?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are strengthening the law and the criminal justice system to improve prosecutions for violence against women and girls, and to better support victims.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish you and the team a very happy Christmas indeed. I congratulate the Solicitor General on her position and welcome her to her place. I hope to work constructively and effectively with her on this challenging and very important part of Government.
As the Solicitor General knows, rape victims need action now, urgently, given that many rape cases take more than two years to come to trial. There has been much talk from Ministers about opening specialist fast-track rape courts, but disappointingly there has been very little detail to date. How will the Government achieve that fast-tracking if they do not use all potential court sitting days, as requested by the Lady Chief Justice but refused by the Lord Chancellor?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the shadow Solicitor General for her kind words. She brings an awful lot of experience and expertise to her role, and I look forward to working constructively with her. She raises the issue of violence against women and girls, and refers to Crown court sitting days. I said earlier that I am very pleased that an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days were added by the Lord Chancellor yesterday. That is very important, because it will allow the fast-tracking that she refers to of the backlog in our courts.
Helen Grant
I fully support the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade, but how will the Government’s progress be measured to ensure that they deliver against their target? What assessment has been made of the definition of violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
Timeliness is clearly key, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to our commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We will take urgent action, building on the urgent action we have already taken. In November, for example, pilots of the new domestic abuse protection orders began with three police forces, enabling them to provide additional protection to victims.
The hon. Lady will know that the police and the CPS have launched their domestic abuse joint justice plan. Improvements in partnership working under the plan have already led to a modest increase in referrals of domestic abuse cases from the police to the CPS, setting a strong foundation for future improvements.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Freight crime poses significant challenges to the logistics and transport sectors, affecting businesses, communities and our economy. This Government recognise the importance of addressing this issue, and the Crown Prosecution Service will always seek to prosecute serious offending when the relevant legal tests are met. Prosecutors can also apply for compensation to be paid to victims and, in appropriate cases, can seek the seizure of assets that represent the proceeds of crime.
Rachel Taylor
Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a very merry Christmas, and I thank you in particular for all your support over the last six months. I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Solicitor General to her position, and I know she will be a powerful voice for justice in the Government.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on freight and logistics, I have been listening to businesses across the country, including many in my North Warwickshire and Bedworth constituency. They have told me that freight crime has reached unacceptable levels and is damaging their businesses and their drivers’ welfare, yet organised gangs stealing goods from freight vehicles is classed as the same as someone breaking into a car and stealing a phone from the passenger seat. What does the Solicitor General plan to do to ensure that freight theft is prosecuted as the serious crime it is?
The Solicitor General
I know my hon. Friend has formidable knowledge and expertise in these matters, which she raises very effectively on behalf of her constituents. We are clear that freight crime is a serious threat, and the Government are working closely with the police, the automotive industry and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service to combat this threat. The CPS is, of course, alive to the prevalence of freight crime and brings together expertise to ensure that there is the resilience, skills and flexibility that is needed to best respond to new and changing areas of organised crime, like freight crime.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I know how much work he did in this area prior to his election to this place. Criminal gangs must not be allowed to undermine our border security by illegally bringing people into this country. That is why this Government are committed to smashing the gangs. We have set up the new Border Security Command, which will bring together law enforcement across the system and boost the Crown Prosecution Service’s ability to deliver charging decisions swiftly in international organised crime cases.
Mike Tapp
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Solicitor General on taking up her position.
Having worked with the National Crime Agency in the past, and having worked in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the effectiveness of counter-terror powers and the difference that they can make. Are the Government working to maximise the effectiveness of the Border Security Command by using counter-terror-style powers, or adapting such powers, in order to take on the smuggling gangs and treat them like terrorists?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Quite simply, the previous Government lost control of our borders. That is why we need a much tougher approach, learning from the success of our world-leading counter-terror measures. Our border security, asylum and immigration Bill will create new, stronger powers for law enforcement agencies to tackle, investigate and prosecute organised crime and strengthen UK border security.
Hospice Funding
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on hospice funding.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for asking that important question. This Government want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life. We will shift care out of hospitals into the community to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate settings. Palliative end of life care services, including hospices, will have a big role to play in that shift. Most hospices are charitable, independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. The amount of funding that each charitable hospice receives varies both within and between integrated care board areas.
On children and young people’s hospice funding, the Minister for Care met representatives from NHS England and Together for Short Lives and one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care to discuss children’s palliative and end of life care, and that funding stream was discussed at length at that meeting.
This Government recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years, so today I am delighted to announce the biggest investment in hospices and end of life care in a generation. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that those hospices have the best physical environment for care, and with £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The funding will support hospices and deliver much needed funding for improvements, including refurbishment, overhaul of IT systems and improved security for patients and visitors. It will help hospices in this year and next year in providing the best end of life care for patients and their families in a supportive and dignified physical environment.
Hospices for children and young people will receive that further £26 million in funding for 2025-26 through what was, until recently, known as the children’s hospice grant. We will set out the details of the funding allocation and dissemination in the new year.
We completely understand the pressures that people are under. To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor chose to support health and social care in the Budget. The alternative is not to fund. The sector has suffered from 14 years of underfunding, and we are righting that historic wrong. This Government are committed to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality palliative and end of life care as part of our plan for change. We are taking immediate action to make our healthcare fit for the future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and everyone in the House will welcome this announcement. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to give the House an early Christmas present.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think you might find that I granted the urgent question, but don’t worry, Minister. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Caroline Johnson
After the confusion of yesterday, I welcome the fact that further details on hospice funding have been announced, albeit by our dragging them out of the Government on the very last day of Parliament before the recess.
On 30 October, the Chancellor decided to break her election promise by increasing employers national insurance contributions and reducing the threshold at which employer contributions are payable. It was later confirmed that hospices would not be exempt from the increase in costs. Now the Government have announced new funding for the sector, which they have the audacity to call
“the biggest investment in a generation”.
Let us be clear about what is going on: the Government are taking millions of pounds off hospices and palliative care charities, and then think those hospices and palliative care charities should be grateful when the Government give them some of that back. That is socialism at its finest.
We will look more closely at the funding announced today, but despite many questions from right hon. and hon. Members, to date the Government have refused to give any clear answers on how much their tax rises will cost hospices. I will try again: will the Minister please tell us how much the Government estimate they will raise from taxing hospices more? Was an impact assessment ever produced on how hospices will be hit, and how that will affect the care that they provide? Do the Government expect the funding that they have announced today to cover the additional costs in their entirety?
At the heart of this discussion are charities that provide compassionate care to terminally ill people in their final days, weeks and months. While hospices were left without information, Hospice UK reported that 300 beds have already closed, with many more closures to come. Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that? Ultimately, it is patients who will pay the price.
While we welcome this update for hospices, when will the Health Secretary come forward with more details on the many other health providers who have been hit by Labour’s tax increases, including GPs, community pharmacies and dentists? Will they be expected to be similarly grateful for getting back some of the money that the Government have taken from them?
Karin Smyth
To govern is, indeed, to choose. The Conservative party chose neither this sector nor any other health sector and it refused to govern. Within five months, we have not only increased the funding to the health sector to stabilise it but made today’s announcement.
Beneath all that, there might have been a welcome for the announcement—I am not entirely sure—whereas the sector is pleased to have the money. The chief executive of Hospice UK said:
“This funding will allow hospices to continue to reach hundreds of thousands of people every year with high-quality, compassionate care. We look forward to working with the government to make sure everyone approaching the end of life gets the care and support they need”.
The chief executive of Haven House children’s hospice said that it is
“very positive to hear about the government’s plan to invest significantly in the wider hospice sector; we hope that there will be as much flexibility as possible to determine locally how this new money is spent.”
This is an important issue for many hon. Members, and we look forward to working with the sector in the new year on the specifics of the announcement.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This is a very welcome announcement and I am sure the hospices are breathing a sigh of relief after the level of funding they endured for 14 years under the Tories. If we are to move palliative care out of hospitals and into care situations or people’s homes, the money needs to be passported to the hospice sector for it to play its part. Integrated care boards have been charged under the Health and Care Act 2022 to provide that funding. Will the money go through ICBs or will it be passported straight to the hospice sector?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for more people to be treated at home. That is absolutely the direction of travel that we want to see. This money will help, for example, with technology to support more people to be treated at home. ICBs are responsible for commissioning and allocating funding, so that will be done in the normal way.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I wish you and the whole team a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
Last week, I visited Hope House in my constituency, where I met beautiful young Esmay, one of hundreds of children cared for by the hospice every single year. She is nearly three and has a life-threatening heart condition. Esmay’s family do not know what the future holds for her, but they know that Hope House will be there to support them, as it has since before she was born.
There are 300,000 people like Esmay treated in hospices every year, and just one third of their funding comes from the NHS. That leaves institutions such as Hope House and nearby Severn hospice reliant on generosity and unable to plan as they wait for confirmation of the funding they will receive from the NHS. That situation has been made more difficult this year because of the increase to national insurance contributions, which Hope House estimates will cost £177,000.
Funding is welcome, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment today. Will she explain whether the increase that she has announced today will cover the NIC hike for hospices and the increase in the living wage that was announced at the Budget? Will she also commit to providing future settlements in a timely manner so that hospice managers can budget effectively for the coming year?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and for welcoming the announcement. She will know that, in the past 14 years, the sector has been neglected, like the rest of the NHS and social care system. As we have repeatedly said, to govern is to choose. We have improved the settlement for the sector this year. Today’s welcome announcement can be used by the sector to manage some of those pressures and deliver the sorts of services it wants for the future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the amazing staff at Overgate hospice in my constituency should be focused this Christmas on caring for their patients and not on funding? Will she confirm that this funding allows them to do so? Also, in April I will be running the London marathon for the Overgate hospice’s big build appeal. Will the Minister sponsor me?
Karin Smyth
That is possibly one of the cheekiest questions I have ever heard asked here, and I am obviously going to have to say yes. Frankly, rather him than me, but good luck to my hon. Friend on doing that. I know that many hon. Members raise money for their local constituencies and that the marathon is an important part of that.
We understand how different hospices are funded differently throughout the country. We want to make sure that end of life care, with all the different options that people have in their local systems, is well supported. It is really important for people to have some of that security, and I know that this announcement will be welcomed by my hon. Friend’s local hospice, as it is by the sector today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
The St Helena Hospice in Colchester, which serves my constituency and that of the Labour hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), estimates that the national insurance increase will cost it £300,000 in a full year. Can the Minister now give a guarantee that the hospice will be compensated by the Government in full?
Karin Smyth
It is good to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting his local hospice with his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). We will announce allocations for the whole sector and the NHS in the usual way in the new year.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
St Giles Hospice in my constituency has funding challenges like any other. One thing that staff mentioned to me was the sustainability of when they are contracted to do things. Is the Department considering the timing and not just the funding, to enable better planning and better staff planning?
Karin Smyth
Yes, stability and understanding longer-term planning is important for this sector as well as for many others. Certainly, we want to make sure that we work with the sector and the wider NHS, so that we deliver our longer-term 10-year plan, but get to that process in the next few years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
St Luke’s Hospice in my constituency covers the whole of Brent and Harrow. I helped to form it back in the 1980s. The staff tell me that the biggest problem they face is that, every time there is an increase in nurses or doctors’ pay, it is never passed on to them, so they have to find the money from charitable giving. The Minister’s announcement of extra money is of course welcome, but she has failed to answer the question: will it cover the national insurance increase, or not?
Karin Smyth
All hon. Members support their local hospices, which I know is important, but I have to remind the House of the parlous state of the sector that we inherited after 14 years of the previous Government. If Conservative Members, many of whom were part of that Government, had wanted to rectify the way in which hospice funding was allocated, or indeed that end of life care was managed, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. This Government have hit the ground running. We have fast-tracked these measures, and this announcement today is clearly a part of that. I hope that they all welcome it; it is just a shame that they did not do it themselves.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
May I welcome this record investment in our hospices from the Labour Government? The Conservative Government had 14 years to do that, but they shirked that responsibility. Will the Minister join me in thanking the amazing staff and volunteers at Saint Michael’s Hospice and Demelza hospice in my constituency who do such amazing work all year round to support families and children who need amazing care?
Karin Smyth
I am delighted to support my hon. Friend in the work that she has been doing with St Michael’s and Demelza hospices. She is absolutely right to highlight that, and I hope that she will be able to meet the staff in the new year and discuss how they can best use some of this funding.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff, a very merry Christmas.
Following on from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), next year I will be taking part in a strictly dancing competition for my local Rowcroft Hospice. However, I am pretty sure that, even if all the Members in this House sponsored me, I would not be able to raise the £225,000 needed by Rowcroft to cover the additional national insurance contribution payments that it will have to make. Will this extra funding, which is very welcome, be additional funding, or will it be just enough to cover the extra costs that have been imposed on the hospice sector through the increase in national insurance contributions in the recent Budget?
Karin Smyth
I have to say that dancing is more my style than marathon running, so I wish the hon. Lady luck with that. At least she did not ask me for any money. I refer her to my earlier answer: this is additional money to support the hospice sector. It is a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. We look forward to working with the sector in order to best deploy that in the New Year.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Our hospices do an amazing job, and I look forward to visiting my local hospice in the next few days, but Scottish hospices have warned that they might have to turn patients away because of the funding crisis that they face under the SNP. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government must at least match the level of investment that she has announced today? They must have a similar level of ambition for Scottish hospices, and provide fresh investment for our hospices, which do an amazing job in Scotland.
Karin Smyth
As my hon. Friend highlights, this is a devolved issue for the Scottish Government. We hope that they match our ambition, as she rightly puts it. I wish her well with her local hospice, and I hope that the Scottish Government take note of what we are doing here in England.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Over 7,000 charities and voluntary groups have written an open letter to the Chancellor warning that the national insurance increase will cost them £1.4 billion and have a devastating impact. At this time of the year, ahead of Christmas, many charities, including hospices, are trying to raise funds. I know that the Chancellor did not go into politics to be the Grinch who stole Christmas for charities, so will the Minister please look at this again, and exempt charities and voluntary groups, including hospices, from this cruel tax increase, which is sucking up good will and donations and really hurting valuable charities?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman was a Government Minister, so he had plenty of opportunities to change the system, had he wanted to do so at the time.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her announcement of a huge funding boost for the hospice sector. Will she join me in thanking all the brilliant staff at Keech hospice, which serves Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and especially all the volunteers who are out fundraising with Smiley Sam and Santa’s train across the streets of Luton, including Farley Hill tomorrow and Wardown Crescent on Saturday?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and wish the volunteers well in their weekend activities. She is right to highlight not only staff but the hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the country who work to support the hospice sector and others with end of life care. That support is so important for people receiving end of life care and their families. It is something that I have experienced; my father died over the Christmas period a number of years ago. It is a hard time of the year to have a death, and I warmly support what those volunteers are doing this weekend.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The fact that the Minister has come here expecting us to welcome her announcement and congratulate her on giving money that her Government took away in the first place really beggars belief. Mountbatten hospice in my constituency needs an extra £1 million because of the NICs increase that her Government have brought forward. Will she guarantee to Mountbatten and the charitable sector, including hospices—which the last Government increased funding for, before she comes back to me with that answer —that today’s announcement will cover the £1 million that her Government have taken away in NICs?
Karin Smyth
What beggars belief is that person after person—man after man—on the Opposition Benches still feels able to get up and defend their record in government. Not once have we heard that they agree with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis, or that they welcome the extra investment that the Chancellor found by choosing to support the health sector in the Budget. I am afraid that, until they reach that conclusion, they are destined to be on the Opposition Benches for a very long time.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
Compton Care hospice in my constituency provides specialist palliative and bereavement care, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Having previously discussed the lack of funding with the hospice, I am sure that it will welcome the extra funding that has been announced today. Will the Minister please join me in thanking Compton Care hospice and its incredible staff for the care that they will continue to provide throughout the Christmas period?
Karin Smyth
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments, and I am very pleased to thank Compton Care hospice for all its work. He is right to highlight that the care is 365 days a year, around the clock.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Hospices such as St Ann’s in Stockport provide really high-quality care to my constituents and others at what is often the toughest point in their lives, but they are struggling in a system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is of course welcome that the Government are providing additional funding for them. One of the challenges that the hospice sector faces is a really high rate of staff vacancies, so I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether the 10-year plan for the NHS includes a specific workforce plan for our hospice sector, so that it continues to care for our constituents at the toughest point in their lives.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the stability of the workforce across the piece, from diagnosis to the end of life. We absolutely need to consider support for all parts of that through the 10-year plan. I encourage hon. Members and others to ensure that they keep making those points. We are getting excellent contributions from the public, patients and staff, and we look forward to developing the plan over the next few months and years.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I welcome the largest funding increase for hospices in a generation. If that cannot bring some Christmas cheer to the Conservative Benches, it will in my constituency of Wirral West where Claire House hospice does such important work all year round. I was there just last week for their Christmas carols. Will the Minister take the opportunity to thank them for the important work they do in my constituency of Wirral West?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and, indeed, for his singing. Those events bring joy to people at a particularly difficult point in their life, and they are very welcome.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Any increase in funding for the hospice movement is of course welcome, but let us be honest: it is giving with one hand and taking with the other. The two excellent hospices that serve my constituency—St Andrew’s in Grimsby and Lindsey Lodge in Scunthorpe—tell me they want certainty. The Minister says they will be told early in the new year. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that in the first half of January hospices will be told how much extra they are getting from the £100 million she mentioned?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. As I said, we will be working with the sector in the new year and then we will make allocations accordingly.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stoke-on-Trent is wonderfully served by the Dougie Mac and Donna Louise hospices. They are part of a healthcare system in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent that the Minister knows has a £90 million projected deficit. What oversight will there be to ensure that the money that goes to the ICBs reaches the hospices and that the team in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent do not try to use some of this welcome new money to fill holes elsewhere?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point —one that was raised earlier. It is vital that ICBs work with all providers to understand the needs and how they are best met. I know he will be diligent, as he already has been, in pursuing what is happening with the funding with his local ICB. We will work with Hospice UK to ensure that that happens across the piece.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) calls for a fresh approach by the SNP Government in Holyrood, but she clearly expects us to do that with fresh air, because part of the £750 million additional cost from the national insurance contributions will fall on hospices. On Tuesday, she had the opportunity to vote against that cost. Will the Minister confirm that there will be Barnett consequentials for Scotland? How will she address the problems that Marie Curie in Scotland faces?
Karin Smyth
I admire the hon. Gentleman for keeping on the same wicket. In the Budget, this Government made the greatest allocation to the health sector. What the Scottish Government do with their consequentials and how they manage that is entirely a matter for them, and if they are not doing a good job, the public need to vote for someone else.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I wish you, the team and all the wonderful staff on the parliamentary estate a merry Christmas. I very much welcome this big investment into local hospices, and I know it will be welcomed by my local children’s hospice Forget Me Not and Kirkwood hospice, which do invaluable work in my constituency. What assessment has the Minister carried out on long-term sustainable funding for the sector, particularly in relation to statutory funding and the increasing role that hospices play in the community and in people’s homes?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that need. As I said earlier, end of life care and its stability as part of the wider system, which is a commissioning role for ICBs, was not addressed by the last Government over 14 years. As part of our 10-year plan, that will be important to do.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
We can all agree that hospices, such as St Barnabas in Lincolnshire, do vital and valued work. I hope we can also all agree that every Government—Labour and Tory—have increased national health spending, for that is simply a matter of fact. I ask the Minister to show a little wisdom in contrition in acknowledging that the national insurance increase that was imposed on charities and hospices has done immense damage. We welcome the funding today—of course we do—but she needs to be straightforward: was she, or any of the Health team, consulted before the Budget about the impact of the NI increase on hospices, health charities, pharmacies and so on? May I advise her to put down the folder and tell us what she really thinks?
Karin Smyth
I have scribbled my own note—the right hon. Gentleman says that he “agrees”— but the issue is that his Government did nothing over 14 years to support or make a change. That is why the announcement we are making is so important. I reiterate my earlier point, which I will repeat every time I am at the Dispatch Box: the Conservatives have not read the Darzi report; if they do not agree with the diagnosis, they cannot agree with the solution. That is their fundamental problem.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of additional funding, as will many families across the country. Although it is not in my constituency, Rowans Hospice is used by people in Pompey. Indeed, my nan Pearl and my very dear friend Fiona spent their last few weeks in the hospice’s care, and what a wonderful place it is. At a city council meeting this week, concerns were raised about the future of that amazing service. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality end of life care?
Karin Smyth
That is absolutely what we want to do, and today’s announcement is a step towards it. As my hon. Friend highlights, hospices are very special places, but most people want to die at home with their loved ones, in the place they know well, and many parts of the sector will be able to use this money to help more people to die peacefully at home.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
This additional funding will benefit hospices serving Westmorland communities—St Mary’s, St John’s, Eden Valley and the children’s hospice, Jigsaw—only if two things happen. First, the Government must provide additional funding to match the national insurance increases that those hospices will have to bear, and secondly, the Government must ensure that the integrated care boards in south Cumbria and north Cumbria pass on that money in full and on time. Will the Minister press them to do so? On the Morecambe bay end, will she press them on the closure of the Abbey View ward at Barrow hospital? The trust is planning to close that end of life ward, which will put additional pressure on our local hospices but without any additional funding to support them.
Karin Smyth
The commissioning of those services is the responsibility of the ICBs, and we expect them to do that. They are responsible from diagnosis to end of life. In the past few months, I have met many hon. Members from across political parties to discuss issues in their ICBs. I know that he will, like others, be assiduous in pursuing the ICB to ensure that funding goes to the right place.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the fantastic staff across the estate a happy Christmas.
I thank the Minister for the way in which she and her team have listened to me and colleagues, who arrived in this place with real concern about the state of palliative care after years of under-investment by the previous Government. The funding announced today will be welcomed by Keech hospice and Garden House hospice, which provide fantastic palliative care for constituents in and around my area. Will she join me in thanking them for the fantastic work that their staff and volunteers do all year round to support people in incredibly difficult moments in their lives? Will she also assure them that palliative care will remain at the front and centre of the Government’s mind in the difficult work of getting health services working again?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to support my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point, in his work with local providers. He congratulates me, but the work has been done mainly by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and by the Secretary of State, who have personally taken on this issue. They are visiting hospices today, so they could not be here even though they wanted to. We are committed to supporting people throughout their life, from diagnosis to end of life.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I have been contacted by vast numbers of families and relatives of those who have been wonderfully cared for by Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in Oxenhope in the Worth valley. They are all concerned about the impact that the rise in employer national insurance will have on them. Those at Manorlands are deeply concerned that it will cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. In answering the urgent question, the Minister has announced additional funding, but can she confirm whether it will cover the cost of those rises to Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in my constituency? Did the Government carry out an impact assessment of the negative impacts that the Budget would have on those in the charitable and hospice sectors?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman asks the same question again. Through the Budget, this Government have allocated more money to the health service than the previous Government—a record announcement—and we have announced money again this morning. To govern is to choose. The last Government neither governed well nor chose to support the health sector from diagnosis to end of life; this Government have, and will continue to do so.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Some weeks before the Budget, I visited both St Catherine’s hospice and St Peter and St James hospice, which serve my constituents. I had not expected how quiet and empty those hospices were, because of the empty beds and mothballed wings that had been closed due to a lack of funding. Evidently, the funding crisis in the hospice sector was very deep before the Budget, but the Budget has only made it worse through the NIC increases. As such, I will try again: will the welcome funding announced today cover the cost of those NIC increases?
Karin Smyth
As Lord Darzi’s report announced, the entire sector has been under pressure and struggling since the disastrous Lansley reforms—they were part of the coalition Government—through to when we took over in July. We will fix the NHS and rebuild it to make it more sustainable and fit for the future. That includes everything from diagnosis to end of life care.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
For my sins, I too will be running the London marathon next year. I will be running to raise money for Keech hospice; I know, as do other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Bedfordshire, what fantastic work that hospice does and the care it provides to our county. The Minister has been asked lots of times to comment on the impact of the NIC increases, which are going to hurt hospices in constituencies all around the country, so may I ask the question in a slightly different way? Does the Minister think that Keech hospice, taken in the round, will be financially better off or worse off next year as a result of both the Budget and this announcement that she has been dragged to the House to make?
Karin Smyth
I have not been dragged—I am very happy to be here. The reality is that the health sector in its entirety, from diagnosis to end of life care, will be better off this year than it was last year or the year before under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I place on record my thanks to all those in my constituency who will be caring for others over Christmas, whether they are unpaid family carers or paid care providers. That includes the registered nurses and registered care providers who have written to me to say that there will be an extra cost of £615 per employee as a result of the changes in the Budget. I will not attempt to ask whether the money announced today will cover national insurance contributions, but I will ask what the Government will do to help registered care providers. Where will the money come from to enable them to meet their increased national insurance contributions?
Karin Smyth
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have allocated an extra £12 billion in this year for the health and care sector. The full allocation to cover the entire area of health and social care will be announced in the new year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome the money that the Government are setting aside. I thank the Minister and the Government for that announcement, but what discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues to secure exemptions from national insurance contribution hikes for hospice workers? I think of Marie Curie—I spoke about that charity yesterday in Westminster Hall, and the Minister probably has a Marie Curie in her constituency. We know what that charity does. Unlike the mainstream NHS, it will not be exempted, yet it carries out the end of life care that the NHS simply cannot provide. Further, what help will be provided to carers in the community? The withdrawal of their service would leave the care system decimated.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about carers and their support. We made announcements about that in the Budget, and we will make more general announcements about allocations in the new year.
Mr Speaker
May I gently say that I know you welcome being here, Minister, but it would have been easier if the announcement had come as a statement rather than through having to grant an urgent question? When Ministers are going out—quite rightly—to visit hospices, we should be told at the same time. It would be nicer and easier for us all to do it that way, but I thank the Minister for coming.
I would also say to all of us that our hospices matter. In the case of those hospices that serve my constituency—the children’s hospice of Derian House and St Catherine’s— I wish them all the best for Christmas. I thank all hospices for the duty they carry out on behalf of our constituents.
Business of the House
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 6 January 2025 includes:
Monday 6 January—Debate on a motion on seizing frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, followed by a general debate on backlogs in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 7 January—Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Thursday 9 January—General debate on tackling violence against women and girls.
Friday 10 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 January will include:
Monday 13 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.
Thursday 16 January—Motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee (unallotted time).
Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.
As it is Christmas, Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, following the House rising for the summer recess at the close of business on Tuesday 22 July, the House will return on Monday 1 September. The House will rise for the conference recess on Tuesday 16 September, and return on Monday 13 October.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself very strongly with the remarks you have just made about hospices? You will recall that St Michael’s hospice was the topic of a recent discussion that we had at the Dispatch Box in business questions.
Mr Speaker, I must confess that I feel a slight degree of trepidation and nervousness, because at the weekend I received two massively welcome Christmas presents with the result of the Manchester derby and—dare I say it?—the defeat of Chorley by Hereford in a tough, hard- fought game at Edgar Street. I remain worried that I will need all of your legendary reserves of Christmas loving kindness in order to mention this.
This is the time of year when we think of friends and family, of our armed forces that keep us safe here and overseas, of those who care for others wherever they may be, and of the emergency services that protect us all the year round, but especially over the holiday period.
Mr Speaker, I think you will know that, in relation to this House, Parliament’s own record is not absolutely unblemished when it comes to Christmas. Fuelled by puritan hostility to public celebration and unseemly revelling, the Long Parliament—Parliament, no less—outlawed the celebration of Christmas in the 1640s. People naturally reacted, notably with the plum pudding riots in Canterbury in 1647, which began with a football game, but ended up with a brawl. How very different from the results at the weekend.
Perhaps the worst moment for this House was during the protectorate, when Parliament sat on Christmas day 1655, and Colonel John Desborough attempted to impose a decimation tax while many royalists were out sensibly celebrating the Christmas season. A punitive and partisan tax, and an unpopular, blundering Government up to various tricks and seeking to rush their business through the Commons while the House’s back was turned—how lucky we are that such a thing could never happen today.
However, my personal favourite is 1659, when the supply of French wines was temporarily cut off, creating absolute mayhem in London and other cities across the country. What to do? There could be only one answer: Members of Parliament should drink Herefordshire cider. It was every bit the equal of Burgundy and Bordeaux, as Roger Bosworth, my predecessor as MP for Hereford in the 1659 Parliament, insisted, and it was the ideal remedy for smoothing away troubles. Bosworth was a medical doctor, so he well knew the life-enhancing benefits of Herefordshire cider.
I think the lesson is clear: I doubt the plum pudding riots would have happened at all if the people of Canterbury had had Herefordshire cider to drink after the football. I only hope that the Chorley players were able to do the same after that hard-fought game on Saturday.
Mr Speaker, to you, to the Clerks and the House staff, and to all our colleagues across these Benches and in the other House, I wish a very merry and Herefordshire-filled Christmas and a happy new year.
Lucy Powell
Mr Speaker, I too would like to start by wishing you and everybody in the parliamentary community a very merry and restful Christmas. From the Doorkeepers to the cleaners, the police, the Clerks, Hansard and the Lobby, to the hairdressers and the gardeners, there are so many to thank. May I also take this opportunity to thank Katie from my private office who has led all the preparations for business questions for successive Leaders of the House over the last two years? She is leaving for pastures new and we will miss her greatly.
I will not join the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) in mentioning the derby match at the weekend if he does not mind, but as this is the last business questions of the year, let us reflect. It is out with the old and in with the new. I ended the last Parliament paying tribute to outgoing Members from that Parliament and we did lose some very big figures from this place, but come July we gained the biggest intake of new Members in modern history and it has been really energising to see so many enthusiastic, committed and talented new colleagues. They have all got to work so quickly, and many feel like old hands already. It has been a whirlwind for them and all of us arriving in Government and I think we all deserve a proper break over Christmas.
It has been not just a huge change for Parliament but a big change in Government too. It has been difficult, of course, as we face unprecedented challenges and a very difficult legacy. Trying to return Government to the service of ordinary working people, not vested interests, is a big task for us to undertake, but the oil tanker, as they say, has started to move. We are taking on the water bosses to end the scandal of bonuses over investment. We are for the first time ensuring our home-grown energy supplies meet our ambitious targets for clean energy by 2030. We are addressing the housing need and the housing crisis with bold action, bringing in new rights for workers and renters, and creating a transport system in service of passengers not profit. And we are restoring our health and education into world-class services with record levels of investment.
Many hon. Members will no doubt be in Santa’s—or perhaps I should say Mr Speaker’s—Christmas good books: colleagues who ask short topical questions; those who speak through the Chair and make sure they are in the Chamber for wind-ups; those who wear appropriate shoes; the judges of Purr Minister for crowning Mr Speaker’s cat, Attlee, the champion; and, of course, anyone mentioning Chorley or rugby league in a positive sense.
But there will perhaps be some who will not be getting a visit from Mr Speaker’s Santa this year: Ministers who do not make statements to Parliament first and instead go on the BBC; hecklers in Prime Minister’s questions; Members with pointless points of order; anyone who announces to the media their intention to secure an urgent question; those who cross in front of a Member as they are speaking; and, lest we forget, any Member drinking milk in the Chamber.
As I was, until July, the shadow Leader of the House, I might give the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire a little advice for these sessions, based on some of his previous appearances: if he does want me to answer questions, perhaps he could make them a little less long-winded; perhaps for next year, he might not want to contradict his own previous positions quite so often; and going into 2025, he might want to reflect a little more on why his party lost the election.
If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, given that it is Christmas time, perhaps we can take one final opportunity to look at the Conservatives’ legacy: 12 hour A&E wait times; 11% inflation; 10 Lords defeats on Rwanda; 9 million inactive workers; 8,000 bus routes cancelled; 7 million people on waiting lists; six councils bankrupt; five Prime Ministers toppled; 4 million children in poverty; three broken pledges; two nurses’ strikes; and a Prime Minister at a lockdown party.
Mr Speaker
I thank Members for their comments. I hope that Chorley get promoted—that is the gift we need for the new year.
I wish all Members a merry Christmas, and let us hope for a very peaceful year. I thank all the staff of this House for all that they do. They are wonderful; whether they are security or whoever—we can go around—they matter. We must thank those working over Christmas and new year across the country for keeping the lights on and doing all the jobs that need to be done. We must not forget all the people who serve in our armed forces, the police, the ambulance services and the hospitals, who will all be there for us. I want to thank them, and I would also personally like to thank my team for the support they give me. I wish everybody a peaceful new year when it comes.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Recently, a civil court judge found that Paula Leeson was unlawfully killed by her husband on a holiday abroad. That was a different verdict to that reached in a criminal trial in 2021, with significant new evidence having emerged. Paula’s brother, my constituent, is now pushing for a retrial. Paula died in horrific circumstances: drowned fully clothed in a swimming pool with 13 separate injuries, after her husband had taken out multiple life insurance policies on her. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how I might take this issue forward, so that Paula and her family get the justice they so desperately deserve?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the tragic case of Paula and the suffering that her family must be going through at this awful time. My hon. Friend has raised the matter on the Floor of the House today, and I will certainly take it up with Ministers for him. He will be aware that I have just announced a debate on tackling violence against women and girls, which this Government are committed to doing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I, too, would like to wish you, Mr Speaker, all the Clerks and the House staff a very merry Christmas, and I add my personal thanks to everyone who has shown such support to the newly elected Members of Parliament in their first few months in office.
This week’s White Paper on local government devolution was hotly anticipated, but there is a big problem that it did not address. Local government finances are in a desperate state, and yesterday’s finance settlement announcement does precious little to correct that. Setting aside local council tax increases, my council, Chelmsford city council, has calculated that its core spending power has increased by only £100,000 in the past decade, yet its costs have gone through the roof and it is constantly being asked to do more with less.
We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and we will not be able to build 1.5 million new homes without the hard work and attention of local government’s talented planners, highways engineers and housing teams. We have a crisis in our special educational needs system and no plans in sight for reform. We will not be able to fix it without a huge effort from local government professionals working in children’s services and education. Our social care system is in crisis. We will not be able to fix that without the input of the professionals working in local government. There is plenty for local government to be focusing on, but where is the plan?
Instead, the devolution directive, accompanied by local government reorganisation, will drag sparse resources away from those issues, as councils are forced to focus on new structures, on paying redundancies and on spending money on rearranging the deckchairs while services the public rely on are made to suffer. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to explain why there does not appear to be a plan for fixing these things that are broken, before giving local government more to do?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for those points. First, I welcome her as one of the new Members of this House. We work alongside each other on the House of Commons Commission and many other boards of this place—too many to mention. She certainly has taken to this place incredibly well, and she is making a mark with what she is doing.
The hon. Lady is right. She is describing the absolutely woeful and scandalous legacy that we inherited in local government funding, children’s services, education and other vital local services that people rely on. We are beginning the work to turn that around. She was right to point out the record settlement for local government announced in the Budget and set out by the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution this week, with an increase of 3.5% on average for local authorities. She will also be aware that we announced an extra £1 billion for special educational needs.
The hon. Lady is right that we also need to change how we are doing things. That is why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will make much-needed change to our children’s services, was presented this week. It is only when we work at a place-based level that we can really get the early intervention and support we need to drive down demand and increase outcomes for some of our most vulnerable children. I hope that she will welcome our plans going forward.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to wish all colleagues in the Chamber and beyond it a very merry Christmas.
Ten years ago, my constituent Claire Throssell promised her sons, who had died at the hands of their domestically abusive father, that no other children would die in the same tragic circumstances. This week has seen the sentencing of Sara Sharif’s father and stepmother, who murdered her. Too many children have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents who have been granted unsupervised contact in the family courts. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on changing the law on presumptive contact in order to prevent further child deaths at the hands of known domestically abusive parents?
Lucy Powell
The case of my hon. Friend’s constituent sounds awful. We have all been moved, appalled and shocked in many ways by the case of Sara Sharif and its findings, along with the sentencing this week. She will know that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that all vulnerable children are safe. We are bringing in reforms, especially to areas such as home schooling and kinship care, and support for children’s services and children’s social workers. We presented the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill this week, but that is just a start. I look forward to working with her and colleagues so that we can ensure that this never happens again.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House announced on Backbench Business days, we are trying to find a date for the debate delayed from last Thursday because the Government put on three statements and squeezed the agenda so that it could not be heard. That debate is on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which I asked a question about some weeks ago.
In addition to those debates, in Westminster Hall on Thursday 9 January there will be a full day’s debate on the impact of conflict on women and girls. Also in Westminster Hall, on 14 January there will be a debate on railway services in the south-west, on Thursday 16 January there will be a debate on Government support for the marine renewables industry, and on 21 January there will be a debate on the provision of auditory verbal therapy. We will obviously offer debates in the normal way, and we are taking applications appropriately.
I am not sure whether the Leader of the House has seen the rather excellent report produced by the Henry Jackson Society questioning the number of casualties and deaths in Gaza since the beginning of the war. We seem to be inching towards what everyone wants to see: a ceasefire and the return of the hostages. We wish those hostages the very best at this time of year and hope for their return to their families. Could she arrange for a statement when we return about the true facts on casualties and deaths in Gaza, rather than the fictitious figures made up by the Ministry of Health, which is controlled by Hamas?
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing some of his forthcoming debates. He will be aware that, as I just read out, an extra Backbench Business half-day has been allocated on Thursday 16 January to make up for last week. I hope that satisfies him. When it comes to what is happening in Israel and Gaza, I am sure the whole House will join me and him in wanting to get to that much-needed ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas—hopefully even over the Christmas period—and to get the hostages returned so that we can start to see a move towards the long-standing, peaceful settlement for the region that we all desperately want.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and a happy Hogmanay when it comes. My constituency is home to the rural community of Balquhidder, where, since 2018, community volunteers have laid more than 36 km of fibre cable to provide the community with a high-speed internet connection years ahead of when a commercial operator would have reached the area. Balquhidder has achieved this hard work with financial support from the Government’s Building Digital vouchers. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the volunteers of Balquhidder on all their work, and indeed volunteers in all our communities who are working hard over Christmas on all that they do? Will she also make time for a debate on rural broadband provision and mobile telephone coverage so that we can explore how to bring the digital connection that many urban communities take for granted to more rural communities, such as Balquhidder, as quickly as possible?
Lucy Powell
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents on working as a community to get the fibre broadband connection that rural communities such as his so desperately rely on—it really is the fourth utility. He is right to point out that the previous Government’s roll-out of broadband in rural communities was far too slow. We have science questions when we return, but I will certainly consider his request for a debate.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Could we have a debate on putting children at the heart of public policy? In her statement, the Leader of the House mentioned children and the emerging Bill. She will know that there is an equality impact assessment in pre-legislative scrutiny, and that there can be no discrimination on the basis of age. There have been two dominant themes in these business questions so far: Herefordshire—as a Herefordshire boy, I am delighted by that—and children. I hope that the Government, across Departments, will consider a potential new policy that will look at policies, Bills and laws and how they impact children.
Lucy Powell
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. We are absolutely putting children at the heart of our policy. We have a mission to ensure opportunity for all and that every child has the very best start in life, to really galvanise all the different Departments and places across the country, and Secretaries of State, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are working closely on a child poverty taskforce. Putting children first is at the forefront of this Government’s mission. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman on delivering that.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and all the House staff, Mr Speaker, and to everybody out there, particularly in my constituency.
Many of my constituents have contacted me to convey their concerns over the safety of their loved ones and the wellbeing of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan after the killing of several protesters in Pakistan, with many more injured and hospitalised, in addition to their anxieties over abductions, torture and transnational repression. Will the Leader of the House ensure that our UK Ministers make representations to their Pakistan counterparts to protect democratic norms, press freedoms and the human rights of all?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend will be aware that the British Government and Ministers are in constant dialogue with counterparts in Pakistan and around the world. We do expect democratic norms to be upheld in Pakistan, as we do in other countries. I will ensure that he gets a proper ministerial response on the issues he has raised.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Yesterday saw yet another road traffic accident on Strines Road in my constituency, resulting in injured passengers having to be taken to Stepping Hill hospital. The Leader of the House will know that speeding is a problem on roads across the country. She will also know that for Transport for Greater Manchester even to consider installing a fixed speed camera, there need to have been three serious accidents. The community on Strines Road knows that although it is far too early to determine exactly what caused yesterday’s accident, speeding has been a persistent issue on that road for years, and they have been working with local councillors Colin MacAlister and Shan Alexander to tackle it. Will the Leader of the House ask a Transport Minister to come to this House to explain the progress they are making in tackling speeding across our communities?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises a really important issue for her constituents. I know her constituency well, as we are near neighbours. In fact, my brother is a constituent of hers and was very pleased that last week she raised the problems with the trains in her constituency. Today she raises the very important matter of speeding, which comes up in the House regularly. The Government are committed to tackling road traffic accidents and speeding on our roads. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard her question today and that she gets a proper reply.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
FSB Wales, the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales, is asking people to join its £10 pledge by spending at least £10 with a small business during December. I am very much looking forward to getting out on to Bangor High Street this weekend to finish my Christmas shopping, and especially to visit the new Obsession Menswear shop that has just opened in the Deiniol centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in taking the £10 pledge and wishing all small businesses in Bangor Aberconwy a very merry Christmas?
Lucy Powell
I will be joining my hon. Friend in the mad dash for last-minute Christmas presents this weekend—I am hoping to get some that cost £10 or less, which is quite difficult in the current climate. I absolutely join her in supporting local businesses in her constituency. Maybe I could try a few Christmas puns, Mr Speaker. There is “noel” time like the present to shop in Bangor.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Many businesses will be severely negatively impacted by the Government’s announcement on changes to inheritance tax through business property relief. Those in the hospitality sector, such as hoteliers and breweries, and even the manufacturing, engineering and tech businesses in my constituency, have contacted me with their deep concerns about the effect the changes will have on their businesses. Is the Leader of the House aware of any economic analysis or modelling done by the Government specifically on the negative impact they will have? I see that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is sitting next to her on the Treasury Bench. Was he, or even the Chancellor, aware of the negative impact of the measures in the Budget on those particular businesses?
Lucy Powell
We fully support family businesses and other businesses, which are vital to our economy. We had to take some very difficult decisions in the Budget to deal with the really severe legacy we were left, which was, I am afraid, a chronic big black hole in economic spending. We had to find ways to ensure that our public services had the investment they needed going forward. He will be aware that when we take into account all the other factors, including personal allowances and so on, fewer family businesses will be affected than the hon. Gentleman might think.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, a merry Christmas to you and all staff.
I put on record that my mam is a WASPI woman. My right hon. Friend will know full well the strength of feeling regarding this week’s announcement of no compensation for the WASPI women. The ombudsman was clear that Parliament should make the decision on remedy. Parliament has not. Will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate so that we can do as the ombudsman has asked us to do?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that this is a really big issue for many women right across the country, and it has spanned multiple Parliaments. I know that many will be very disappointed by this week’s announcement, and we do not underestimate the strength of feeling and the upset that people will be feeling. I know it is difficult to hear, but paying flat-rate compensation to all women born in the 1950s, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would not be a fair or proportionate use of public money. The Government do not accept the ombudsman’s findings on the remedy being necessary in this case. Colleagues can apply for debates on these matters in the usual way.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful—[Interruption.] Oh, I beg your pardon.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thought there was a doppelganger in the Chamber for a second, Mr Speaker.
A new Government can make political choices, and one would have thought that, in the week before Christmas, they would be positive choices—things that people could take home and feel grateful and happy about on Christmas Day. However, as has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), millions of women throughout the country, 1950s-born women, have been affected, quite adversely, in respect of their state pensions. Many are in ill health, and are continuing to work in ill health. They lived in hope for many years during their protracted, passionate and very reasonable campaign for fairness and justice, and on Tuesday this week they were told that they were getting none of it. We have an ombudsman, which has made very clear, very fairly and decently, what amount should be paid in compensation, and has also made clear that the Department for Work and Pensions made errors at the time.
Since Tuesday, not only have we received emails, but Members of Parliament, particularly Government Members, have been deleting pages from their websites and Twitter accounts—the very pages that showed them campaigning out there with WASPI women, getting their photographs taken, doing videos, sending messages and so forth. Now they have no voice. They are frightened even to raise the issue in this House. May I therefore urge the Leader of the House and the Business Secretary to arrange a debate as soon as possible, a meaningful debate in Government time? No ifs, no buts; we all need to have our say on this.
Lucy Powell
As I just said, I understand the strength of feeling about this matter. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House first to make the announcement, as is appropriate, especially when it comes to a report from the parliamentary ombudsman which was laid before the House last March. The Government have considered that report in full and given it a great deal of thought, and there was time for Members to ask questions on Tuesday, but of course debates can be brought to the Floor of the House in many different ways, and I am sure that this issue will continue to be debated.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time in the new year on the funding of political parties? I wonder what it means when a party talks about sovereignty and is then willing to sell itself entirely to a foreign-owned entity, while using slogans like “Take back control”. We have seen the controversy of the Conservative party’s fondness for taking a few bob from Putin’s oligarchs, and we have seen the recent scandals involving the Chinese trying to influence politics in this country. I think that we, as this Government, must make sure that we are saying that our politics is not up for sale, and I think we should have a debate about it in the House.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend has made some extremely valid points about our democracy and our sovereignty in this country. I see that the leader of the Reform party is in his place—
Lucy Powell
I am sorry—the deputy leader. He gave up his leadership role to someone else at some point, I recall. Anyway, the deputy leader.
Lucy Powell
For now, yes. I think the hon. Member has made his point.
My hon. Friend will be aware that foreign donations are not permitted in our electoral system, and that is absolutely as it should be. Our democracy does face daily threats from rogue states, rogue actors and others who try to disrupt it and to spread myth and disinformation, and these are issues that we should be very alive to.
Richard Tice
Thank you, Mr Speaker—as the deputy leader of Reform UK.
Along with, I think, millions of other British citizens, I was shocked to read the exposé in The Times that Britain has become the “western capital” for the use of sharia courts. May we have a debate on this issue in the new year? In my view, the use of sharia courts to make unofficial rulings about marriages, divorces and family life has no place in the United Kingdom.
Lucy Powell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am sure that his leader is somewhere far more important, perhaps in a studio or abroad, getting an airing. I hear what he has had to say, and I am sure we all agree that the courts that are recognised in this country are UK, British and English courts, which is entirely right.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
In West Sussex, the number of education, health and care plans has risen from 3,362 in 2015 to 7,684 in 2024—a 228% increase. With schools increasingly stretched, there is an inevitable cost to children with and without special needs. I have recently met special needs co-ordinator leads from two excellent schools in my constituency, Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, to discuss the funding and staffing challenges that they face. They are not specialist support centres, and local specialist schools are oversubscribed. They are reliant on local charities such as the Rotary Club, which works tirelessly to raise money to improve their facilities, but it cannot assist with the impact of the national insurance contributions rise on staffing levels and staff retention, or with temporary contracts and burnout. Will the Leader of the House commit to granting a debate to consider a sustainable future funding model for schools with SEND provision?
Lucy Powell
The issue of SEND often comes up in these sessions. I gently remind the hon. Lady that the SEND system that this Government inherited was in crisis, with spiralling costs getting higher and higher, and outcomes getting worse and worse. There is no question but that special educational needs provision in this country is in need of serious investment and serious reform, which is what this Government intend to deliver.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and everybody across the estate a very merry Christmas and a happy new year, particularly those who will be working over the holiday period.
I recently had the privilege of attending a conference organised by Sikh Women’s Aid, at which it launched its report on its comprehensive survey, which looked into domestic abuse, sexual abuse, faith-based and spiritual abuse, and barriers facing victims and survivors. The report details a number of recommendations, including ringfencing funding streams for by-and-for support services, the inclusion of Sikh Punjabi women’s experiences in policy advocacy, a legal definition of “spiritual abuse”, and a co-ordinated and joined-up response to Sikh Punjabi victims and survivors. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the important work done by Sikh Women’s Aid, particularly in view of the threats, intimidation and violence that its trustees and staff have faced, and will she make time for a debate on the importance of by-and-for support organisations?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can you help each other? We have a lot on this afternoon, and I want to try to get everybody in. We need to try to be a bit shorter in asking the questions.
Lucy Powell
I will try to be a bit shorter in answering them, too.
I strongly welcome the work being done by Sikh Women’s Aid to highlight some of the barriers that women face in reporting abuse. My hon. Friend will know that this Government treat tackling violence against women and girls as a key mission, and we have just announced a debate on this issue when we return.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
It is now over six months since the autocratic ruler Sheikh Hasina fled Bangladesh amid outcry about human rights abuses, including the killing of hundreds of protesters under her regime. Will the Leader of the House provide time to consider how the UK is supporting the people of Bangladesh in their pursuit of democracy and freedom from oppression, including by assessing the UK’s historical role with regard to the deposed regime, working with the Bangladeshi authorities in response to allegations of corruption and embezzlement against members of the former Government who are in the UK, and addressing the misinformation and serious falsehoods being perpetuated, which are currently fuelling violence and instability in the region?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend will know that the British Government engage in ongoing dialogue with Bangladesh and other countries. We expect to see democratic norms in Bangladesh, as we do in every other country, and they include press freedom and everything else. She might be aware that we have Foreign Office questions when we return, and she could raise this issue with the Foreign Secretary.
Sir John Hayes
Mindful of the Leader of the House’s advice, I am suitably booted, I am speaking through the Chair and, of course, I have Chorley imprinted on my heart.
In that spirit, may I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the WASPI women? I know she has said we can apply for a debate, and I was going to ask for something quite different, but given what the hon. Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for Dundee Central (Chris Law) have said, it is essential that when we have an ombudsman report of such seriousness—I have rarely seen one like it in my time in this House—we have the chance to debate it. If the Leader of the House does not offer a debate, I will apply to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, immediately following business questions.
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and he is a very honourable Member. I am sure he is in the good books of not only Mr Speaker but the Deputy Speakers, and is certainly on their Christmas card lists, because he always has the right attire, always speaks through the Chair and always asks punchy, short questions.
On the serious issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, I know that the strength of feeling is widespread and that people want to air their views. I am sure there will be time, as I am sure colleagues will apply for debates in the usual way.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Nadelik lowen—merry Christmas.
As we look forward to next year, 2025 could and should be a momentous year for Cornwall, with our unparalleled resources of renewable energy and critical minerals. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time has come to pass from Westminster to Cornwall the powers and support needed to deal with our unique set of challenges and to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Lucy Powell
I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on regularly attending these sessions and other debates, and on consistently raising critical minerals and their importance to Cornwall’s future and, indeed, to our mission to be a clean energy superpower by 2030. The Business Secretary is in his place next to me today, and I am sure he has heard my hon. Friend’s call. I hope that, through the devolution White Paper that we launched this week, the voice of Cornwall will be heard loud and strong.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last week, I called in on the drop-in session organised by Alzheimer’s Research UK and Prostate Cancer UK. At these sessions, we repeatedly hear appeals for people to go in for early diagnosis, and the message is the same now as it was many years ago. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can prevent illness through early screening and diagnosis?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that dementia and other diseases would be much better treated with early diagnosis. This Government are absolutely committed to early intervention, early diagnosis and ensuring that services are out in the community, where people can get the appointments and early diagnosis they need. That is what the Government are continuing to deliver.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Adi Robinson and his hard-working and compassionate team at Rugby food bank? Does she agree that, although they display the best of human nature, their efforts should not be needed in such a rich and civilised country as ours? Does she further agree that this Government are taking action to reduce food poverty and poverty through our child poverty taskforce, free breakfast clubs, the Renters’ Rights Bill and the pension triple lock—I could go on, but I will not, Madam Deputy Speaker—and that we are doing this so that, ultimately, people do not need charity for the fundamentals of life? Could time be found to further debate such actions?
Lucy Powell
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. At this time of year, at Christmas, many of us in this House visit our local food banks. He is absolutely right that it is shocking that, in 2024, food banks are still needed at all, let alone so prevalent. He highlights many of the actions this Government are taking to reduce their necessity.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your fantastic staff, and colleagues across the House a merry Christmas? Bathford village shop and café, a volunteer-run community enterprise, recently won an award for its fantastic work supporting the elderly, lonely and vulnerable, but there is a risk that it will soon lose its premises. The £150 million community ownership fund, which was due to run until March 2025 but was suspended because of the election, would make the vital difference between survival and closure. Can we have an update on the community ownership fund?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the plight of that enterprise in her constituency, and the valuable work that it does to support the elderly in her community. I will ensure that she gets an update in short order on the future of the community ownership fund.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the staff, and everyone working across the parliamentary estate a very merry Christmas? This year, Royal Mail’s Christmas stamps honour some of the most magnificent cathedrals across the UK, and St Mary’s Episcopal cathedral in the west end of Edinburgh, in my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith, is one of them. The cathedral was consecrated in 1879 and is the only cathedral in Scotland to have three spires. I am sure many hon. Friends will join me in welcoming this recognition for the cathedral, but unfortunately every year many churches are forced to close, with over 3,000 having closed in the last 10 years. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time to look at the future of churches across the UK?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating St Mary’s Episcopal cathedral on appearing on the Christmas stamps this year. She raises an important issue that many hon. Members across the House raise: the future of churches and our places of worship. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in his place and I am sure that he would welcome an application for such a debate.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Since being elected, I have been contacted by a number of women who have left their partners or husbands because of domestic abuse, and then had that abuse perpetuated during their dealings with the family court when determining access to their children or the maintenance payments that they receive. Given the obvious concern about the prioritisation of access over child safety, the issues that female constituents have raised with me, and the fact that the family court operates in secrecy, which leaves constituents gagged and bound, unable to do anything about these things, can we have a debate in Government time on how women are treated in family court processes, and how we can do better?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises a story with which many of us will be all too familiar as constituency MPs. She will know that this Government take domestic abuse and domestic violence incredibly seriously. We have a very challenging target of halving violence against women and girls over the next few years. We have an upcoming crime and policing Bill and a victims Bill, and some the measures that she asks about will be included in that legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have 17 colleagues to call and around 15 minutes left, so if we are sharp, I can try to get everybody in. I call Johanna Baxter.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all staff across the parliamentary estate a very happy Christmas? In the last week, my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South have received the devastating news that the SNP-controlled integration joint board, running health and social care provision across Renfrewshire, is trying to make £19.1 million in cuts, having already closed Montrose care home in my constituency earlier this year. Given that the Scottish Government have just received the biggest funding settlement since devolution, does the Leader of the House agree that they should use that money to protect the most vulnerable constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South?
Lucy Powell
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government have received a record settlement from this Government as a result of our recent Budget, and they have no excuse for making the cuts that she describes in health and social care.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Large areas of rural South Hams in my constituency of South Devon are still struggling with almost prehistoric broadband speeds. The company that was tasked with rolling out full-fibre broadband was astonishingly allowed to walk away from its contract after building the easy urban bits, leaving all the hard-to-reach areas behind. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how the Government can underwrite the roll-out of high-speed broadband in areas where it is not commercially viable, because broadband is as important to the rural economy as electricity?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. To rural communities—indeed, to any community—broadband really is the fourth utility. It is vital to her constituents and many others in their daily lives, for doing what they need to do. We have inherited a pretty poor record when it comes to roll-out, but we are trying to speed it up through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. Nevertheless, I have heard the hon. Lady’s request for a debate.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I wish to raise the case of my constituent Mitch Middleton, who has refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma in his brain. Following radiotherapy, the cancer has returned and the NHS has given him six to 12 months to live. The treatment that he needs is called chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, and it is available on the NHS, but not for his circumstances, although haematologists know that it can be used to treat his cancer. The price tag is about £475,000—too expensive. He is having to fundraise to fly abroad and have the treatment. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on licensing and access to treatment for cancer, as there are more people who, sadly, cannot access the care and treatment that they need?
Lucy Powell
My heart and thoughts go out to Mitch Middleton, the hon. Lady’s constituent, and his family, who are dealing with that. As my hon. Friend knows, improving diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients, especially those with rare cancers, is something that this Government want to get right. The issue of access to treatment and medicines on the NHS gets raised with me regularly in this House. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a bigger debate on the subject.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all a Nadolig llawen—merry Christmas.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the challenges facing Welsh farmers. Around 30% of Welsh agricultural land is rented. Changes made to the agricultural property relief in the autumn Budget will force the sale of family tenancy farms on Ynys Môn, displacing generational farming. It is disappointing that no Wales-specific impact assessment has been made. Can we have a debate in Government time on the Budget’s impact on Welsh farming?
Lucy Powell
This Government support farmers and our rural communities. We have put in an extra £5 billion for the farming budget over two years, which is one of the biggest increases that farming has seen. I will, however, ensure that the hon. Lady’s question is heard by the relevant Minister, and that she gets a response.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for either a statement or a debate in Government time on the regulation of houses in multiple occupancy? Without an article 4 direction in Stoke-on-Trent, we are at the mercy of developers who buy family homes or terraced properties and then convert them, using permitted development rights. That has a huge impact on amenities and on community feeling, and I think we could do a lot about that as a Government.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all see the impact of permitted development rights and houses in multiple occupation on our communities. Where they go unchecked, they can cause real problems, and also have a detrimental impact on the housing supply in an area. He will be aware that the Renters’ Rights Bill covers some of those issues, and we are due to consider the Bill on Report and in its final stages when we return from recess.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
A merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone across Parliament and in my constituency.
Thornbury and Yate residents driving home for Christmas will face a second festive season of chaos on local roads, with at least one more still to come, thanks to the ongoing closure of the A432 M4 over-bridge. There is no compensation for the small businesses affected, or for residents living on the now choked local country lanes. Given that hundreds, if not thousands, of such post-tensioned bridges were built in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, this horror could be coming to many constituencies, but I have so far been unable to secure a debate on this important topic. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we can discuss the issue in the new year?
Lucy Powell
I know that the hon. Lady has applied on a number of occasions for a debate on that important matter affecting her constituency. Madam Deputy Speaker is in her Chair and has heard the hon. Lady’s appeal again today. Road closures of that kind, where bridges need that sort of work, can be absolutely devastating for local communities and businesses, and I will certainly help her in trying to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are concerned about the proposed AQUIND interconnector. The planning decision is with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, in consultation, I believe, with the Ministry of Defence, after security concerns were raised about the project. The previous Administration kicked this decision down the road, so I can understand why this Government are doing things by the book and ensuring that consultation goes ahead. However, will the Leader of the House allocate time to a debate on ensuring that the two Departments work together efficiently and co-operatively on securing a judgment on this issue, and will she seek clarity on when we can expect the consultation to conclude and a decision to be finally made on this project?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on a live planning case, but I understand that the Attorney General’s Office has appointed a representative to act on behalf of AQUIND Ltd in relation to this matter, and I hope that she will get the answer that she needs soon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everybody in the House. I shall probably say that again later, in the Adjournment debate.
On 8 December, in the Partapur area of Meerut district in Uttar Pradesh, the police uncovered a so-called religious conversion meeting, where approximately 50 Hindus were found participating peacefully in a Bible reading session. There was nothing sinister and nothing subversive going on. Pastor Vineet, along with 14 associates, was arrested under sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. Prior to his arrest, Pastor Vineet, who converted to Christianity a decade ago, had been organising similar prayer meetings in various locations. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning such violations of freedom of religion or belief, and will she ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise this issue with its counterparts in India?
Lucy Powell
May I take this opportunity to wish the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas? I shall miss him over the next two or three weeks, as we will not be having business questions. He is nothing if not consistent, because yet again he raises another important issue relating to the freedom of religion or belief. He will know that FCDO Ministers recently held a roundtable meeting with a range of faith leaders in Delhi to discuss many of these issues, and we will continue to raise concerns with the Indian Government.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Last week, Working For Wallacetown, a project in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, was awarded the Scottish public service award for community engagement. Another project, Tailored Jobs, was a runner- up in the championing diversity and inclusion award category. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising this hard work and commitment to public service over the past year?
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those in her constituency, and in everybody else’s constituency—especially at this time of year—who do fantastic volunteering and public service work and contribute greatly to public life in their communities.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your team. Hitchin’s fantastic festive knitted postbox topper campaign by Sue, Karen and other brilliant local volunteers has raised thousands of pounds for Hitchin Choices, a local special educational needs and disabilities youth group. I had the pleasure of visiting the group last week and, while there, I quickly learned that I need to practise my ping-pong skills a lot more before going back. It was clear how valued the group was by the young people who attended. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging people to back this campaign, and can we have a statement from the Secretary of State about what more we can do to support such youth groups as part of our wider SEND reforms?
Lucy Powell
In the spirit of Christmas, as this was a knitted postbox campaign, I did think that in his constituency, we could perhaps say, “Let it sew, let it sew, let it sew.” I am sorry about that; the puns are just getting worse. My hon. Friend has raised an important point about children needing support. That point has been raised many times today. I am sure that if many Members from across the House came together and applied for a Backbench Business debate on how we support the most vulnerable children and those with special educational needs, it would be very well subscribed.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Christmas is the time for musical festivities. One of my constituents in Wolverhampton West runs Revolver Records, which is Europe’s oldest indie rock label, having signed acts such as the Stone Roses, the Scorpions and Tony Hadley. It has released 7,000 albums over the past 42 years. My constituent has highlighted the problem of independent music publishers not being paid for the use of copyright music material. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to support our businesses, including those in the music industry, so that they receive the payments that they are due? Will she please make time for a debate in the House about supporting our independent music publishers?
Lucy Powell
May I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Revolver Records? As a Mancunian child of the ’80s and ’90s, I bought the original Stone Roses record that Revolver Records produced, so I am particularly pleased to do as he asks. He raises a really important matter about copyright and how the music industry is changing with music streaming and so on. I know that these issues are regularly raised in this House, and I will support him in doing so.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
May I wish a Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the excellent House staff and of course the Speaker’s staff, who have shown extraordinary patience with me as I have asked many questions about how this place works.
In my constituency I am supporting somebody who has a real problem with cyber-bullying. Her daughter has been suffering for over a year now with persistent online abuse. Things have become so bad that doctored letters purporting to be from the NHS and the police have been sent to her, and edited photos have also been sent round her school. Given what has happened, will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the urgent need to tackle cyber-bullying and online harassment, especially in educational settings?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend who, as a new Member in this House, has been one of the best attenders both in business questions and for many other statements. He has really got his feet under the table, so to speak. He raises the important issue of cyber-bullying. He will know that this Government are ensuring the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, and many of those measures are coming on stream in the coming months. A Westminster Hall debate on the subject is also likely to take place soon.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Livingston has a considerable issue with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in our public buildings, our social housing stock and many private homes, too. For the first two categories, remedies are being put in place, but the same cannot be said for private housing, such as that in Chestnut Grove in Livingston. People bought their homes in good faith and had them surveyed by reputable surveyors, but have now lost half the value of the property due to RAAC. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on possible remedies for homeowners in Livingston and beyond who are in this predicament, and the potential role of the private sector, local government, devolved Governments and central Government in remedying this situation?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the ongoing situation with the slow remedying of RAAC in homes and buildings for many of my hon. Friend’s constituents. He will appreciate that this is a devolved matter, but the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is engaging with the Scottish Government on respective approaches to RAAC, and I hope that that will speed up remediation soon.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Residents in Maltby are furious about new plans for the old Maltby pit. I am joining them to campaign ferociously against the plans, because the environmental risk is too great and the amount of lorries going through the village would be hugely damaging to the community. Will the Government provide time for Parliament to look into this issue properly and to ensure that we can all stand up for Maltby?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on specific plans, but I understand that Rotherham council’s consultation on this application has been extended into the new year following concerns that he has raised, and I am sure that he will welcome that. He will be aware that we are bringing forward the planning and infrastructure Bill next year, which is a significant piece of legislation, when he may want to raise these issues further.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On Saturday, more than 100 veterans gathered in my constituency to pay tribute to the late Sam Morgan, a former Royal Marine who tragically took his own life aged just 36. I met a local group of veterans and the message that I have heard from them loud and clear is that we must do more to address the issue of veteran mental health. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Minister for Veterans and People, who is in his place, for agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to discuss this issue with local veterans. Will the Leader of the House give her assurance that this issue will be treated as a priority by this Government?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the tragic case of his constituent, Sam Morgan. The mental wellbeing and support for veterans is a priority for this Government. The Minister for Veterans and People is in his place and has heard my hon. Friend’s call today. We have laid on a number of debates around the issues facing veterans, but I will ensure that we give further consideration to future debates as well.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all staff and Members of this House.
Whether it is delays from Bardon Mill station or a patchy bus service cutting off villages such as Heddon-on-the-Wall in Ovingham, public transport in rural areas like the Tyne valley simply was not a priority for the previous Government. Can the Leader of the House assure me that we will make progress on this issue, and will she provide Government time for a debate on the importance of economic growth and commuter wellbeing in our most rural constituencies?
Lucy Powell
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent engagement to our colleague Hana. When I congratulated her, she said that it was about time, so at least he got there in the end.
My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been raised with me on many occasions: how the woeful infrastructure that many of us experience in the north of this country is holding back our regions and our constituents. That is why we are prioritising transport infrastructure. We have huge investment going in, and I am sure that he will work with the Transport Secretary and others to ensure that it takes effect in his constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The honour of asking the last business question of 2024 goes to Tom Rutland.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a very merry Christmas to you.
Like many MPs, this year I held my first Christmas card competition, and I was blown away by the talent of local primary school children. Will the Leader of the House indulge me, and join me in congratulating the winners, Franco, Akithra and Lauren, and extending a massive thank you to the teachers in my constituency, who work tirelessly, day in and day out, not only to educate our young people but to unlock their potential and creativity?
Lucy Powell
Many of us undertake Christmas card competitions every year. They are one of the most wonderful things that we take part in as MPs. I congratulate not just my hon. Friend’s Christmas card winners but my own from Seymour Road academy in Manchester. I also congratulate him on getting the very last business question of 2024 under his belt. As you were not in the Chair earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the Leader of the House for being so patient; she has been on her feet for over an hour.
Harland & Wolff
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the UK shipbuilding firm Harland & Wolff. I am pleased to inform the House that, subject to approvals, a commercial deal has been reached that will protect jobs, drive investment and secure the future of the workforce. The deal will see Navantia UK, a specialist in shipbuilding, purchase all of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, Harland & Wolff is a major employer in Belfast, with additional important yards at Arnish and Methil in Scotland and Appledore in Devon. For more than 150 years, the firm has built famous vessels for notable shipping organisations and companies, including the Royal Navy, the Royal Mail and the White Star Line. This industry-led deal, which we expect to complete shortly, will secure all four of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards, protecting around 1,000 jobs right across the UK. I hope that this announcement will come as some relief to Harland & Wolff’s employees. I realise that this has been a deeply worrying time for them, and for everyone affected by the continued speculation over the firm’s future. I welcome Navantia UK’s intention to work closely with the relevant unions to protect workers’ existing terms and conditions. That is important for the hard-working employees and communities who have served the firm over many years.
I was first informed that Harland & Wolff was in serious financial difficulty on day one of the new Government. As the previous Government had open-book arrangements with the company, it was clear that the firm had significant and unsustainable debts. Members will be aware that, at that point, Harland & Wolff was seeking a Government guarantee or liquidity loan. Had that occurred, the British taxpayer would have been put at significant risk of losing millions of pounds, without the safeguarding of any yards, jobs or ships. I believe that the possibility of the Government providing such a guarantee or loan, which was much speculated on in the press, was preventing a market-based solution. The former Government’s inability to make a decision left the yards and the workforce in limbo. That is why I made it clear in my first weeks in this job that no taxpayer guarantee or loan would be provided. I was dismayed that when I did so Conservative Members opposed that, knowing as they did that with a guarantee or loan there stood a significant risk of losing an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money. That was deeply irresponsible.
Crucially, the deal that has been agreed will secure the delivery of the fleet solid support contract of the Ministry of Defence. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme. We have agreed the absolute minimum of changes to the contract to ensure its continued delivery. Navantia UK is the prime contractor of the Team Resolute consortium, which is charged with building three logistics support vessels for the Royal Navy, and it will maintain the required portion of UK-only build as part of this deal. It is also worth saying that FSS is a vital component of the UK carrier strike capability, providing munitions, spares and stores. At a time when strategic alignment with our NATO allies is more critical than ever, the Government fully endorse this deal, which will also see Navantia UK invest significantly on commercial terms in Harland & Wolff shipyards.
Anyone familiar with Navantia UK will know that the firm boasts strong expertise in naval shipbuilding. I am pleased that, thanks to this agreement, it will continue to bring the next generation of technology to its operations here in the UK. This is quite simply a good deal for the Harland & Wolff shipyards, a good deal for its employees, and a good deal for British shipbuilding. It provides the best opportunity to sustain our essential sovereign shipbuilding capacity and capability, now and over the long term. Defence is at the heart of the industrial strategy that we have identified. Defence is one of our eight growth-driving sectors of the UK economy. That industrial strategy is unreservedly and unashamedly pro-business, engaging on complex issues that are currently barriers to growth and investment. National security is one of the foundations of our plan for change. Without it, we cannot deliver on our milestones to raise living standards across the UK, with good, skilled, productive jobs like those at Harland & Wolff.
UK shipbuilding alone supports some 42,500 jobs nationwide and adds £2.4 billion to the economy every single year. We recognise how important it is, as a vital pillar of our civil and defence industrial base. That is why my Department, together with the Ministry of Defence and the National Shipbuilding Office, is doing everything that we can to bolster our world-class shipbuilding industry. That includes the significant progress that we are making on key procurement programmes. We have a major contract with BAE Systems, which has increased the order from three to eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates on the Clyde, and a contract with Babcock for five Type 31 general purpose frigates at Rosyth. Those projects have already brought significant recapitalisation investment to shipyards throughout the UK, and there are further procurements to be won, ranging from Border Force and local councils to marine in-port service vessels at His Majesty’s naval bases.
The Government are absolutely committed to supporting vibrant, growing and successful shipbuilding and fabrication industries across the country, and I pay tribute to the skilled, diligent workforces who have made these industries what they are today. Thanks to the deal that has been announced, workers in Belfast, Arnish, Methil, Appledore and right across the country can be confident that the Government are squarely behind them, that UK ship- building is secure, and that together, as a United Kingdom, we will lead the sector into a better future. I hope that all workers in all four yards are now able to enjoy this Christmas with their families, as they should. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The famous yellow gantry of Harland & Wolff stands tall, not only on the skyline of Belfast but in the history of our nation. It is difficult to overstate what Harland & Wolff means to people in the communities of Belfast, Appledore, Arnish and Methil. Extended families across the country will welcome today’s confirmation that the shipbuilding contract that we awarded in government will now proceed. There remain, however, many unanswered questions, which I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could answer. If he cannot answer them at the Dispatch Box today, I would be grateful if he or the Defence Secretary would write in the coming days.
First, at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no change to the in-service date of the three fleet solid support ships, with the first ship entering service as expected in the fourth quarter of 2028? Secondly, what funding or commitment, if any, has been provided by any part of the Government to Navantia to secure this finalised deal? If so, which budget will that be appropriated from? Has he received state aid clearance for the transaction and, if not, could he clarify the process by which that will now be obtained?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Department has agreed the
“absolute minimum of changes to the contract,”
but the statement provides absolutely nothing whatsoever as to what that actually conceals. Can he guarantee, as Navantia promised as part of its original bid for the contract, that no less than 60% of the whole supply chain activity will take place in the UK? Will he confirm that there are no additional work packages beyond those originally envisaged moving from Belfast or anywhere in the UK to Puerto Real in Cádiz? Above all, will he assure the workers and their families who are watching that the final assembly and systems integration, which is where much of the high-value work sits for all three of those vital ships, will take place in Belfast, rather than in Navantia’s parent shipyards in Spain?
The Secretary of State will appreciate that it is sometimes hard, though one tries, to take him at his word after the number of impacts on business over the past few months. The wider context—though welcome in respect of this particular contract and these defence jobs—is the large-scale uncertainty that our defence companies, contractors, workers and employees face about the timetable for the Government to reach 2.5% on defence spending. They do not have the certainty that Harland & Wolff workers now do this Christmas. We do not even have a timeline for a timeline as to when that 2.5% will be hit, and we have seen a degree of equivocation on exactly when the strategic defence review will be published. Again, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified that or if a colleague wrote to me.
It is, at the end of the day, action not words. We welcome this deal for Harland & Wolff and the certainty that it will provide to workers and their families, and I thank the Department officials for their work on that, but there are still many questions to be answered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Secretary of State. Having served in his Department, I too will be paying close attention to the answer.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State on the iconic nature of this business; its role in British history and in the community, particularly in Belfast; and the esteem in which it is held. I do feel he could have thanked us for cleaning up another mess that the previous Government left us, although perhaps that is too much to ask. After all, they could have made the decisions to allow the market-based solution with support from Government that we have been able to achieve. Despite those caveats, I welcome the fact that he welcomed the news and recognised it as a substantial good news story for many workers as we go into Christmas and for the next years.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. On the delivery of the fleet solid support contract, the issues that the previous Government left us may have some material impact, although there is no large, foreseen delay to the delivery of the project at this stage. On the support to the business, there is no support going directly from Government to the business to subsidise the transaction. There have been amendments to the contracts supported by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. He asked for the details. I will not reveal it in the House because of the commercial sensitivity, but I will find out whether there is a way to share that with him. On whether the deal is compliant with the Windsor framework and our commitments as a country under those arrangements, I am satisfied with all that. Despite the fact that we will always respect those arrangements, we are the UK Government and we make decisions for every part of the UK, with the regulatory approvals, and I seek no one’s permission to be the Secretary of State for Business and Trade across all the UK.
On additional work packages, there are no additional promises from the Government, although he will know that there is a 30-year supply pipeline for shipbuilding in the UK and many opportunities, particularly in sectors such as energy, maintenance and fabrication, and a whole range of functions where Members across the House would want to have a strong, diverse and competitive shipbuilding and maintenance sector.
Finally, on defence spending, the hon. Gentleman had a bit of a try-on. He asked what assurances the sector can have. The biggest assurance I can give is that we only ever hit that 2.5% under Labour Governments. The fact is that we have a Labour Government with that commitment to the defence sector and its role—the ability to deliver maximum economic benefits for the UK, as well as that vibrant and important defence role—and we will continue to deliver on the way to that.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Congratulations to the Secretary of State. This is excellent news for the people of Appledore and of Northern Ireland and for workers across the Harland & Wolff supply chain. He might want to confirm that the peril of providing a Government guarantee was the possibility of entailing a huge payout to a US-based hedge fund, which was the largest creditor for Harland & Wolff. What is happening to the contract value for the FSS deal? It was priced at about £1.6 billion. Has that contract value now gone up? Crucially, what does the Secretary of State envisage for Harland & Wolff after that enormous contract is safely and soundly delivered?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the Select Committee Chair for his kind words. I am delighted that we have been able to secure this future for Harland & Wolff. His assessment is right that the largest creditor to Harland & Wolff when we took office was Riverstone, a significant US hedge fund. He is right to say that had we gone ahead with that Government guarantee or loan, there would likely have been no real return to the taxpayer—no guarantee of jobs, shipyards or ships being built. That money would have gone to the creditors. Actually, in the commercial market-based solution that we have been able to broker, all creditors have behaved responsibly, but, understandably, if anyone thinks the Government will come along and give them free money, they will hold out for that option. That was why it was so important to make that decision early on to secure this far better outcome.
On the specific question, and I should have directed my answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), there is no change to the UK-based content of the contract. As I said in the statement, there have been some changes on commercial terms, although they are relatively minor based on the overall value of the contract.
On the future, I can tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) that the deal we have brokered guarantees not only all four yards, but the jobs in the Belfast yard for three years and jobs in the three other yards for two years. We therefore have a chance not just for new investment coming into those yards, but for the long-term future to be secured for a pipeline of work and energy and defence contracts, which is a vibrant and successful opportunity for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is an outstanding Christmas present for the 1,000 employees from Devon to the Isle of Lewis who will benefit from this decision and the deal that has been pulled off by the Government. In the west country, we have a low-wage economy, and in the Appledore dockyard, which is not too far from my constituency of Torbay, this will go down extremely well, so congratulations are in order. That is in sharp contrast with the failure of the previous Administration on implementing an industrial strategy, supporting our shipping industry and growing our economy over many years. The position that the Conservatives are taking now is utterly shameful. How can we hardwire that long-term support for our shipping industry so that we see growth in this area and support for industries such as steel manufacturing?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to be able to deliver that outcome for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as a result of the announcement. He is right to say that successful UK Government policy must be about more than one-off solutions to specific problems such as this. That is why we have adopted an ambitious industrial strategy that covers key sectors of the economy and delivers exactly what he has asked for: consistency, long termism, and policy that covers every aspect of government rather than being seen as led by one Department. When we get it right, good long-term and effective public policy—working hand in hand with the private sector—delivers tremendous outcomes for the country, and that is what we are seeking. Ultimately, any strategy is only as good as its delivery, and this statement is evidence that the Government will deliver.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Today’s news is welcome. My right hon. Friend knows how vital the FSS ships are to our Royal Navy. RFA Fort Victoria, our only remaining solid store support ship, is due to be decommissioned in 2028, yet even before this rescue deal, new FSS ships were not due to enter service until 2032. Is there any scope at all to accelerate that and close the capability gap?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expertise and insight on this matter. I understand the point that she makes, but it is perhaps one for my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I will ask them to engage with her on those ambitions to remedy the absence of capability, but I believe that that would be challenging.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the statement, and particularly the protection of the fleet solid support programme, but I join my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), in saying that we will have to wait to see the details. In principle, however, the deal sounds very encouraging indeed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and all his team and officials for getting it over the line. He mentions world-class shipbuilding in the UK. He said from the Dispatch Box that national security is the foundation of the plan for change, and his Department’s online statement talked about sovereign capability, but does he accept that without steel, ships cannot be built? Will he take this opportunity to say what more can be done, in a dangerous world, to reduce the UK’s increasing reliance on imports from elsewhere, including from Sweden and Asia, so that ships can be delivered in times of conflict or war?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations. He will know that most defence steels are higher end—they are specialised and tend to come from electric arc furnaces—and one challenge that we have inherited relates to the two remaining blast furnace sites in the UK. We have improved the situation in Port Talbot, but we could not change direction, with the blast furnaces going offline before the arc furnace was installed. We have inherited an even more challenging position in relation to Scunthorpe, but we are working closely with the company to find a solution.
I believe that we are missing real capabilities in the UK. I can see the economic and business case for plate mill, for instance, and for the long-term question of direct reduced iron in steel production. The steel strategy is part of delivering on that. A whole range of horizontal policies, particularly on energy prices, would have to be in a corresponding position for us to do that. The fact that the UK has such a small steel sector relative to the size of our economy makes us an outlier among developed nations and suggests that there is a real evidence base for improving it, and I will work with any Member of the House to deliver that.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a great Christmas for Methil. I thank the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and all those in Government who have worked so hard to secure this deal, which has saved 200 skilled jobs and apprenticeships at the Methil yard in my constituency, and 150 jobs at Arnish in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that all levels of Government, trade unions and stakeholders in the future of the Methil yard continue to work together so that, with GB Energy headquartered in Scotland, the yard can fulfil its huge potential in contributing to our ambitions for growth in the renewables industry in Scotland and the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for all his support and repeated submissions to the Department. I know how significant this matter is for his community, and he has fulfilled his role as a Member of Parliament in articulating it at every level of Government. I say the same for our hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—I visited the Arnish shipyard during the election campaign. It is so important in a job such as mine, and in a Department such as mine, to recognise that we must deliver for the whole United Kingdom. The diverse challenges we face do not detract from the fact that we must deliver for every part of the UK, and that is what we plan to do.
I also thank my hon. Friend for his comments about my officials, who worked very hard to deliver this outcome. I agree with him about the huge potential out there not just for shipbuilding, fabrication and maintenance, but for energy in particular. There is real optimism for the future, but it requires the kinds of foundations that we have put in place through this agreement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Government for getting this agreement over the line, but when will we get their defence industrial strategy? So far we have had only a rather lengthy statement of intent. We need to reindustrialise our defence industrial base in order to face modern challenges, and that is particularly essential given the threats we face from the east of Europe at this time. That is very difficult to do in government, because the Treasury hates his stuff, as the Secretary of State may already have discovered, but we will hold him to account on what he described as leading this sector into future growth, and indeed on reindustrialising our steel industrial base and so on, so that we have the self-sufficiency that is vital for the defence of the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I encourage the Secretary of State to be brave in responding to the point about the Treasury.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the question and would like to put on the record that I have only good things to say about His Majesty’s Treasury at all times. [Laughter.] It is true; I mean that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is great imperative—with a particular degree of responsibility in the defence part of the industrial strategy—in the challenges we face. It is imperative not just that we work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on procurement issues and Government-to-Government sales, in which my Department plays a major role, but that we address wider regulatory issues.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department recently did work on environmental, social and governance criteria to ensure that they do not prevent investment into defence companies. There are issues with small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector struggling to access bank accounts—not through a prohibition on defence, but perhaps because of a lack of understanding about such commercial contracts being different from those in other parts of the economy. There are a whole range of issues that we must get right, but I think that, in the main, Members across the House share his aspirations and objectives. He has been a voice of expertise and authority on these issues throughout my time in Parliament, and I am grateful for his engagement on them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Today’s announcement will surely be well received by the House, the country, the Royal Navy and the workers directly affected, especially given the previous Government’s lack of industrial strategy. Alongside the fantastic announcement for seafarer and worker conditions and protections, the agreement shows the Government’s commitment to the vital maritime and industrial sector. Shipbuilding was once a proud industry and the backbone of the community in my city of Portsmouth, but it was decimated by the previous Government. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the deal’s wider implications for the UK economy, and specifically for the shipbuilding and defence sectors?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the role that shipbuilding has played in my hon. Friend’s city. I grew up in Sunderland —part of what was once one of the major civil shipbuilding locations in the world—and I recognise the identity and pride that comes with that industrial heritage. In many cases, people feel that it is something of the past, but in this statement we are stressing exactly what she said about the contemporary contribution and the opportunities for the future, about which we should be excited. There are a whole range of increasing needs to shipbuilding expertise, particularly in the energy sector—offshore wind, for example, creates a range of demand for different types of maintenance and supply vessels—so this should be an optimistic story for the future. Sometimes I feel that the wider British public perhaps do not understand the number of jobs or the economic benefit that come from such a sector, so it is always good to make that case from the Dispatch Box—as my hon. Friend does every day from the Back Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Cooper, a member of the Business and Trade Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I congratulate this Front-Bench team and the wider Government on landing this deal in the face of what the Secretary of State has euphemistically called the “headwinds” —I would call them a full-force gale—created by the Budget. Did Navantia raise concerns about the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill? It swings the pendulum very much in favour of trade unions, which, as we know, are very often red in tooth and claw. Was that an issue in landing the deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
No, it was not—it is a good try, but no. First, the employment rights framework in most parts of continental Europe is very different from our own. Secondly, as I have repeatedly said, the changes in the Employment Rights Bill do raise terms and conditions for some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, but many companies in the UK—particularly larger ones—already operate to a significantly higher level. Shipbuilding is historically a fairly unionised sector, so I do not think there are any concerns or worries in that field—to be frank, the trade unions in that sector often fought harder for the industry than former Conservative Governments. I understand the try-on point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but no, the Employment Rights Bill has not been a problem. In terms of wider UK Government policy, this has been a great endorsement of our EU reset and our willingness not to revisit the arguments of Brexit, but to work more closely with friends and allies in Europe, to ensure that we are getting the maximum opportunities for the UK and always working in our national interest.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on this announcement, which is incredibly welcome news for all those workers who get to keep their jobs as a result. It is a shame that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman chose to attack the Government over the 2.5% target while responding to the statement, and asked for a timeline for when we are going to deliver 2.5%. Fourteen years is a timeline, and the Conservatives did not meet that target even once. If we are to avoid situations like this in the future, we need to have a modern industrial strategy. What progress have we made towards that strategy? How does it feed into our wider growth mission, and how will it support the UK economy to grow over the next Parliament?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the deal and for his observations about the questions from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about the 2.5% target. On the modern industrial strategy that we are creating, we have had an incredible response to our Green Paper—some 22,000 individual answers to the questions it asked—showing that there is a huge appetite from industry across the board, both in the UK and abroad, to engage with what the Government are seeking to do. Again, I stress that that should always be on a cross-party basis; there is nothing in that Green Paper that anyone of any political stripe should be able to oppose. It is based on our national interest and the goal of being more competitive and business-friendly, succeeding to a greater degree on the world stage.
This week, we had our first meeting of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, with some tremendous representatives with expertise across the board—UK industry, academics and business figures. It is an incredibly exciting time. This is just one component of our growth mission, but clearly an important one, alongside areas of work for me such as the small business plan that we are putting together. I genuinely believe that everyone should be excited about the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Alison Griffiths, a member of the Select Committee.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer one question, which was whether he would clarify that the final assembly and systems integration will take place in Belfast, rather than in the Navantia shipyards in Spain.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry if the hon. Lady missed it, but I was clear that what we have announced today does not change the provisions in the original contract agreed by the former Conservative Government. What has changed is that we have saved all four of these yards, at a time when we could have lost them all through the inability of the previous Government to take the action required, so it is an incredibly positive story. We have saved the position of those yards and guaranteed those jobs, and not for months but for years to come.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for what is wonderful news for all four sites across the UK. Obviously, I am going to be slightly biased towards the two in Scotland, one in Arnish on the Isle of Lewis and the other in Methil in Fife—that is very welcome news in the week before Christmas. I also thank the Government for their co-operation with the Scottish Government over the past months, particularly in the early days when UK Labour had come into government, and I put on record the work that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Kate Forbes, has contributed.
I have a couple of questions. First, given that we are moving forward, are the workers’ current terms and conditions going to continue as they are? Secondly, I have listened to what has been said about future contracts. We know that both yards in Scotland will be protected for the next two years, but can the Secretary of State tell us a little bit more about the longer-term sustainable footing, not least because this company has changed hands three times in the past four years?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and questions. It was really important to us that we keep all four yards together—there had been an assessment that, for understandable reasons, the Belfast yard was more commercially valuable, so there was a real chance that any unstructured rescue package could have lost the two Scottish yards. There were question marks about those yards in particular, so keeping the business together and protecting the future of those workers was hugely important to us, and I am delighted that we have been able to achieve that.
The job guarantees for the non-Belfast yards will last for two years. The guarantee is for 90% of the overall job numbers, simply to provide the usual degree of flexibility in running that business, but that guarantee covers the majority of the workforce and keeps them in place. The deal also comes with investment in those Scottish yards, so whatever the future holds, those yards will be even more competitive and more able to bid for the kinds of contracts that will secure the long-term prosperity we are all seeking. I am always genuinely willing to work with colleagues across any part of the UK to secure the kind of outcome we have achieved today, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As someone who has consistently and regularly called for more shipbuilding to take place in the UK rather than be exported, today’s statement is good news, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing this decision. He has clearly said that further orders have been added as a result of this deal. What further defence and—much more importantly—commercial opportunities are there for Harland & Wolff to acquire contracts from across the world, rather than building elsewhere?
Jonathan Reynolds
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations and recognise his calls for UK shipbuilding to have a higher priority in future than it has in the past. To be specific on what I was saying in the statement, there has been a revision to the value of the fleet solid support contract; it has required a little bit of additional support—but not greatly and on commercial terms—in order to deliver it. There are not promises of additional work packages on top of the contractual agreements made by the previous Government, but because Navantia UK is such a world-renowned expert builder of shipping of all sizes, as well as the investment that comes with this deal and the more competitive nature of the yards in future, there are genuine grounds for optimism. I see real opportunities in fabrication and maintenance, but particularly in energy. I also think that a little bit of competitive diversification in the military shipbuilding sector’s supply chain is welcome, creating better value for money in procurement. Across the board, this is a positive story for Harland & Wolff and its employees, but as the hon. Gentleman has described, it is also a positive story for UK shipbuilding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This announcement is really good news, and everybody across the House will welcome it. It is probably time to break out the Christmas cake and the mince pies early, because there is good news coming and the Secretary of State has delivered it today. This morning I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked tirelessly with the company to secure this progress. We all agree that it is great news, particularly for the 1,000-strong workforce in Belfast, and especially in the run-up to Christmas—well done. My right hon. Friend will be at the yard with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon, probably in about an hour’s time.
If the national shipbuilding strategy is to mean anything, it must be that the Government invest in skills and capacity throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that more could be done to increase research and innovation support across the United Kingdom and, in particular, in Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking what I think will be my last question of the year. I would particularly like to recognise what he said about his colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). Obviously, he has a constituency interest and a leading role in Northern Ireland, and I think he understood the decisions we had to make. We had to explain in confidence to all colleagues affected why the initial decision on the guarantee alone was not the right way forward, but that we were committed to the kind of solution we have announced today. I am extremely grateful for being able to work with the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is great news that he is going to the yard today; my colleagues the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Industry are also in Belfast today, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be at one of the yards in Scotland too.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about innovation and research and development, that is the basis on which we have to compete. Whether in the sectors of aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding, what we need is high-end, sophisticated R&D, innovation and world-leading products. That is what we have in many of our advanced manufacturing sectors, but it is such a competitive world that we have to maintain that edge. In particular, R&D is an area where core support and core funding between Government and industry has real benefits. We have seen that in lots of sectors—maybe not to the degree we have needed in shipbuilding, but let us look at that for the future and approach the next year with some real positivity.
Ukraine
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is day 1,030 of Putin’s illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I would like to update the House on the current situation in Ukraine.
Ukrainians are approaching their third Christmas since Putin launched his illegal, full-scale assault. Russian forces are over 1,000 days into a war Putin thought would be over in less than a week. The Ukrainian people have paid a horrendous price for Putin’s aggression, and it is testament to their grit, determination and courage that they have mounted such a heroic defence of their country. The UK has stood with Ukraine since day one, and I can confirm to the House that yesterday the Defence Secretary travelled to Kyiv to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Defence Minister Umerov, to discuss a joint plan for 2025 and to underline the UK’s commitment to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
It may be useful for the House if I provide an operational update. According to our latest Defence Intelligence insights, the frontline remains unstable. Russian forces continue to conduct attacks and advances at several locations along the front in eastern Ukraine, and have made accelerating gains in recent months in central Donetsk oblast. The conflict is currently classed as attritional, and it is brutal. It is also appropriate for me to confirm to the House that North Korean troops are currently engaged in offensive combat operations in Russia’s Kursk oblast, where around 11,000 DPRK—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—troops have been deployed. Our assessment is that it is highly likely they have sustained significant combat casualties, while achieving only limited tactical gains. Our assessments further indicate there have been over 750,000 Russian casualties since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, with the grim milestone of 1 million Russians dead and wounded likely to be reached within approximately six months.
This Government are clear that the frontline of British and European security runs through Ukraine. Our support for the Ukrainian people is iron-clad. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, one of the strengths of the UK approach under successive Governments has been the significant cross-party support from all parties in this House. That characterised our period in opposition, and it has continued while we have been in government, and I am grateful to the Conservative party and, indeed, all parties in this House for their continuing support for Ukraine.
In total, the UK has now provided £12.8 billion of assistance to Ukraine, and we remain a leading donor of military equipment. The Prime Minister has committed in person to President Zelensky that the UK will give £3 billion of military aid each year for as long as Ukraine needs. The year 2025 will be a critical one for the war. President Zelensky has laid out his victory plan, built around timely and effective military support, security guarantees, long-term deterrence and rebuilding Ukraine by unleashing the country’s economic potential, and he has spoken of his desire to secure a just peace from a position of strength.
Today, I would like to outline to the House how we will step up the UK’s international leadership on Ukraine into 2025, including a new £225 million package of military support—while in Kyiv, the Defence Secretary pledged that and confirmed it in his meeting with Defence Minister Umerov—and our five priority areas for UK defence support in 2025.
First, we will further increase and strengthen Ukraine’s military capabilities. Our new £225 million package of military support includes £186 million of key military equipment through the UK-administered international fund for Ukraine, with £92 million to bolster the Ukrainian navy’s fighting power, including advanced reconnaissance drones, the latest generation of uncrewed surface vessels, loitering munitions and mine countermeasure drones. The package also includes £68 million for air defence equipment, including new radars, decoy land equipment and cutting-edge counter-drone electronic warfare systems, as well as £26 million to provide support and spare parts for previously delivered critical military systems to keep them in the fight. Our stepped-up military support package includes £39 million to deliver 1,000 counter-drone electronic warfare systems, together with respirators and equipment to protect Ukrainian frontline forces. We are also gifting explosive charges to equip more than 90,000 155 mm artillery rounds, compatible with the dozens of British Army AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns previously provided by the United Kingdom.
Ukraine’s frontline is also the frontline of our security. I know the whole House will recognise that this latest military support package is firmly in the UK’s national security interests and that it will strengthen the resilience of our own defence industrial base, too. Yesterday, the House passed, with total cross-party support, the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill. This allows the Government to fulfil our commitment to provide Ukraine with an additional £2.26 billion through our contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme, which will be repaid using the profits from the immobilised Russian sovereign assets, enabling Ukraine to buy military equipment to defend itself and its freedom against Russian aggression. Taken together, this represents the highest amount of UK military support since the war began.
Secondly, we will continue training Ukraine’s armed forces throughout 2025, adding to the 51,000 Ukrainian troops already trained here in the United Kingdom as part of Operation Interflex, the multinational training programme we deliver alongside 12 partner nations. Having met Royal Air Force-trained Ukrainian pilots at Operation Interstorm and Ukrainian soldiers trained by the British Army and our partners in trenches dug in the English countryside, I know at first hand the difference our training makes. Each person we train—each Ukrainian we train—is a message to Putin that Ukraine does not stand alone. We will continue to provide the training that Ukraine needs and be flexible to meet its requirements.
Thirdly, we will build the defence sector in Ukraine, the UK and across Europe to leave Putin in no doubt but that Ukraine is not alone in this fight and that there is the ability to sustain Ukraine in the fight. In the autumn, I accompanied UK defence companies on a trade mission to Kyiv to discuss opportunities for the long-term co-operation that can reinforce Ukraine’s defence industry as a powerful deterrent against Russia and a powerful asset for Euro-Atlantic security. This Government are also delivering on the defence industrial support treaty signed with Ukraine in July, and we have made £3.5 billion of export finance available to buy military capabilities. We look forward to finalising a series of mutually agreed projects that will simultaneously bolster Ukraine’s defences and the UK’s defence industrial resilience in due course.
Fourthly, we will continue to work with allies to step up international support. Let me again be clear with the House that this Government will work with Ukraine to progress down its irreversible path towards NATO membership. We are working with the Ukraine defence contact group as well as allies further afield to increase the tempo of support and impose further costs on Russia. I can confirm that there will be a notable gear shift in January, when we commence delivery of tens of thousands of drones through the maritime and drone capability coalitions that the UK is leading with our Norwegian and Latvian partners.
Fifthly, we will reinforce the cross-Government effort to increase pressure on Russia, including close working between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to increase diplomatic pressure and sanctions. The MOD is working hand in glove with the FCDO through our recently formed joint unit on Ukraine to maximise the impact of UK defence support by starving the Kremlin of the resources it needs to sustain its war effort. We will continue to co-ordinate these sanctions with like-minded allies around the world to deny Russia’s war machine the goods, technologies and revenues it needs to sustain its illegal war, and we will continue to expose Russia’s malicious cyber-attacks and disinformation efforts, and the hostile operations of its intelligence services.
As we prepare to return to our constituencies to see our loved ones over Christmas, I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those Ukrainians unable to do so. Many are facing a Christmas and a new year of ongoing assault and aerial bombardment of their frontline, their homes, their towns, their cities and their critical energy infrastructure. So 2025 is set to be a critical year in the conflict and our resolve will not falter. President Zelensky has spoken of his desire for a just peace, and the Government are in no doubt that a just and lasting peace is only achievable by strengthening Ukraine’s hand. That is why this week the Defence Secretary in Kyiv, and I as the Minister at the Dispatch Box, have set out how we will increase Ukraine’s military capabilities, how we are committed to training thousands more Ukrainian troops, how we will strengthen defence industrial co-operation, how we will harness the support of Ukraine’s allies, and how we will increase pressure on Russia. This is the surest route to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement, which we on this side of the House warmly welcome.
As the Minister noted, last month marked the grim milestone of the 1000th day of Russia’s second unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and even before, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Indeed, relative to the size of our Army, we have gifted more military equipment to Ukraine than any other NATO partner, including the United States. As well as training Ukrainians in the UK since 2014, following the first Russian invasion, we have provided them with everything from NLAWs through to Challenger main battle tanks and almost all of our AS-90 heavy howitzers. We have also provided Ukraine with Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles and a very considerable amount of ammunition, everything from small arms to 155 mm rounds, as well as helping to procure other ammunition on their behalf from around the globe.
When offered a way out of Kyiv immediately after the second Russian invasion in February 2022, President Zelensky defiantly retorted:
“I need ammunition, not a ride.”
We in Britain have subsequently provided quite a bit of it. Even more recently, we provided very high-tech systems such as advanced drones and the DragonFire anti-drone laser, which we initially procured and which the Ukrainians are putting into service. No one can doubt the commitment of Britain in support of Ukraine, and we are pleased to see this bipartisan approach continues under this Government, but we should not lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day Ukraine is a sovereign nation and only Ukrainian people can subsequently determine their own future.
I have five specific questions for the Minister on his statement. First, as he is aware, we have been training Ukrainian troops in Britain since 2014, initially under Op Orbital and now Op Interflex. The key element of this was training troops to operate NLAWs in sophisticated anti-tank ambushes, a capability vividly demonstrated in video footage shortly after Russian forces crossed the border. Without this critical training, it is no exaggeration to say the Russians might well be having lunch in Kyiv today. With that in mind, what further training does the Minister foresee for Ukrainian troops, what additional support will we provide, and will any of this training now be delivered in-country?
Secondly, how much of the £186 million from the international fund for Ukraine, which we co-ordinate, is from the UK and how much is from our allies? What, in other words, is the UK proportion?
Thirdly, as the statement specifically referred to the supply of respirators, can the Minister confirm intelligence reports that the Russians have now even resorted to limited use of blister agent-type chemical weapons in Ukraine? Is that true?
Fourthly, we have been unwavering in our military, political and diplomatic support for Ukraine as well as generous in providing equipment and ammunition. However, this raises concerns about replenishing our own war stocks, as highlighted by the Defence Committee, which I served on in the previous Parliament, including, indeed, on that inquiry. Six months ago the Chief of the General Staff announced clear objectives to double the lethality of the British Army by 2027 and treble it by the end of the decade. What steps are being taken to replenish the UK’s war stocks? More specifically, how do the Government plan to achieve the CGS’s ambitious commitment?
Finally, the changes the Minister has announced today clearly feed into the ongoing strategic defence review, yet there are emerging media reports that the much-anticipated SDR publication may be delayed until June next year to now coincide with the comprehensive spending review. Ministers now appear to be sticking to a mantra that the SDR will be published in the first half of next year, which is commensurate with that timeline. With the worsening international situation and given that the initial conclusions have apparently already been seen by the Defence Secretary and even the Prime Minister, we cannot afford six months of paralysis by analysis while the Government decide how to respond. So can the Minister end on a positive note and tell the House today when the SDR will be published and assure us it will not be as late as next June?
Slava Ukraini.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Minister, let me say that, Mr Darling, I can see that you are bobbing, and if you stay in the Chamber, I will make sure to call you at an appropriate time.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his party’s continuing support for our friends in Ukraine. He is certainly right that the initial provision of anti-tank weapons made a significant contribution in the early days, and the provision of a whole array of capabilities in every month since enables Ukraine to stay in the fight, which is absolutely essential. Today’s statement updates the House on the additional military capabilities that we are providing to Ukraine, and on how we will continue to do that.
The Defence Secretary has already announced that we will extend Operation Interflex until the end of 2025. That is good news. We have always been clear that we will flex the provision of Interflex training to suit the needs of our Ukrainian friends. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there was initial skills training, and we now train different skills, and that training is delivered differently. As the Defence Secretary has said, we will need to make the training a better fit for what the Ukrainians need. We need to make it easier for the Ukrainians to access it, and we work with the Ukrainians to help and motivate them to mobilise more recruits. The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not help Putin by revealing our plans, and any conversations that we may have with our Ukrainian friends, but we will update the House in due course.
The international fund for Ukraine is a really important part of the mix. I can get the right hon. Gentleman the full details on that, and about our share, and I will place that in the Library of the House. I also place on record our wider support for all our international colleagues who are contributing to that fund.
The chemical weapons assessment has a high classification, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go into the full detail of Russian capabilities and any use, but the provision of respirators is a really important part of ensuring that Ukraine’s frontline troops are better able to defend themselves.
We have a plan to replenish our stocks; it will come alongside the defence industrial strategy. That intent was published by the Defence Secretary a few weeks ago, and that will be part of the strategic defence review. The mantra that the SDR will be published in the first half of next year is not, I am afraid, new; it is the existing Government position. However, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the intent is to publish it in the spring. Work continues on that, and I am grateful to Lord Robertson and his review team for the thorough work that they are doing. The aim is to make sure that the review is not just Labour’s defence review, but is a defence posture that is supported cross-party, so that we can ensure that our national security is strong, and so that we can deter aggression and defeat it if necessary.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the diligent Minister for advance sight of his statement. It was good to chat with the Secretary of State on his return from Ukraine, and I welcome his pledge, while there, of a £225 million package of support for Ukraine, because as the Minister rightly highlights, Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline of our own security. Can the Minister provide further detail, however? After the UN Secretary-General’s statements last week about turbocharging defence, can the Minister provide further details of discussions with NATO and other allies, in particular our US friends, including recent discussions between the Prime Minister and President-elect Trump, on the international defence steps being taken at this critical juncture?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the military package outlined today. The UK Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP, and a path for that increase will be laid out in due course at future fiscal events. We will publish the strategic defence review, which will set out, perhaps more importantly, what we seek to spend any money on; we can then look at what capabilities we need to develop and how that takes us further. We continue to speak with our NATO allies through the SDR process, to make sure that the UK’s defence offer is a “NATO first” offer that allows more interoperability and supports our NATO allies, especially on NATO’s eastern flank. I look forward to being able to speak more about that in due course to my hon. Friend’s Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Thank you—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was just trying not to step on the right hon. Jennie. It is absolutely right that we give our brave Ukrainian allies the support that they need to resist Putin’s war machine. I am proud of how our country has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in defence of freedom and democracy, yet with the looming threat of a Trump presidency, America’s ongoing commitment to Ukraine looks increasingly uncertain. It should serve as a wake-up call to us all. If the United States pulls back its support, Europe must step up.
The Liberal Democrats want to see the UK take a lead within Europe. That must begin with concrete action, such as seizing frozen Russian assets to bolster Ukraine’s defences, as I and others spoke about in this House just yesterday, and reversing damaging Conservative cuts to our armed forces. Those steps will strengthen Ukraine’s hand and Britain’s security. Robust financial and humanitarian assistance is also vital. Just a few weeks ago, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs, Defence and Home Office spokespeople met a delegation of Ukrainian MPs, who stressed the urgent need for ongoing tangible support. Their message was clear: Europe’s role has never been more important. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly behind these measures.
The impending Trump presidency puts the safety of Ukraine and Europe in doubt. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to take a lead within Europe on defence and security, and will he commit to working with his European counterparts to make sure that Ukraine is supported fully? The Minister also mentioned Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s energy network. Can he outline what work the Government are doing to support Ukraine in getting electricity generators and solar panels installed across the country to keep it functioning?
Luke Pollard
If we are seeking to protect anyone in this House, it will certainly be the right hon. Jennie. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. It is right that we seek to further strengthen sanctions against Russia. The Government have made a number of further developments, such as sanctioning the Russian shadow fleet, seeking to cut off its oil flow. As the Bill set out yesterday, we are taking further steps in legislation on frozen Russian assets. We will continue to support our armed forces. The strategic defence review will set out the future shape of the armed forces, and the path to 2.5% will be laid out by Treasury colleagues in due course.
This is a cross-Government approach. The hon. Gentleman’s final question about energy infrastructure is profound, and it allows me to echo the words from our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who have provided additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and energy production. It is vital that we continue that support, because it is not just with missiles and ammunition that we need to support Ukraine. We need all the support to keep that country going, to keep it in the fight, and to enable its people to get through a tough winter.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I once again commend my hon. Friend on his ongoing support for Ukraine and his important trade visit to Kyiv recently. From that visit, he will know that this war has advanced military technology, particularly in the area of loitering munitions and anti-unmanned aerial vehicle technology. I note that we have the defence industrial support treaty, as well as our own defence industrial strategy. What progress are we making on joint ventures with Ukrainian defence companies, and on basing some of that defence capability here, for our future security and the security of Ukraine?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in support of Ukraine. He is a consistent champion, working cross-party, too. It is right that we seek to improve and grow our technology, especially around drones and in autonomy. The treaty we signed with Ukraine enables it effectively to use Defence Equipment and Support as its own procurement agency to initiate more contracts, more quickly, not only enabling support for Ukrainian industry, but allowing UK industry to work with it to deploy more capabilities faster. He is absolutely right that the pace of change in Ukraine means that we need to continue to invest in research and development, and to learn the lessons. That is one reason why the Defence Secretary made the announcement about retiring the British Army’s Watchkeeper system—a 14-year-old drone—in favour of more modern systems that we hope to be able to announce in the SDR.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
This is a great opportunity for me to wish the Father of the House a happy Christmas.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When Russia cruelly invaded Finland in 1940, she not only took territory with force majeure, but imposed neutrality on that country for 50 years. There was a phrase for it: Finlandisation. I know our influence is not overwhelming, but when it comes to the Trump presidency, will the Minister assure me that the Government will stiffen the sinews of the Trump presidency and ensure that there is absolutely no question of any war aim of Russia’s being achieved, namely taking territory and neutralising Ukraine? We therefore must fast-track NATO membership.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Father of the House for his question. He is right that we need to continue our support. That is why—from this Dispatch Box today and in Government statements since we came to office—we have made it clear that we will support Ukrainians for as long as it takes, including on their irreversible path to NATO membership. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the policies of the new US Administration, but it is certainly true that the safety of the United States, as well as the safety of the United Kingdom, relies on Putin not winning in Ukraine. That is why we are continuing our support for our Ukrainian friends. When the new Administration takes office, further such discussions will be able to take place directly.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
May I just say how strongly I welcome the statement? Our commitment across this House to defend Ukraine must be firm. Does the Minister agree that the cross-party nature of the UK support has been and will remain a critical feature of our support for Ukraine as a staunch ally?
Luke Pollard
The way that this House has come together on Ukraine—not just the provision of military equipment, but our diplomatic efforts and our support for Ukrainians—is a testament to all parties in this House. We are making sure that we are putting our national security and that of our friends ahead of any partisan desires. I expect that the Government and every single party in the House will continue that, because gaps in our position are where Putin will seek to prosper. That is why maintaining cross-party support is essential for our overall UK approach. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for continuing that today.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s confirmation of the Government’s support for Ukraine’s eventual membership of NATO. As a step along that road, will he look at the UK taking a lead in further integrating Ukraine into the joint expeditionary force?
Luke Pollard
The joint expeditionary force is an important part of the complementary military alliance with NATO, enabling the beer-drinking nations of northern Europe, as they are often described, to come together. It is important that that geographical centre point in northern Europe is maintained, especially in the Baltic sea and the high north. However, there are discussions around learning lessons by Ukraine having more participation alongside JEF nations. It is certainly true that many of the JEF nations have been the most forward-leaning of all our NATO allies in providing support for Ukraine, and I expect that to continue.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, and I urge him onwards. I rise to demonstrate my support for the stand we are taking in supporting Ukraine. My thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, who are entering their third Christmas in this conflict. Europe has learned the harsh lessons from dealing with dictators in the past. Does he agree that at a time when there is potential for change in America’s policy towards Ukraine, Europe needs to stand together, and to make sure that we do not allow Putin to succeed in any way, because the consequences of that for future generations could be damaging indeed?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that this Government will continue to support Ukraine, and to encourage more of our NATO allies to donate to Ukraine and to improve their own defences, so that we act as a deterrent, and so that the experience of Ukraine is not inflicted on any other NATO members. I hope that more Ukrainian people will hear the Christmas message of peace and hope as we go into next year, but it will be a very tough Christmas and new year for many of them. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no change in UK support for Ukraine, whatever happens over the coming year. We will continue to work closely with our European and NATO allies to make sure that what we are providing to Ukraine, including in training and support, will enable them to stay in the fight and be in the best possible position for the future.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
We have seen the proliferation of drone warfare in Ukraine as never before. I was struck by how the Minister referred to drones repeatedly in his statement; it is a massive change in how war is waged. With a Trump presidency on the horizon, Europe needs to look to itself and for its strengths. One of our strengths is the automobile industry and component parts, which can easily be repurposed for the development of drones for the war in Ukraine. Will the Minister advise us on how he is working with European colleagues to enhance that to support Ukraine to the hilt?
Luke Pollard
I thank my fellow Devon MP for his support for Ukraine. It is certainly right that the increased proliferation of drones is a hallmark of the conflict. Between 500 and 1,000 drones—a substantial number—are used every day on the frontline, and they are being used in an incredibly intense environment of electronic warfare and jamming. That is why we need to continue to iterate and evolve in the support we provide to Ukraine, making sure that those drones can fly through EW jamming, reach their targets and project power in those areas.
We are continuing to strengthen support for developments not only in Ukrainian drone production, but in the production of drones across the rest of Europe. That is why we work so closely with the drone capability coalition among our European partners, to create that enhanced industrial base as well as learn the lessons of what technology is working, bearing in mind that that iteration on the frontline means that we need to keep adapting and enhancing our drone offer to Ukraine every few months.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and the team, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As other hon. Members have done, I commend the Minister for the statement, and especially the funding announcements made today. I thank him for reminding my constituents and all our constituents of the urgent need to support Ukraine and for reminding us that our national security is very much bound up in Ukraine’s national security. It is fantastic that this new money has been announced. Do the Government have a further update on the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club and the £2.5 billion? I am sure that the Minister will agree that the sooner we can get that money unlocked, the more military and humanitarian support we can unleash.
Luke Pollard
The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account until a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money. Officials continue to hold discussions with Mr Abramovich’s representatives, experts and international partners, and they will double down on efforts to reach a solution. We are fighting every inch of the way to ensure that money from Russian assets goes straight back to supporting Ukrainians.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I also welcome the new funding for Ukraine today and the Minister’s statement. With an unstable Government in France, new elections in Germany, foreign influence operations in the recent Romanian presidential election and a new Administration in the United States, what recent discussions has the Minister had with NATO colleagues about how NATO will continue to support Ukraine to the very end, to steel its resolve and work towards the just peace that he referenced?
Briefly, on other NATO members, the Minister will know that Denmark’s policy on defence for Ukraine is to allow Ukraine to grow its own industrial base. That is being supported by Norway and some other Baltic countries. I get the transparency point and support the Government on that, but, to come back to an earlier question, is there any potential of joint ventures to allow Ukraine to grow its own industrial base?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that in a period of more instability on a political level, our NATO allies value the United Kingdom’s certainty and stability. For that reason, we are pushing forward on our efforts to co-ordinate more NATO activity. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that NATO has stood up a number of additional capabilities, especially in supporting the training functions that Ukraine desperately needs, and we are supporting those efforts wholeheartedly.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the Ukrainian objectives is to create more joint ventures to develop and iterate technologies, especially missiles and drone technology. That has the support of the UK Government, so we have been supporting our Ukrainian friends to do so not only in-country, but with UK industry at the same time. How we do that is being worked through. The new treaty that we signed is really beneficial in enabling some of that work to take place. It is certainly true, though, that to keep Ukraine in the fight, we not only need NATO allies to provide more resources, but we need to create the environment in which Ukraine can develop more of its resources in-country to be used on the frontline.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, which demonstrates again the ironclad commitment of this country to the defence of Ukraine. Ministers will have detected nervousness across the House regarding political changes in January, so may I change tack? There are 6 million Ukrainian refugees across Europe and millions of displaced people within the country itself. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to communities across the United Kingdom who have supported the Ukrainian people, and indeed in many cases opened their homes to Ukrainians coming to this country?
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those families across the country—those in his constituency, those of everyone here, and those in Plymouth—who have supported the Homes for Ukraine scheme and those Ukrainians getting to safety. As of 16 December, 218,600 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK, including just under 160,000 via the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Our new Ukraine permission extension scheme will open on 4 February 2025, as announced at the end of October. That will provide an additional 18-month permission, and access to the same rights and entitlements as the current Ukraine schemes. It is really important that as well as lending support to Ukrainians in Ukraine, we support those Ukrainians in the United Kingdom. I thank all the people who are working so hard in particular to ensure support for those families in the United Kingdom today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could we be completely realistic? The outcome of the conflict is likely to be determined by President Trump and what he chooses to do. Therefore, it is essential that the British Government engage as positively as possible with President Trump and resist the temptation that somehow his arrival is an invitation for we Europeans to withdraw into ourselves, with our limited defence capability, our diverse political and foreign policy objectives and varying degrees of willpower to sustain the effort. Can we take the arrival of President Trump as an opportunity to leverage change in whatever field, never underestimating how much the United Kingdom has to offer the United States and how joined up and integrated so many of our defence capabilities are?
Luke Pollard
It is absolutely true that, as the United Kingdom has provided a bridge across the Atlantic between the United States and Europe in the past, we continue to do so today. We will need to work closely with our NATO allies, including the United States, with which we have a very close and deep security relationship. That is the case whoever is in the White House. We look forward to beginning more of those discussions with the Administration once the US legal period that stops international discussions expires at the point of inauguration.
I dispute just one aspect of the hon. Gentleman’s question. This war could come to an end because of Putin. He could decide to withdraw his troops. He could decide to stop inflicting pain on the Ukrainian people. He could choose to end the war today. That is why we must continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, so it can get the peace and security that its people so desperately need.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the latest British military support for Ukraine. I welcome that there is cross-party support in the House and that the civilised world stands united with Ukraine; long may that continue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important voices regarding this illegal invasion and how to end it are not ours or those of our allies but those of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people at home and abroad, including in constituencies such as mine? The Ukrainian people have suffered so much due to Russian aggression, and their fortitude and bravery is an inspiration to all of us who value freedom and democracy.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is certainly right that the courage, grit and determination of the Ukrainian people is something we should be enormously proud of. It is for that reason that we continue to support them, because their fight is our fight. He is also right that the decision on the future of Ukraine is not for the United Kingdom, but for the Ukrainian people and Government. It is for the Ukrainian Government to decide their future and their objectives in the coming year. It is our job to help to strengthen Ukrainian hands so that they are in the best possible position for any outcome in 2025. That is what this statement and the additional military equipment we have announced today seek to do.
I know the cross-party support from this House is felt in Kyiv. I also know that videos of this House showing the United Kingdom’s support for their fight are shared on the frontline among Ukrainian soldiers. Although I am not sure that every video of this place is precisely what Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline need, what they can take from today’s debate is our cross-party support for keeping them in the fight for as long as it takes for them to secure victory and peace for their people.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches stand united in that cross-party support for Ukraine and welcome the package that has been brought forward today. I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, he talked about the profits that have come from the frozen assets. What discussions has he had with EU counterparts on that? Some have been quite vocal about the sale of those assets, which could rapidly accelerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces.
Secondly, on sanctions, more than 50% of the components of Russian drones come directly from China. There are negotiations next month between the Minister’s own Government and China on increasing economic co-operation. More specifically, we have a loophole in the law just now that allows British shipping and shipping insurers to work outside the UK to deliver gas from Siberia to other parts of the world, which aids and abets Putin in his war of aggression against Ukraine. I would like an update on those things.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for Ukraine and for the united front this House has presented and continues to present for Ukraine. Discussions with our European friends on frozen assets are a matter for the Treasury, but I know that Treasury colleagues are continuing conversations to ensure that when the United Kingdom makes a move on particular areas of sanctions or assets, it is replicated by our friends. Indeed, the sanctions we have implemented on Russia’s shadow fleet have been replicated by a huge number of our European and other international allies, to ensure that there is no place for that trade. I am concerned by what the hon. Gentleman says, but I know that the Treasury has been working further with the Foreign Office on how we can strengthen sanctions. However, I am very happy for him to write to me with further details on that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned technology coming from further afield. It is not just technology developed in Asia that we need to worry about; we also need to worry about technology developed in Iran, which goes directly to the frontline and is used by Russian forces to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. That is why we continue to take action against Iranian weapon transfers to Ukraine, too.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the Minister’s statement. It is incredibly welcome to hear that we still fully support the people of Ukraine and will back them financially for as long as it takes. I have two questions for the Minister. First, he mentioned the 11,000 North Korean troops in the Kursk region. He said that they had made little progress—that they had had a few tactical victories, but that it had come at great cost to them. How did he arrive at that assessment, and does he expect North Korean troops to contribute more in the conflict?
Secondly, I increasingly find myself in debates with people who ask why Britain is spending this money in Ukraine—why is it not being spent in Britain? I use the argument that many in this House will be familiar with: when people like Vladimir Putin are given what they want, they always come back for more, whether there is a deal or not. Will the Minister restate at the Dispatch Box why it is in Britain’s direct national interest to ensure that the people of Ukraine win this conflict?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. It is certainly true that the assessment we have made of troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea engaging in combat is a concerning development. It is a dangerous escalation and expansion of Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine, and is further proof that he has no interest in peace. We will continue to monitor what takes place there. My hon. Friend will understand if I do not go into the precise collection methods as to how we came to that assessment, but it is certainly a sign of further Russian weakness that it needs to rely on North Korean troops in the operations it is undertaking in Kursk oblast.
Secondly, on why this matters, I would pose a question that is always useful when thinking about this conflict: do we think Putin would stop if he won in Ukraine? I think we all know the answer. His illegal war would continue against the Ukrainian people, as would his threats against NATO allies, especially those on NATO’s eastern flank. His malign influence would continue to extend to subversion of democracies through attacks on critical infrastructure and cyber-attacks on NATO allies, including the United Kingdom. That is why we have cross-party unity in our support for Ukraine: Ukraine’s security is the United Kingdom’s security.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed the nature of warfare in the 21st century. We are now a generation away from the operations I conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even the conventional warfare I trained for throughout my time in the infantry only a decade or so ago. We have seen how the use of drones has revolutionised the battle space in Ukraine—by that, I very much mean the handheld disposable end of the spectrum, rather than a platform like Watchkeeper—with the pace of their development necessitating a more agile approach to procurement and development. Given that the conflict has evolved over just 1,000 days to be unrecognisable from its initial phases, to what extent are we ensuring that the forthcoming strategic defence review keeps pace with the rapidly evolving nature of aspects of contemporary warfare?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to our country. He is right that we are seeing huge changes in the way that war is conducted in Ukraine, but we are also seeing developments in how technology and different skills can be brought together. A few years ago, I am not sure that many in uniform would have welcomed the suggestion that playing on a PlayStation could train people for military combat, yet we do now see gamers in Ukraine applying their skills to flying first-person view drones through difficult scenarios on the frontline in support of their freedom. It is precisely those lessons that the SDR is seeking to capture. We are using not just lessons from the war in Ukraine, but experience with Russian malign influence elsewhere around the world to inform the SDR. My hon. Friend sitting next to me on the Front Bench, the Minister for Veterans and People, feels—how shall I put it?—incredibly strongly about drones, and I am absolutely certain that the SDR will include a greater role for not only drones warfare but training around drones and modern warfare, as well as a greater role for autonomy in all domains.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the announcement on our ongoing military support. It is critically important that those who wage Putin’s illegal war face the legal consequences for their actions. With that in mind, will the Minister set out the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian domestic legal system to ensure that these cases are prosecuted in their own courts?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. The horrendous activities of the Russian forces in Ukraine should be subject to the fullest extent of not only domestic but international law. The previous Government and this Government have provided not only military and economic support, but legal support. We are supporting the international effort to seek to prosecute not only Putin, but all those who have perpetrated hideous crimes against the Ukrainian people, especially Ukrainian civilians. The effort is ongoing, and I encourage him to table some written questions to the Attorney General’s office, which might be able to provide a more thorough update.
I can assure him that our support for Ukraine extends across the whole of Government and that we will continue to pursue all those responsible for crimes in Ukraine, up to and including the President of Russia. We need to be absolutely clear that this illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine carries consequences. If we do not, and it carries no consequences, it will be a green light for other dictators around the world to seek to change their borders and to attack people simply because they want to. That is not acceptable in an international rules-based system. We must uphold the law. That is why the UK effort, from people in uniform and civilians who support our armed forces, as well as the lawyers seeking to prosecute those crimes, is so essential for the long-term peace and security of Ukraine.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement; there is nobody in this House who does not support what he has said today. It encourages us as MPs and it encourages my constituents, so we thank him very much for his commitment.
Hailing from a nation that has had to have the most highly trained police in the world, I personally know of multiple ex-Royal Ulster Constabulary and ex-military personnel who were stationed in Northern Ireland who train other military forces and police forces across the world. It is right and proper that our forces are able to help our allies—indeed, they should help our allies. Will the Minister confirm that there is no intention for our forces to see direct action in Ukraine, and that our role is that of training, military provision and support?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, through him as a Northern Ireland MP, I thank all those families in Northern Ireland who have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and continue to support them, and the industry in Northern Ireland that is supporting Ukraine. It is the position of the UK Government that we do not have and will not provide UK troops for combat roles in Ukraine. However, we will continue to support our Ukrainian friends through the provision of training and the military equipment they need to determine their future. The training in Operation Interflex will continue throughout the entirety of next year, and will continue to flex and adapt to the changing needs of the Ukrainian fight. It is certainly true that Ukraine needs more people on the frontline to deter the aggression, and our ability to improve and update our training offer, alongside our international partners, will be critical to keeping Ukraine in the fight in the months to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Saving the best Back-Bench contributor till last.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour and a novelty to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The cost of a new year’s dinner in Russia is up over 11%, interest rates are up, taxes are up and the rouble is down. That is largely down to the fact that the previous Government introduced a punitive range of sanctions against Russia. The famous military phrase is “in all domains” and the economic domain is absolutely critical. Can the Minister assure us that we will continue to ramp up economic pressure, as well as military pressure?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is absolutely right that in addition to military support we use all levers available to us as a Government to put pressure on Putin, the Kremlin and his illegal war, and that includes economic measures. It is certainly true that Russia is seeking to find ways to circumvent and evade some of the sanctions put in place not just by the United Kingdom, but by our international allies, too. It is for that reason that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Treasury are updating the sanctions on a regular basis, not only to expand them where we see a revenue stream from activity that directly supports the war, but to put further pressure on the Russian economic system so that staying in the fight becomes a harder and harder choice for them. Ultimately, the war needs to be brought to an end as soon as we can. Our levers, not only military but economic and diplomatic, are essential to being able to bring the pressure to bear on Putin to stop his illegal invasion, withdraw his troops and give all the people in Ukraine, who just wish to get on with their lives free from attack, abuse and intimidation by the Russian state, a decent future. Let us hope that 2025 brings a better year than 2024 was for our Ukrainian friends.
Syria
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the current situation in Syria.
Ten days have passed since Assad’s departure. The Government welcomed the fall of his cruel and barbaric regime, and the opportunity it offers for Syrians. However, while there is some cause for celebration, fighting and violence continue across the country.
The situation in Syria has developed rapidly over the last week. In the north-east, the US-brokered ceasefire between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Türkiye-Syrian National Army has been temporarily extended, but the situation remains highly fragile. In Damascus, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham—or HTS, as I will call them for the rest of the speech—have appointed a Prime Minister to lead an interim Government until March 2025, but they have given very little detail on the shape and focus of that Government.
The UK Government remain committed to the people of Syria. We support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition process based on the principles of UN Security Council resolution 2254 and leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are hopeful that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria will demonstrate a commitment to: the protection of human rights, including for women and girls; unfettered access for humanitarian aid; the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; and combating terrorism and extremism. The UK urges the transitional Government to adhere to those principles to build a more hopeful, secure and peaceful Syria.
On Saturday, Jordan convened an Arab Foreign Ministers’ discussion, followed by a meeting with EU, French, UN, US and UK representatives. All involved, including the UK, reiterated their support for an inclusive political transition process. It is critical that the international community works together in a co-ordinated and complementary manner to ensure the best outcomes for the Syrian people. Along with our partners, we want to see a new political process that is comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, most importantly, determined by the Syrian people themselves. We must also ensure that chemical weapons stockpiles are secured, not used, and that the transition to new governance is peaceful.
For all those reasons, it is right that the UK seeks to use all the channels available to us to deal with HTS where we have to. To that end, senior officials from the FCDO have travelled to Damascus. They have underlined the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discussed the pathway to a more hopeful, representative and peaceful future for Syria with the new interim Syrian authorities and civil society. During their visit, senior officials also discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process that protects the rights of all Syrians and prevents further instability.
Those words are important, of course, but they must be supported by actions, too. The humanitarian situation on the ground remains dire, with over 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance—and that is purely within the borders of Syria itself. That is why, on Saturday, the Government announced a new package of international aid to help the most vulnerable Syrians, including in Jordan and Lebanon, on top of that announced by the Prime Minister on 9 December. The UK’s £61 million in aid will help provide emergency healthcare and nutrition, and support displaced Syrian children. We call on more of our partners to join us in committing greater humanitarian support. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
The House has many serious questions about the decision, announced by the Foreign Secretary to the media rather than to this House, to establish a diplomatic channel with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation, but the Foreign Secretary says that the UK is none the less able to have diplomatic contact. Can the Minister clarify the specific legal basis on which she has established contact? Is HTS the only such organisation operating in Syria that now has a diplomatic channel?
We are now aware that Ann Snow, the UK special representative for Syria, and another senior FCDO diplomat, have met the leader of HTS. Can the Minister tell us who else has made contact? Has contact with HTS leaders only been made via official channels, rather than at ministerial level? I know the Minister will be aware that there is a big difference between the two.
The Foreign Secretary also said that the FCDO is engaging with HTS because it wants a representative and inclusive Government, and an end to violence in Syria. Has the UK conveyed to HTS a clear expectation of what should happen to bring that about? If so, will the Minister now take this opportunity to share that road map with the House? Does she believe, based on those conversations, that HTS will lead a peaceful transfer of power to a genuine civilian Government which protects minority groups?
The Government need to be extremely careful, because by dealing with HTS and publicly doing so, there is a risk of legitimisation of the organisation and its position in Syria. At this stage, does the Minister not agree that that would be premature? These are very early days in the new post-Assad reality, and we need to judge HTS by its actions, not its words.
Now that the Government have embarked on this path, can we expect an unequivocal statement that there is no read-across to other proscribed groups? The integrity of the proscription system is absolutely paramount, and the Government must exercise extreme care not to undermine it in any way. Is it still the case that those who left Britain to support the murderous Daesh regime have no place in the UK, and will the Minister commit herself to ruling out any return of Shamima Begum and others to the UK? We note her comments about chemical weapons; can she provide any further detail on how the UK will push for their destruction?
Let me now turn to the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. We are aware of the Government’s latest aid package to Syria. Two weeks ago, when pressed on aid delivery in Syria, the Minister for the Middle East said he was concerned that practical access for aid agencies would be difficult to maintain, and work was needed to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors. It would be helpful to hear the Government's latest assessment of the situation. The UK has funded more than £4 billion of aid over the past decade and more, but with a terrorist group in control of significant territory, can the Minister assure the House that the only beneficiaries of British aid, including food, water and sanitation, are innocent civilians? British aid must not end up in the wrong hands, so what assurances can she give that the way in which aid is being delivered has taken account of the new operating environment?
There is real concern about what Iran’s next step in Syria might be. There are reports that the regime in Tehran has been in contact with rebel groups, and we need to be very alive to the risk that it may try to re-establish a foothold for its hostile and malign operations in the region. We should be very clear about the fact that would be an awful outcome. We and our allies need to be pulling every diplomatic lever to blunt Iran’s ability to launch a resurgence in Syria, and the House would welcome an update from the Minister on her work on that front.
We all want a stable, peaceful Government in Syria who will protect all groups and minorities, free from the influence of Iran and Russia. That is easy to say, but bringing it about is far more difficult—as will be avoiding an incredibly dangerous power vacuum that could fuel extremism, cause a further breakdown of law and order and bring about a proliferation of criminal activities, including the weapons smuggling and drug production. We need to see a clear plan from the Government that protects British interests at home and abroad, and supports those who sincerely want to protect the innocent Syrian civilians who have suffered so much.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. She has raised a number of issues, with which I will deal in turn. First, she asked about the UK’s engagement with HTS. I did talk about that in my statement, but I can provide additional information. It is clear that the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK from engaging with it in our efforts to help secure a political settlement, or from engaging with any future transitional Government in Syria that includes HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria, and the UK will be guided by a set of core principles for any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syria authorities, with inclusion and the protection of human rights as key considerations. That has been the case until now, and it most definitely will be the case into the future. The right hon. Lady asked about engagement with other bodies at official level. There has been engagement with Türkiye and with the SDF, and that will continue. We are seeking to do all that we can, above all, to ensure that the interests of Syrians themselves are put at the forefront in this very difficult situation.
The right hon. Lady asked about the representations being made by the UK to the HTS. I covered that in my statement, but let me repeat that we have been crystal clear about the fact that any subsequent arrangements must be comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, above all, determined by Syrians. She asked whether this would have any impact on the integrity of the proscription regime; no, and it must not, because that is an incredibly important regime and there will be no linkage. She asked what would happen with those who chose to leave our country to promote and support terrorism by seeking to fight for Daesh; of course those people will not be able to come to the UK. She talked about the use of chemical weapons; I covered that in my statement as well, but, again, the UK will seek to play as much of a part as it possibly can in ensuring that those stockpiles are destroyed after they were used so appallingly against the Syrian people.
The right hon. Lady asked about the use of aid. I have discussed this matter myself, as have many of my officials, with a number of multilateral bodies and with a number of our bilateral partners as well. We are determined to work together to ensure that aid does not fall into the wrong hands and is not diverted. Of course that must not happen, because it is desperately needed by many Syrians. A great many people have already been displaced from Syria to neighbouring countries, but large population movements now seem to be taking place, and it really is important that the aid goes where it is needed. We are, of course, monitoring that in detail.
The right hon. Lady asked about the situation with Iran. The UK has condemned Iran’s reckless and destabilising activity, including its support for militant groups. We have been very clear about that, as the new Government. Finally, the right hon. Lady talked about the need to ensure that we do not see an increase in the developments that have been so concerning, involving the smuggling of weapons and drugs. The UK will focus on that later with the new Government, because we see the damage that has already been caused in that regard.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Earlier this week I met Alevi, Kurdish and other communities who are deeply concerned about what will happen to minorities in Syria now that HTS has seized power there. The UK has rightly proscribed HTS as a result of its links with al-Qaeda. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will use all their powers to prevent HTS and other hostile actors from attacking minorities in Syria?
Anneliese Dodds
Of course we will seek to use every lever in that respect, because it is the position of this Government that all civilians must be protected, and that includes civilians who form part of religious and ethnic minorities. We have also made it very clear that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the political process must be inclusive, and that covers all religious and ethnic minorities. When it comes to the situation for Kurds, I think it relevant to underline the fact that the UK has been in touch with both Türkiye and the SDF since the start of this escalation. We are urging all sides to refrain from activity that could lead to a further loss of civilian life, and of course we want to see the ceasefire being held to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The fall of Assad marks a turning point in Syria’s history, one that brings renewed hope for millions who have suffered under his brutal rule. It also represents a serious setback for the global ambitions of the regimes in Moscow and Tehran. As we reflect on this momentous day, however, we must remain vigilant. It is not enough to see the end of a cruel despot who unleashed chemical weapons on his own people; true justice requires that he be held to account for his crimes, ensuring that such atrocities never reoccur.
In these early days of transition, every effort must be channelled into securing an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. We welcome the signs of engagement with groups on the ground, including those who have had contact with HTS, and we urge all parties to commit themselves to a stable path forward; but this cannot be a mere change of flags or faces. The new leadership must work tirelessly to safeguard the dignity and rights of every community, ensuring that religious and ethnic minorities are not just tolerated but actively protected. Equally vital is the reconstruction of Syria’s infrastructure: investment in roads, schools, hospitals and electricity grids is essential. Restoring those lifelines of society will help to rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for a thriving, inclusive economy that reaches every corner of the country. The international community stands ready to support these initiatives, but we must see clear evidence of genuine commitment to positive, meaningful change.
The Minister mentioned the £61 million of UK aid, which is very welcome. Can she give us the details of how it will specifically support Syrians who are returning to their home country? May I also ask what the Government are doing to work alongside key regional players to ensure that whatever comes next upholds the values of democracy and freedom?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks, and I agree with the way in which he described the current situation. There is no question but that many Syrians felt an enormous sense of relief at the end of such a murderous and brutal regime, but there is deep concern about what will come now. The UK is determined to play our part in ensuring that the future is determined by the Syrians themselves.
The hon. Gentleman asks about accountability. That is an incredibly important point to reflect on, because in recent years we have seen the appalling targeting of so many Syrians by the Assad regime. The UK has played its part, as have many experts from the UK, in seeking to gather information about that. I praise the previous Government for their work in that regard, particularly their work with the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, which has been seeking to make sure that there is coherent collation and use of evidence so that we can address the widespread impunity, and the suffering of the Syrian people, under the Assad regime. Given the change that has taken place, it is really important that we do not lose that information, and that, ultimately, there is the accountability that the Syrian people deserve.
The hon. Gentleman asks for details of the aid that the UK has provided, and about how that will be relevant for those seeking to return to Syria. Of course, many areas of Syria have been appallingly degraded through the actions of Assad, and basic services—water, electricity and other services that are essential for anything approaching normal life—have been destroyed. It will be a long-term process, but the UK is now focused on providing emergency healthcare, support for nutrition and food provision more generally, as well as support for the many displaced children, who have had to deal with such a traumatic period. We will continue to focus on those important issues with our partners into the future.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her statement, and for the additional £50 million in aid. I am particularly grateful for the extra £120,000 that has been given to the OPCW to help rid Syria of chemical weapons, which, despite the denials and downplaying by some people, including Members of this House, were being used by Assad.
My question follows up on the one I asked last week about political prisoners. I am grateful that Sednaya prison looks like it has been cleared, but I hear from my Syrian friends that there are other prisons and secret detention centres across the country. What steps can the UK Government take to help support the Syrians to find any missing people and ensure that they are freed as soon as possible?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. He mentions the terrible use of chemical weapons within Syria. The new Government are deeply concerned about their previous use, but we also want to ensure that they can never be used again on a civilian population. We note HTS’s statement that it will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use such weapons under any circumstances. We urge all parties to comply with international law, including the chemical weapons convention, and to engage with the OPCW so that we can finally make sure that all banned weapons are destroyed.
My hon. Friend raises the issue of those who have been appallingly detained—in some cases, for an extremely long period of time—in horrific circumstances. Accountability around those issues relates to the matters that I talked about a few moments ago. The IIIM is so crucial to making sure that data about Assad’s murderous regime is not just collected, but held and then used to drive accountability.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of reports that up to £160 million is held in assets in the UK under the Syrian sanctions regime. Will she look at ways in which that money can be used in due course for the benefit of the people of Syria?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his question. I am sure that he will understand —indeed, he has followed these issues for many years—that the UK’s sanctions regime is continuously kept under review. The UK has been determined to ensure that where we can use sanctions in order to ensure that there is accountability, we will do so. Of course, we will keep these matters under review and work with partners to make sure that there is accountability.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We welcome the Minister’s statement, and what she has detailed about the efforts of the Department and our Government to create a broad coalition to bring about peace in Syria. Earlier we had a statement on Ukraine from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that we were challenging malign Russian activity, and there was broad consensus across the House. Given the Russians’ malign activity in Syria, does the Minister agree that although we need an inclusive political process that includes the country’s minority groups, it is essential that we have a broad international process?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the critical need for an international process, and the need for continuation of the engagement that we have seen in recent days—first, with Arab countries coming together, and then engagement by the EU, US, UK and others. I want to underline my hon. Friend’s point about Russia. It is clear that with Russia’s military support, the Assad regime was able to continue its brutal campaign against the Syrian people for over 13 years. The sudden fall of that regime has exposed Russia’s weakened state, and the unreliable and self-serving nature of its so-called alliances.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement and the removal of the Assad Government. What assessment have the UK Government made of the Syrian justice system’s capacity to prosecute war crimes, and all the horrendous crimes that were perpetrated against the poor people of Syria during Assad’s regime?
Anneliese Dodds
Sadly, it is very clear that under Assad, we did not see a justice system that was focused on criminal justice and on providing proper accountability. Instead, there was a vast number of political prisoners, and extensive and extremely deep persecution focused on the needs of the regime. Of course, there must be change. As I described in my statement, the UK has engaged with Syria, particularly on the need to prevent further conflict, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to ensure an inclusive and representative political process. That will require the kind of institutions that can uphold an inclusive, representative and comprehensive governance structure. Surely that is the least that the Syrians deserve.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concern that the situation in both Syria and Gaza threatens stability in the wider region, and can she reassure me that the Government are acting urgently to support humanitarian needs in both Syria and Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. It is important for us to understand the situation in many countries in the region. Jordan has a very large proportion of Palestinian refugees, and also has many Syrian refugees. I had the absolute privilege of meeting some of them when I visited the Zaatari camp in Jordan. The UK has been working with Jordan on the Jahez programme, which we announced recently, but we have also been working with the country to ensure that, where possible, we can push forward access for aid into Gaza. I pay tribute to the Jordanian Government for that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I have several short questions. The Minister has already touched on sanctions; the new Syrian leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said that sanctions must be lifted, and that that is not up for negotiation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on how we can move forward.
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the £61 million of support, particularly for healthcare and nutrition, but who will deliver it, and how can we ensure that it is delivered to the people who need it most?
Over the last week or two, we have all seen the unfolding news about the horror of what happened, and not just in the prisons. This week, Channel 4 News has reported that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been buried in mass graves. What are the UK Government’s thoughts on the technical and forensic assistance provided following previous genocides, not least in Rwanda and the Balkans? What support could we provide? The University of Dundee is a world leader in forensics, and I would like it to have the opportunity to hear the Minister’s response.
Anneliese Dodds
I will try to answer the hon. Member’s four questions as quickly as possible, so that others can speak. First, there were already tough sanctions in place against the Assad regime—against 310 individuals and 74 linked entities. As I mentioned, this Government will keep all evidence and potential designations under close review, and we will not hesitate to take further action as needed.
We are working with partners, particularly the UN agencies, on delivering aid. Yesterday or the day before, I discussed in detail with the UN emergency co-ordinator how we will ensure that access is provided, working together in concert. We also need to make sure that there is no duplication, given that there is such need. That is something on which the UK is very much focused.
The UK has been engaged in ensuring that forensic evidence is collected. As I said, much of that work is conducted through the IIIM. It is important that UK experts are engaged, and I pay tribute to the Dundonians who have been engaged in this important work. Clearly, we are hearing very disturbing reports, and it is critical that we have clear, substantiated evidence that can be used to drive accountability. I hope that many UK experts will be involved in that effort.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The end of a vicious dictatorship and the limited progress that has been made under the interim authorities are leading to ever more Syrian refugees, perhaps even millions, returning home. Of course, in principle, this is good, but Syria’s education system, its infrastructure and its healthcare system are devastated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this presents a significant opportunity for the UK to play a huge role in helping Syrians to rebuild their country? British aid agencies, companies and experts in international law can all help to embed stability, and to ensure a democratic transition and an inclusive and more prosperous country for the Syrians.
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, millions of Syrian refugees remain in Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan, and the House has to recognise that a further surge of refugees out of Syria would increase the strain on many other countries and potentially increase the number of people seeking to use dangerous routes into continental Europe and the UK. We need to work on this with multilateral organisations, and with countries in the region, while making sure that we focus on future reconstruction.
We have talked about the destruction of many basic services, and it really will be important to make sure that Syria, as a whole nation and a whole territory, is made inhabitable again; that is the right of all Syrians.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House welcome the fall of the brutal Assad regime, and perhaps very cautiously welcome the early inclusive statements—in part, at least—of Ahmed al-Sharaa, the HTS’s leader, but I have to confess that I am somewhat nervous. Are these statements too good to be true? Does not the international community, particularly the UK Government, need to be careful that it is not being played? In particular, the transitional Government should be judged on their deeds, not just their words and BBC TV interviews.
Briefly, when will the UK embassy in Syria reopen? What will the Government do to ensure the protection of minorities, particularly, at Christmas, Christian minorities, and to make sure that they are represented in the transitional Government and, indeed, the future Government of Syria?
Although some of the biological and chemical stockpiles held in Syria have been bombed by Israel—that is welcome, in my view—we have to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of any rebel group or transitional Government, but are completely destroyed or given over to another authority that can destroy them.
Anneliese Dodds
I covered the nature of the UK’s engagement with HTS both in my statement and in my answers. Of course, it is critical that the UK is clear about the need for a future political settlement to be comprehensive and inclusive, and it must include both ethnic and religious minorities.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Christian minorities in Syria, many of which were appallingly persecuted over many years. As with other minorities, we need to ensure that they are protected into the future. The UK has been resolute on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions chemical stockpiles, and the UK Government have been absolutely clear that those stockpiles must not be used. HTS has made a statement on this subject, and we are determined to ensure that it is held to that, and that all parties ensure that the stockpiles are destroyed, so that they can never be used.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her diligent work on the very challenging situation in Syria. I am sure that she has seen the reports from places like Idlib, Aleppo, Homs and Damascus of women being forced to wear the hijab, young women being escorted, and other restrictions on women’s rights. That is in stark contrast to the position under the autonomous administration in north and east Syria, Rojava; gender equality is baked into its constitutional arrangements. What assessment has she made of HTS’s attitude towards gender equality and women’s rights? Does she think that there should be a ministry for women and gender equality in the constitutional arrangements of a future Syrian republic?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend raises an issue that could not be more important. When we talk about arrangements being inclusive, comprehensive and representative, that must include arrangements for the 51% of the population who are women. We must also see that girls, as well as women, are protected. When we looked at the previous humanitarian situation in Syria, we saw that there were huge issues for many women in accessing family planning and basic health services—those kinds of issues hit women particularly hard. The UK has been supporting the work of the United Nations on family planning, and we will continue to make sure that the UK is a strong advocate, both on a political level and on services for women and girls in Syria.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister might like to welcome the fact that the Israeli air force is systematically destroying chemical weapons, rather than relying on the word of terrorists. Will she comment on the largest occupation anywhere in the middle east, namely that of Turkey in Syria, and on the pro-western Kurdish fighters who are being singly dealt with by the Turks? It appears that the Turkish Parliament now sees an opportunity to annex more and more of Syria, creating a greater Turkish empire. Has the Minister or the Government had any discussions with Turkey about its intentions?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues. I briefly mentioned that the UK has been in contact with Türkiye and the Syrian Democratic Forces since the start of this escalation. As he will be aware, there is a US-brokered ceasefire, and it has to be held to. We have been very clear with all sides that they must refrain from activity that could lead to further loss of life or damage to civilian infrastructure in order to avoid further destabilisation and civilian suffering in the region, which has already been intense and which must not be worsened.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister’s involvement and preparedness to work with the new Syrian Government, and we hope that that will deliver a future free from war and free from human rights abuse. However, the new Government are faced with a country awash with weapons and armed forces from Russia, Turkey, the USA, Israel and ISIS active in the country. What actions has she taken to ensure Israel withdraws from Syria and Turkish forces withdraw from the north of Syria, allowing the Kurdish people to live in peace and with rights of self-determination?
Anneliese Dodds
We are aware that the situation is incredibly complex, and a large number of armed groups, with a variety of different affiliations, are involved. In that context, the most critical issue for the UK Government is that civilians are protected. My goodness, they suffered enough under Assad, and now, with the fall of Assad, we must ensure they are protected. On other nations engaged within Syria, we are clear that it is critical that civilians, including those from minorities, are protected, and that all must work quickly towards an inclusive political transition. As the UN Secretary-General has said, the future of Syria is a matter for Syrians to determine, and that is the position of the UK Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When I speak in the Chamber, I always see myself as a rear gunner. I thank the Minister for her statement and her clear commitment to human rights, prevention of religious persecution and righting wrongs. While I welcome the fall of Assad, I fear for what will replace that regime. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, if we do not —I say “we” collectively—secure democracy, a dictatorship under a different guise will arise. How will the UK and our UN allies ensure that those women and children who have lived through horrific oppression will not simply taste freedom for a short time before entering a new despotic regime? What specific support can our Government give to women and children at this time?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all his work over many years on these and associated issues. He talked about the complex situation that faces us now. As many have reflected, there is relief at seeing the fall of such a dreadful dictator but concern about what may come next. As I have mentioned, the UK Government will do all we can to seek to ensure that the subsequent governance regime is comprehensive, inclusive and representative, and will ensure the safety of civilians, including children. The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK’s approach on support towards children. Within the support we announced a couple of days ago, there is provision for education for displaced Syrian children and also for psychosocial support, which will be important to those young people.
In ending, as we approach Christmas, and particularly off the back of this discussion, now really is a time when we must wish for peace on earth and goodwill to all. I wish everyone in the Chamber, all the staff and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas.
Service Accommodation
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Defence Committee. Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches.
I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, but Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I plan to finish the Select Committee statement after 20 minutes.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is an honour to present the Defence Committee’s first report of this Parliament, which is on service accommodation.
As we approach Christmas, we would all hope that the brave servicepeople who put their lives on the line for our country would all have decent housing, where they could celebrate in the warmth, without fear that their living conditions would put their health or their families’ health at risk. However, that is not always true, as our report and other reports have found. What is more, there is not yet a robust funded plan to put the situation right.
Before I say more about the Committee’s findings, I want to put on record my immense gratitude to my fellow Committee members in reaching strong recommendations on a cross-party basis. I thank members of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, including the now shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who took the evidence that informed this hard-hitting report. In particular, I thank Robert Courts, the former Member for Witney, who originally proposed and led the inquiry. I put on record my gratitude to the House of Commons staff whose hard work made the inquiry possible, especially Sarah Williams, who managed the inquiry with curiosity and care, from conception to report.
Our armed forces personnel dedicate their lives to protecting this nation, often at great personal sacrifice. Ensuring they have access to safe, comfortable and well-maintained accommodation is not just a matter of duty—it is a moral obligation. The Committee’s investigation has revealed a deeply concerning situation that has developed over many years. The condition of both service family accommodation and single living accommodation falls far below the standard our servicemen and women deserve.
We have found instances of dilapidated housing, inadequate maintenance and unacceptable living conditions, including some truly appalling persistent problems with damp and mould; cases of total loss of heating, hot water and cooking facilities for months in winter; flooding; and rodent infestations. Such substandard living conditions directly affect the morale and operational readiness of our armed forces. They are also a significant challenge to recruitment and retention.
Our report highlights systemic failures in the management and maintenance of service accommodation. The current system is plagued by lack of clear accountability and has reached a point of crisis, following insufficient funding over decades. Satisfaction with service accommodation is very low. That is hardly surprising given that a third of single living accommodation and two thirds of service family accommodation are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose.
The Committee has put forward several key recommendations to start to address this situation. We call for detailed funded investment plans for service accommodation, which are crucial to address the backlog of repairs and to bring the housing stock up to acceptable modern standards. Such plans are also crucial to enable effective planning for how best to manage the interim situation in which so much defence housing remains substandard.
For all accommodation maintained under contract, we call for the Ministry of Defence to review the assurance processes and performance measures for those contracts as part of a plan to improve the management of accommodation. There needs to be much more focus on the satisfaction of servicepeople and their families. That must include making sure that complaints processes are accessible and fit for purpose. Better communication with servicepeople and their families is absolutely key, alongside better delivery of real improvements that people value.
The Committee also examined recent developments relating to the allocation of family accommodation—namely, the botched mismanaged nature of it. Both the proposed changes and the subsequent pause in their implementation have caused significant uncertainty for service personnel and their families. The situation underscores the need for clear, consistent communication and highlights the importance of thorough consultation with those affected by such changes.
I want to emphasise that this is not about apportioning blame but about recognising a shared responsibility across Governments, over many years, to do better for those who serve our country. However, it is now for the current Government to put things right. The challenges are considerable and require a meaningful plan of investment and effective delivery and communication.
I warmly welcome the announcement on Tuesday that the Government are buying back the service family accommodation portfolio. The decision back in 1996 to sell the portfolio was a major mistake and was compounded by the terms of the deal, which has been described by the Public Accounts Committee as “disastrous”. It left the public purse billions of pounds worse off and the Government responsible for maintaining and upgrading an estate that was, in effect, owned by somebody else. That is why the situation was a nettle that needed to be grasped.
Buying back the portfolio is the right decision and has the potential to be a real game changer. However, essential though that is, the buy-back will not, in itself, directly improve things for servicepeople and their families right now. Along with my colleagues on the Defence Committee, I will be looking closely at the plan that follows and how it is funded and delivered. I commend the report to the House.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I put on record this Government’s support for the report that my hon. Friend has just published. The state of military housing is not good enough. Too many of our military families are living in poor-quality accommodation, and that is precisely why the Government seek to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. That is why we are bringing Annington homes back into public ownership. That will save the taxpayer £600,000 a day, which is money that can be used to better support our service families. I am grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his work in support of the deal.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this decisive break from a failed past is just our first chance to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve? I hope he will keep the Government honest on our commitments to improve service life and accommodation. Through the work we are legislating for with the Armed Forces Commissioner, I hope his Committee will be able to support and provide ongoing scrutiny of service family accommodation, because decent housing is the least that all our armed forces and their families deserve. This Government are intent on delivering on that.
Mr Dhesi
I welcome the Minister’s comments and, indeed, we will be supporting and scrutinising the work of Government. We look forward to working with the Armed Forces Commissioner as and when they are appointed. As I intimated earlier, Tuesday’s announcement is very welcome, but there is a great deal of work for the Minister and his colleagues to do. The proof will be in the planning and the delivery.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats fully support the findings of the report and we hope it will mark the beginning of a much better and fairer deal for armed forces personnel. For too long, they have been failed by successive Governments. Does the Chair agree that this is a long-overdue change, welcomed by our party and across the House? Our service personnel, who at times put their lives on the line for this country, should at the very least expect to have a warm, safe and secure place to call home. Does he also agree that the backlog and repairs to the basic services he has highlighted are unacceptable and should not be allowed to recur in future?
Mr Dhesi
I could not agree more with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is completely unacceptable that we expect our brave servicemen and women, and their families, to be housed in such substandard conditions. We have instances of damp, mould, rat infestation— I could rattle off so many other things that are completely unacceptable. I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman and look forward to the Government taking immediate and urgent action to remediate things.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the report and I am proud to be part of my hon. Friend the Chair’s team, who have so well encapsulated the witness testimonies and the work that was done by the previous Committee. I join him in warmly welcoming the announcement from earlier in the week and the forthcoming work to bring about a service commissioner to oversee the process and ensure such injustices do not befall our service personnel in future. Does he agree that service housing is the foundation upon which our service personnel serve and commit to our country, and that this is the start of a journey of repairing a very damaged contract that this country has with its service personnel?
Mr Dhesi
I concur fully with my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Given his vast experience of having served in our armed forces, his contribution as a member of the Committee will be substantial, and I know he will bring that experience to bear as we look forward to remediating things. He is correct that service accommodation is the foundation on which we must ensure that our servicepeople have the very best facilities that we as a nation can offer.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the record, I declare an interest: I participated in the inquiry while serving on the Committee in the previous Parliament. I thank the Committee Chairman for kindly pointing that out. Also for the record, we welcome the Annington decision, partly because we had done a lot of work on that prior to the election. I thank the Minister for playing fair on that.
Now that we have hopefully resolved the issue of the ownership of the estate, there is still the question of its management. Changing the ownership does not fix the boiler. Will the Chairman of the Committee be pleased to hear that, in the same bipartisan spirit, we are happy to work with the Department and Ministers to see if we can provide proposals for improving the management of the estate now that, hopefully, we have resolved the ownership question?
Mr Dhesi
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed right, not only in his considerable contribution to the deliberations relating to the service accommodation report, but in preceding years, when he served in such a distinguished manner on the Defence Committee, which, by the way, works on a cross-party basis and the report was agreed unanimously. He is also right to highlight that the management of the contracts will be essential. The Committee’s report has identified the serious problems and now the ball is in the Government’s court as to how they manage that. However, it is great to see the cross-party working and I hope that will help to address the issues in a more timely manner.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Committee’s “Service Accommodation” report and recommendations, but I am not surprised by its findings. I also welcome the Government’s move to purchase back housing stock that should never have been sold off and the hundreds of houses that will bring back to Portsmouth. However, the issue of Ministry of Defence housing is huge, because of the years of managed decline under the previous Government. There has been no real investment, just sticking plasters.
Portsmouth in particular has been underfunded, and those in naval properties miss out more than most, because they can be in their homes for longer than those in other services as they are based at the port. There is a cap on void works, which means that, if a family moves out, the house needs renovating and it will be withdrawn. This causes undue stress to families who have already selected schools, sorted out their removals and left jobs. There is not always a guarantee of a house in the same area.
There is so much to say on behalf of Portsmouth service personnel, but, lifting words from the pages of the report, I invite the Committee and the Ministers to meet me, the contractors and service personnel in Portsmouth to see the reality of the situation.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend is 100% right. She is also speaking with considerable experience, because of the importance of Portsmouth to our nation’s defence, and the sheer scale of its service accommodation. Indeed, I look forward to visiting Portsmouth. The Defence Committee, along with its staff, will be visiting the city very soon. And, yes, every instance of substandard accommodation is unacceptable, and we must collectively work to rectify matters.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Some 40 years ago, I was growing up in army accommodation, because my dad was serving in the Royal Signals. Even then, I remember my parents talking about the problems that they were having with their accommodation. It is extraordinary that all this time later, things have probably got worse, rather than better. I want to put on record that this is about not only service personnel but their spouses and children who live in the accommodation. When service personnel are serving away from home, often for months at a time, the family’s health and mental health is impacted by the quality of their accommodation. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the impact on mental health is important?
Mr Dhesi
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. She has got to the nub of it. If our brave servicemen and women are anxious about what is going on with their families when they are serving around the world, that affects their mental health. It also affects the mental health of the families themselves—the partners and the children. It is extremely important that we rectify matters, otherwise armed services personnel will vote with their feet and walk away.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support this excellent report of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee. May I also ask them to look at the issue of housing for veterans, which is a very important matter? Many veterans in Reading live in poor-quality, rented accommodation, despite the fact that Reading borough council has prioritised their needs in the council house waiting lists. There are simply not enough council houses to go around. We have particular problems with our British Gurkha community who are struggling in poor accommodation. Will the Select Committee look into that matter?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend has been a champion of veterans, particularly Gurkha veterans. I know that he recently visited Aldershot and many other places, including Westminster Hall, to champion their cause. He is right that veterans’ issues need to be resolved. I think that he, along with his constituents, will have been happy with the Government’s recent announcement of homes for veterans, but we must keep pushing to ensure the best possible outcome for our veterans.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish you a merry Yorkshire Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for the Committee’s report. As we are admitting things, let me say that, in the 1980s, I, too, lived in armed services accommodation for a brief period. It is important for us to remember how many children live in armed services accommodation. I have been raising this issue since 2018, at the time of the CarillionAmey contract. Catterick garrison in Yorkshire has one of the largest stocks of armed forces housing, and I know that my hon. Friend knows how poor much of the maintenance work has been. He has already mentioned mould, rats, and conditions that are unfit for children, or anybody, to live in. Does he think that service families who suffered the most egregious examples of poor maintenance should be able to receive compensation from those private companies?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members, speaks with a great deal of experience having lived in service accommodation. When I had the honour recently to visit Catterick, I was able to see for myself some of the service accommodation. We do need to ensure that people are held to account. I have no doubt that the Government will put pressure on those management companies to ensure that compensation commensurate with what people have suffered should be forthcoming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the Select Committee statement.
Point of Order
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alison Bennett
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In today’s urgent question, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), said that the Government would be introducing a “£100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices”, but neglected to say that this money would be available only for capital spending, as confirmed in the written statement published this afternoon. She repeatedly referred to the £100 million sum when asked about what steps the Government were taking to address the cost of national insurance increases for hospices, even though this money will not be available for staff costs. Has Mr Speaker received any indication from the Minister that she intends to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of contributions made by Ministers, I am sure that her concern has been heard by those on the Government Benches. If an error has been made in this instance, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as soon as possible.
Backbench Business
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Christmas Adjournment
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
It seems like only a few days ago that we were having the pre-conference recess debate, yet here we are in the final days of 2024. What a busy year it has been for all of us. We have had general elections, mayoral elections, leadership contests, gnarly Taylor Swift’s Eras tour, the Paris Olympics, and President Trump re-elected to the White House, but still no trophy for Spurs. Perhaps we can put that right in 2025.
I thank everyone who has played a part in making 2024 so special: the catering staff; the House staff; the Clerks; the workmen; the staff in the post offices, hairdressers, bars and shops on site; the security teams; the Doorkeepers; Mr Speaker and his Deputies, and their staff; and my colleagues and all their staff. I hope that everyone has a wonderful Christmas, relaxing with loved ones, friends and family, and I wish everyone the happiest of new years, with peace, health and prosperity. At this time of the year, we should also think of those who are far less fortunate than ourselves.
I have been pleased to take up the role of Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee this year, following in the footsteps of the former Member for Gateshead, after he stood down, having served nine years as Chairman. I pay tribute to his hard work over that time, ensuring that Back Benchers were able to bring their issues to the Floor of the House. I intend to do so in that capacity as well. As it is Christmas, I must say that my display of accismus to the position saw off all the competition. The rest of my Committee and the Clerks have been invaluable in the transition, and I look forward to continuing our work in the new year.
Another addition to my CV this year has been assuming the role of Chairman of the prestigious—well, I would call it prestigious—1922 committee. I am pleased that we have welcomed our new leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who has made a really good start in the five weeks since she was elected. I hope that Labour Members do not get too comfy on the Government Benches, as we will be back in short order. I also thank my fellow officers, my hon. Friends the Members for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for their help and counsel over the past few months. It has certainly been a busy introduction to the job.
Transport for London has continued to be run into the ground, with spending priorities that are short term, political and simply vain. The refurbishment of the Central line needs to be expedited. This is badly needed, because it is my understanding that there are literally no more spare direct current motors for the 1992 stock available, necessitating their conversion to alternating current motors as a matter of priority. That may sound not so important, but the project has been going on for the last five years. TfL now has a completion date of 2029 for the project. That is outrageous. The Piccadilly line is four years behind schedule. The new trains will not come into force until the end of next year; they were supposed to come in in 2011. Now TfL is saying that it does not have funding to upgrade the signalling either.
The Bakerloo line has the oldest working trains in regular service in the UK. Those who have travelled on them know how bad they are, yet TfL ducked the issue of replacing them again, citing funding as the reason. There are no plans to replace the 1972 stock, which many of my constituents have to use from stations in my constituency, but there was money for Mayor Khan to pay off his union paymasters. There was also money to pay for a costly election year fare freeze gimmick, and £7 million to spend on a vanity project regarding the London Overground, to say nothing of the choice of the line names themselves, which are at best virtue signalling and at worst extremely confusing. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that I will not bore the House with the history of the names of the London Underground lines, but they are either historically derived or named after royalty. The Overground lines are certainly not.
I am therefore disappointed that the Government see fit to reward this wanton destruction of TfL with a promotion for the former deputy Mayor for transport—she is the new Transport Secretary—and a possible knighthood for the man in charge of it all. Nearly 200,000 people have already signed a petition calling on the Government to reconsider, and I whole- heartedly agree. Indeed, I would be more than happy to recommend colleagues from the Government Benches who would be far more deserving of a knighthood than Mayor Khan.
We should remember the violence being implemented on Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, and the attacks in—can you believe it?—Canada on Jews and Hindus in their synagogues and temples. That is outrageous. We in this House are all conscious of the escalating situation in the middle east, but there is a clear and present danger that if terrorists remain in Gaza, the conflict cannot have a long-term solution. Indeed, it could drag Hezbollah, Iran and extremist forces in the middle east into a full-scale war with Israel, which none of us want to see. We should understand that the regime in Tehran is pure skibidi. On 25 June, Labour promised that if it was elected, it would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, as many of us had been calling on previous Conservative Governments to do for a number of years. On 8 July, The Guardian reported that the Government would not proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist group in its entirety, completely U-turning on their promise. I call on the Government to correct that error of judgment sooner rather than later.
I was honoured recently to meet the inspiringly brave Mandy Damari—a woman with rizz. Her daughter Emily Damari is still being held hostage in Gaza. Emily is the last British hostage in Gaza. She is an avid Tottenham fan and an innocent young girl taken from her apartment on 7 October 2023. She has not been returned, and she has been shot, wounded and not given medical treatment. It is totally unimaginable what she is going through. We must not let Emily be forgotten, and I urge the Government to work with the Israeli Government to ensure a safe return as soon as possible. The longer Emily is held captive, the slimmer her chances become and the longer she has to endure such dark days. My thoughts and prayers remain with the Damari family and those who have lost loved ones due to terrorism.
Another issue that the Government need to reconsider given the situation globally is their defence spending commitments or lack thereof. They committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as they could. Now that has changed to having a road map to achieve it. In this uncertain world, we need this to be accelerated, not delayed. We have already heard that the Ministry of Defence faces a large funding gap in the current financial year and in 2025-26. In December, the National Audit Office identified a deficit in the equipment plan of £3 billion for this year and a further deficit of £3.9 billion for the following year. The MOD will have to find an extra £1 billion each year to fund the above-budget costs of the 2023 and 2024 pay settlements for the armed forces. It is such an important point that the national interest should not be subject to party politics or spending reviews—the money should be ringfenced.
On 27 January, we mark Holocaust Memorial Day. I am pleased that through January there will be a range of activities to mark it, including the annual book of commitment, which I urge all colleagues, especially those new to the House, to sign. They can place in it their commitment to combating antisemitism and hatred of people because of their religion, race or background. It is saddening that the tensions in the middle east are so frequently spilling over onto our streets, with antisemitic behaviour rising by over 500% compared with pre-7 October levels. We must stand up to that abominable behaviour, not allowing any hate crimes to take place, regardless of race or religion.
During the festive period, it is particularly important to share a thought for those without a permanent home and those sleeping rough. The winter months can be ruthless, with increased hours of darkness and plummeting temperatures. It can be an incredibly lonely period for those without any friends or a home to live in, watching everyone ignore them on the sidewalk while others enjoy quality time with their families. I send my good wishes to my local charity FirmFoundation, which will be providing hostel accommodation once again, and to Crisis and all the other homeless charities, which do such good work. When passing someone who is sleeping rough, do not just ignore them; wish them a merry Christmas. That acknowledgment, with just a few words, could mean a lot to them. However, please do not give them money. Give them food; give them time and attention. Let me mention at this point that, despite my prompting, the Government still have not implemented the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was my private Member’s Bill. I look forward to that happening in 2025.
I thank everyone in my constituency for their hard work over the past year. The support from councillors and activists every weekend, as we continue to knock on residents’ doors, is invaluable and greatly appreciated. The general election was, it is fair to say, very tough for my party, and I am sorry to have seen so many great colleagues depart this place—I look forward to many of them returning. I am eternally grateful that we in Harrow East bucked the trend and increased my majority, and grateful to everyone who helped during that time, come rain or shine. I thank the residents of Harrow East for showing up to vote for me, and the thousands of them who completed my surveys on a range of issues. I have taken up those issues and am organising meetings with the appropriate people to ensure that we get results for local residents. I never take this wonderful job for granted. Come 2025, I will be working tirelessly to stand up for the people of Harrow East, as all Members should do for their constituencies.
I am delighted that the Government have got the Tobacco and Vapes Bill through to Committee stage in this House. I welcome their ambition to inherit the previous Government’s goal of eradicating smoking from society and tackling youth vaping. I look forward to the continued work to scrutinise the Bill and ensure that all appropriate amendments are adopted so that we have a smokefree society in our lifetimes. I pay tribute to my friends at Action on Smoking and Health—in particular to Deborah Arnott, who retired this year after so many years leading the organisation—who have been tireless in providing briefings and meetings, and in hosting events for colleagues and me.
I recently visited the Royal National orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore for a productive meeting. I spoke at great length with Paul Fish, the hospital’s CEO, about future plans and improvements to the hospital. Many of the outbuildings are in dire need of investment to maximise patient care. Back in 2015, I led the campaign to get the hospital rebuilt—at the time, the Care Quality Commission had deemed it not fit for purpose. I am delighted that the previous Government allocated £42.5 million to rebuild the main site into the state-of-the-art centre that it is now, supporting literally thousands of people every year with their problems. As a fan of technology, I was particularly interested as I walked around the new X-ray wing, which has three new scanners specialised in different intricate requirements—we often downplay what the health service does in such specialist areas.
I am reaching the end of my remarks, as you will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I pay tribute to our great friend, the late, great Sir David Amess, who so loved these debates. May he rest in peace and remain in our thoughts. I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, and a happy Hannukah, which starts on Christmas day. I hope that everyone enjoys the rest and a well-deserved break with good food and good company—we will have the debate on obesity and food strategy when we return after Christmas. I also wish everyone a very happy new year. May 2025 be filled with positivity, peace, health and happiness.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I ask Members to invoke the spirit of Christmas and help each other out by keeping their contributions to around four minutes so that we can get everybody in.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Again, in the best traditions of Sir David Amess, I will be going around my constituency. He is sorely missed here, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time—a time of family.
I will raise four local issues, one international, one national, and a partridge in a pear tree—sorry, that sounded better in my head. The first local issue is the accessibility of Bescot railway station, which does not have access for disabled people or for parents and carers. I first made contact with the Minister of State for Transport in September 2022, and despite a meeting in November 2023 with Walsall football club supporters, including disabled supporters, as well as Network Rail and West Midlands combined authority, nothing has happened. I asked Network Rail to look into the matter, and it said that it thought there was a solution and would provide an answer in six months, but we are still waiting. We have legislation enshrined in statute—the Railways Act 1993, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010—but I understand that Bescot Stadium station has been put on the list for 2027. That means that my poor constituents who are disabled or are parents with pushchairs will have to wait until then, which is unacceptable. My constituents are not interested in a feasibility study of a feasibility study, so will the Minister—who it is very welcome to see in her place—raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Transport?
The second issue is bowel cancer. In Walsall and Bloxwich, emergency admissions for cases of bowel cancer are the highest across the Black Country, double those of the next highest. Walsall Manor is the only hospital in the Black Country that does not use robotics for bowel cancer. Why should my constituents have to travel to New Cross hospital to access a quick, easy and cost-effective way to treat this cancer, which is the second most common cause of cancer death? Again, if the Minister would raise this issue with the public health Minister, that would be very welcome.
The next issue is the use of schools and saving the taxpayer money. Sneyd community school was closed in 2011. It was re-established as a university technical college by the University of Wolverhampton and Walsall college. That was closed in 2015, but it is a perfectly viable school. Headteachers in the area have suggested that it could be used as a special school, but instead, public money is being used to destroy the vegetation in Reedswood Park to build a special free school. Joseph Leckie school has offered to work with the council to expand places where they are needed—in fact, it has a waiting list of 30 places for each year. That school needs a new canteen, kitchen and dining hall, and I have been working with it since 2010 so that it gets its full allocation of Building Schools for the Future money, which it has not received. The headmaster has said that he hopes to fund
“an inspirational learning campus that is really fit for purpose”.
I hope the Minister will take that back to the Secretary of State so that we can all work together to ensure public money is used to expand the current schools, rather than build a new school.
Our heritage in Walsall is under threat because the local council wants to close the leather museum and move it to another area. It is the top attraction on Tripadvisor, and I suggest that hon. Members come and visit. It is unique and interactive, with engaging demonstrations of leathercraft. I have been told by the Worshipful Company of Saddlers that most UK businesses in the leather industry are based in Walsall, and leather goods from my constituency are sold worldwide, including by Launer, one of the companies that made the late Queen’s handbags. I am delighted that Baroness Hodge in the other place will be reviewing the Arts Council, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said, culture, museums, arts and libraries are so important to our wellbeing. As such, will the Minister raise this issue with the Secretary of State?
The international issue I want to raise is that of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen who is in prison in Egypt. He has a 13-year-old son, and he is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience. He needs consular access and he needs to come home, so can I ask the Minister to ask the Prime Minister to raise this case?
My final issue is the year of reading. We had a year of reading in 1998 to promote a culture of reading, and again in 2008 to build a nation of readers. Reading for pleasure has diminished, so will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Education whether she will consider having a year of reading in 2026?
Finally, I wish everybody a very merry and happy Christmas, and thank all the staff in this place for their help and support throughout the year—including the Official Reporters, who are looking down—and everybody else who has helped us, including my hard-working staff. I hope everyone has a very peaceful time, given the really hard work we have had this year.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Ahead of the Christmas break, I am delighted to have this opportunity to recognise and celebrate some of the amazing organisations that serve the Scottish Borders all the year round. These groups, and the volunteers who help keep them running, often do not get the praise they deserve, so I want to mark the excellent work of those who provide unbelievable support to so many people all the year round. The generosity and compassion of volunteers and workers across the Borders are incredible.
I want to start by recognising the organisations that provide extra help to our NHS, and to patients and their families. I recently had the privilege of meeting some of the Margaret Kerr fundraising team, who help support the purpose-built, specialist palliative care unit at Borders general hospital. I would encourage everyone to give anything they can to help this wonderful group and to keep the unit operating as effectively as possible for those who need treatment and care. I also thank the volunteers at the Borders Parkinson’s support group. It was a pleasure recently to join the volunteers and service users, and to spend some time with those who attend. The meetings are well attended, good natured and very sociable, so well done to the volunteers for bringing people together in this way.
Beyond healthcare and the NHS, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the passionate community campaigners who want the best for the Borders and who put in the work to make local projects happen. The first of these fine groups is the Campaign for Borders Rail—I have worked with it for many years—which is seeking to extend the Borders railway on to Hawick, Newcastleton and Carlisle. I have been doing everything I can during my time as its MP, and previously as its MSP, to get this extension built. It is disappointing that the new Government have not yet committed to the funding to which the previous Government had committed for the feasibility study, but I will continue to push for that to be delivered. Similarly, I pay tribute to the Rail Action Group East of Scotland for its campaigns to get better train services along the east coast of Scotland and to get the station reopened at Reston a couple of years ago. I particularly want to mention two stalwarts of this campaign, Barrie Forrest and Tom Thorburn, who have done so much to improve rail services over many years.
Beyond the transport network, lots of community groups in the Borders are helping to bring people together. First, I want to mention the Men’s Shed network, which has multiple locations across the Borders to promote the wellbeing and quality of life of local people. We are particularly lucky in the Borders to have the highest number of men’s sheds located there than in any constituency in the UK. Secondly, I want to mention Escape Youth Services in Hawick, which provides incredible support to young people. I was delighted to be able to join one of its sessions recently, and the young people clearly love and enjoy the activities that the dedicated team of volunteers provide for them.
I have a few other groups to mention, including Sustainable Selkirk and the Berwickshire Marine Reserve, which help preserve our environment. I also want to mention the local people who help promote our high streets, because without thriving high streets with local businesses and shops, our communities would be greatly diminished. The team behind the Galashiels business improvement district recently had a huge success in persuading local businesses to back its plans, and I would also mention the General Store in Selkirk and Café ReCharge in Galashiels.
To conclude, I wish every Member of the House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year when it comes. Christmas is a time to be thankful, and I particularly want to thank the UK armed forces personnel who will sacrifice their own festive break to serve our country. Their selfless sacrifice and dedication should be an inspiration to us all. The same goes for those in the NHS and the emergency service workers who work through the festive period to keep us healthy and safe. We owe them all our gratitude for continuing to do their duty while most people take time off. Although their efforts are not as critical as those of our armed forces and emergency services, we should not forget hospitality workers and small business owners who also work through the festive season.
Finally, I hope we will all take the chance over Christmas to think of those less fortunate than ourselves, and to look out for our neighbours, who may be lonely or struggling more at this time of year. Even the smallest gesture of generosity can mean a lot to someone who may not have others to look out for them. Happy Christmas to everybody.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I want to highlight a few key issues in my constituency that I have been proud to work on since I was elected in July and flag up some issues that we intend to push in the future.
I want to start with the Hitachi train factory in my constituency. I campaigned on it for two and a half years, and it is a source of huge pride. Many of us in this House spend a lot of our lives on trains and any of us who have travelled with London North Eastern Railway, Great Western Railway, Avanti, East Midlands Railway or ScotRail will probably have been on a train built in my home town of Newton Aycliffe. That is a source of huge pride to the 750 workers who operate the plant, but also to the 1,500 people who work in highly skilled engineering jobs in the local supply chain.
I am incredibly grateful to the work of the Prime Minister, FirstGroup, Angel Trains and others who came together to arrange a £0.5 billion deal to help secure the future of the factory. It is important because that factory sits on the line of the original Darlington to Stockton railway, the world’s first passenger railway, which celebrates its 200th anniversary next year. That is incredibly exciting, and I am sure we can agree across the House that if 200 years ago we were leading the world in passenger rail, we as a country can do that again now. It has been fantastic to secure that factory, and I look forward to working with ministerial colleagues and others as we continue to ensure it goes from strength to strength.
We also need to work on making sure that the rail manufacturing industry, not just in my constituency but in Derby and other proud railway towns, has a sustainable future. I would like to work with ministerial colleagues and others to ensure that.
The second key issue we have worked on to push high-tech jobs has been to find a future for the Octric semiconductor factory in Newton Aycliffe. It was opened by the late Queen in 1991 and had some fantastic commercial orders from Apple and others but, crucially, was making semiconductors for the future fighter jets programmes that the United Kingdom was developing with our allies. After commercial contracts were moved abroad, there was a real threat to the semiconductor supply that is critical for our defence capabilities. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Defence Secretary for stepping in to secure this plant and this sovereign supply of these crucial components which are central to our defence. I was grateful to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry last week to talk about how going forward we can expand the skilled jobs and opportunities and apprenticeships in that factory, and the contribution it can make to our national defence.
There are real opportunities in the defence sector and in defence-adjacent companies to make sure we can provide more support, more opportunities, and more chance for innovation. At NETPark—North East Technology Park —in my constituency, just outside the village of Sedgefield, we have incredible businesses. Durham University spin-outs are creating satellite technology and producing radiation detection equipment used in Ukraine, making a huge contribution to the defence of the UK and our allies, but some of those businesses, because they are small and medium-sized enterprises, have said they sometimes find it easier to contract with NASA than with the Ministry of Defence. I am very grateful for the work of Defence Ministers in looking into this but we must open up more opportunities for SMEs to contribute to our defence and innovation in that sector.
On the topic of defence, I have thoroughly enjoyed taking part in the RAF strand of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and pay tribute to all the service personnel I have had the honour to meet around our country. When elected, I did not expect to go to Anglesey by Chinook, and I did not expect to jump off a five-storey platform to sample basic parachute training, but what a privilege it has been to see at first hand not just some of the activities of our forces but some of the fantastic capabilities we have around the country.
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in asking everyone in this House to remember that while we, hopefully, have some downtime over Christmas, our armed forces here and around the world remain on 24-hour alert to defend us and defend our allies. Our thanks go to them for all the work they do.
Moving to some Christmas cheer, Members will be relieved to hear that I have decided after much thought not to release a Christmas single—a decision made in the public interest—but I pay tribute to Spennymoor town band and Spennymoor youth band, who put on a fantastic brass band concert on Saturday. I want to pay tribute to them not just for the quality of the music, but for the fantastic work that brass bands like Spennymoor town band do to train up the next generation of young musicians, and to provide free music lessons in communities where many parents would struggle to give access to such high-quality tuition. The musical culture of our communities in County Durham is vital, and I put on the record my thanks to Spennymoor town band and youth band for all their work, particularly Hugh Stephenson, the president, and Fiona Casewell, the musical director. I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker and all the House staff a merry Christmas and all Members a happy new year.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this year, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on headlight glare and the increasing road safety risks resulting from modern vehicle headlights. I did so having read an article in my local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, reporting on a study carried out by the Royal Automobile Club, and it emerged from the debate that the Department for Transport is undertaking research. Last week, in business questions, I raised the matter with the Leader of the House, and I appreciated her reply saying that she would get the Minister to follow up. I was planning on raising the matter in this debate anyway. I look forward to receiving that update, but I hope that mentioning it yet again today will keep it on the Department’s agenda.
We all know that lighting technology has changed considerably in the past decade or so. Clearly it is to everyone’s advantage that vehicles are well lit, particularly for pedestrians, but there can be no doubt that the amount of glare has increased, and the Minister who responded to my May debate acknowledged that he was receiving far more correspondence on this matter. Dr John Lincoln of LightAware, a charity that explores these issues, explains that although the human eye can adapt to a wide range of light levels, from bright sunlight to almost total darkness, it cannot do so in a short space of time. He went on to detail the various scientific issues involved. I appreciate that the issue is complex and that the Department will have to do much research before introducing any regulations, but it is important. It is not just that the lights are much brighter, but that some vehicles seem to have far more than required. There is also the issue of street furniture, such as where vehicles passing over road humps can glare oncoming drivers.
Last January, the RAC published the results of its research, showing that 89% of drivers think that some or most headlights on the roads are too bright. Some 74% said that they were regularly dazzled. That might result in part from the fact that we have many more larger vehicles on the roads, and they sit higher off the road. LightAware has carried out extensive research on that, and I hope the Department will soon conclude its own research. The College of Optometrists has suggested that as many as half of motorists over the age of 60 may have early-stage cataracts in both eyes. That makes them even more vulnerable to glare from oncoming vehicles. I hope that we can fairly rapidly conclude that research and bring forward new regulations to improve road safety.
I will touch on one or two constituency issues. I am sorry to bore Members about this issue, but I can tell new Members that the only way to get success in this place often is to bore Front Benchers so that they eventually take action. In 2011, I first raised the issue of direct train services from my constituency—then called Cleethorpes—to King’s Cross, which were withdrawn by British Rail in 1992. I am still campaigning. Along with my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), we now await a meeting with yet another Minister from the Department for Transport to hopefully restore that service. As I have mentioned to many Transport Secretaries over the years, my constituency has 10 railway stations, an international airport and the largest port in the country, yet we still cannot have a direct train service to London. That is crucial to the development of industry in the area and is fully supported by big business. The Hull and Humber chamber of commerce has done much research on it. I very much hope that it will be brought forward in the not-too-distant future.
I see that my time is running out, so I will restrict myself to just one other railway issue. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talk about the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail, I hope that we can all join in marking that occasion. It will not be marked in Brigg, though. The rail service between Gainsborough, Brigg, Grimsby and Cleethorpes has one train a day and allows people only 90 minutes to enjoy the sunny sands of Cleethorpes or the excellent shopping in Grimsby. It is pointless to run one service a day and give people only 90 minutes at their destination. The service is run for the convenience of Northern Trains, rather than for passengers. I see the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), nodding; I hope that the message will get through to the Department for Transport.
I could go on for much longer, but I conclude by saying happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members and staff, and a prosperous and safe new year.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I have fully enjoyed and embraced my first five months as Member of Parliament for Southend West and Leigh, despite, like many Members, experiencing the whirlwind effect of settling into this place, setting up my new offices, and recruiting my team. I have met many people and hundreds of organisations over the last five months. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to bring to the House’s attention four amazing projects in my constituency.
The Music Man Project is a UK charity founded in Southend-on-Sea in 2000. It provides a music education and performance service for people with learning disabilities, and teaches children and adults to sing, sign and play original music and new arrangements. David Stanley, who founded the project, has taken it from strength to strength. There are now 14 regional Music Man Projects around the country, but the central hub remains in Southend. When I visit the project during rehearsals or see one of its performances, my mood is immediately lifted and brightened. I attended its Christmas concert just last weekend, and it was simply amazing to see the participants all living their best lives. I am delighted that His Majesty the King has awarded the project the King’s award for voluntary services. I am sure that you will join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in congratulating it. The late Sir David Amess, former MP for Southend West, was a trustee and big supporter of the project. He had the vision that one day its participants would perform on Broadway, and that is exactly what they are now aiming to do in memory of Sir David. Through fundraising efforts, I hope that they will manage to make that dream a reality, because they really deserve it. If any Members would like to contribute to getting them there, that would be greatly appreciated.
I am equally proud of the work of Southend food bank, under the umbrella of the Trussell Trust. It has eight outlets in Southend in total, five being in my constituency. More than 20,491 emergency food parcels were provided by Southend food bank in the past 12 months, with more than 8,000 going to children. Southend food bank has sadly seen a 36% increase in the number of parcels it is distributing. I thank the entire team of volunteers for their outstanding work in delivering that vital service week in, week out. I am delighted that the Government have hit the ground running to tackle child poverty with the child poverty taskforce. I look forward to seeing their work progress.
St Vincent’s was established in 2000 in Southend, inspired by the work of the St Vincent de Paul Society in the area. It provided 20,500 hot meals in the last year to homeless people through its kindness kitchen, as well as a range of other services. I want to talk briefly about Matt Fright, whom I met at a St Vincent’s fundraising dinner. Matt previously suffered from drug and alcohol addiction, and was even caught up in drug dealing and ended up homeless. Through St Vincent’s, he has totally turned his life around, and now works as the lead facilitator of its smart addiction programme and its hungry cupboards programme, which is part of its 3D printing work. It is a truly wonderful story of transformation. I was delighted to hear the Government announce a near-£1 billion investment for councils to break the cycle of homelessness.
Finally, I want to briefly recognise Andy’s Man Club, which opened at Southend United football club in May 2021. Andy’s Man Club, which has groups all around the country, is a space where men can go and speak openly about their mental health in a non-judgmental, non-clinical environment. Men in particular can find it difficult to discuss their mental health, and to open up about how they are feeling. Just this past month, I have personally seen the devastating effect of poor mental health going wrong. It has a heartbreaking effect on those who are left behind. We need to do much more to get men talking and opening up about how they feel, so I am pleased that the Mental Health Bill is making its way through the other place, and will reach this place next year.
As we enter the festive season, I thank all our blue-light workers, hospital staff and others who will keep us safe and well this Christmas season—and all year round.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker, the House staff, all Members, their teams and my wonderful team, as well as the constituents of Southend West and Leigh, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Happy Christmas, everyone. Patricia is a young, intelligent woman with a severe eating disorder. Despite the tireless work of professionals involved in her care, her mental health treatment needs are not being met, and her progress has stalled. The east of England provider collaborative, which is responsible for referrals to specialist eating disorder units—SEDUs—is intended to ensure co-ordinated care close to home, but in Patricia’s case, it has failed profoundly. Since becoming involved in July, I have observed a pattern of miscommunication, delays and systemic neglect. My attempts to engage with professionals at the Cambridge and Peterborough foundation trust, which provides local eating disorder services, were initially referred to lawyers, and the communications relationship between Patricia, her family, and care providers is all but broken. Meanwhile, there appeared to be no overall co-ordination of or plan for Patricia’s care.
This summer, Patricia stabilised medically during a long admission at Norfolk and Norwich hospital. She was promised an assessment for referral to a SEDU, but faced prolonged delays, only to be rejected for admission. She was devastated, yet resolved to continue to seek help. At the time, I accepted that it might simply be the case that Patricia was not medically stable, despite that being at odds with what her clinicians at the hospital were saying.
National NHS guidance requires
“coordinated care and efforts to reduce and prevent gaps during service transitions”,
yet Patricia’s transitions between services have been anything but co-ordinated. Crucially, she has been denied care based on her disability and mobility needs. In meeting with those involved in her care, I sought closer collaboration between acute and mental health trusts, a patient-centred care plan, a dedicated caseworker and the appointment of an external specialist. Instead, the response was a shared email inbox—hardly the co-ordinated expert oversight required.
Patricia’s eating disorder is not “treatment-resistant” or “untreatable”, as some have claimed; these terms lack empirical basis and perpetuate stigma. Yet Patricia has been judged for behaviours symptomatic of her condition —at one point, her care team removed her from a SEDU waiting list after she “confessed” to such behaviours. This stigmatising approach is unacceptable.
Patricia’s complex needs, including autism and pathological demand avoidance, require an integrated approach. Some of the things that I and others have advocated for her to receive have been denied; others are taking a very long time to materialise. I understand that external psychiatrists are no longer invited to the weekly meetings about her care. Instead, the same individuals who seem to have given up on her also advise the integrated care board, creating a troubling conflict of interest. The collaborative care model appears to have failed her, and concerns raised by other professionals have been ignored. That led me to request NHS England’s intervention. Disturbingly, I learned that Patricia’s court ruling, which prevents forced treatment, is being used to justify withholding all care unless she complies with rigid, unattainable demands. That ultimatum—our way or the highway—is unethical and counterproductive, particularly for someone with autism and PDA.
Further, Patricia’s care documentation reveals a fatalistic approach that misrepresents her condition, effectively ensuring rejection from SEDUs. I believe this is a systemic issue, reflecting the toxic ideology in certain parts of the eating disorder treatment system that some patients are untreatable and should not be treated. This ideology, detailed in a controversial article in the Royal College of Psychiatrists newsletter, has no basis in evidence, yet it appears to influence Patricia’s care. She is sadly not alone in facing that. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, yet Patricia has been systematically excluded from lifesaving treatment. NHS guidance has been repeatedly breached. CPFT rejects external opinions, and even offers of eating disorder specialist therapy support within the hospital setting. Patricia needs a stable, specialist placement, with integrated medical and mental health treatment, yet she remains trapped in a cycle designed, I believe, to have her fail.
Clinicians who find themselves believing that there is nothing that can or should be done in a case should step aside from any role in it, not preside over it. Differences of opinion are essential to developing areas of healthcare, but they should be supported by supervision and challenge, not be encampments of ideology. Characteristically, Patricia refuses to die. I urge the House to support direct NHS England commissioning of a SEDU placement for her, bypassing CPFT and its affiliates. Her case needs a proper second opinion, and we need support for settings that are being asked to consider admitting her. The case will then need very careful handling to ensure her consent and participation, but I believe that can be achieved.
Patricia’s experience is a stark reminder of the injustices faced by vulnerable individuals in a system that should protect them. Her story echoes other national scandals where institutional neglect has caused immense harm. I am speaking today because Patricia, her family and I are at our wits’ end. She has a huge amount of value to offer the world. She is at a desperate stage of her illness, yet she refuses to give up. Treatment is her only chance and we must not abandon her. She will continue her fight. Her family will continue to fight, and I will be by their side every step of the way, but the NHS must act urgently to hold its services accountable, ensure adherence to guidelines, and provide the care that Patricia and countless others deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, I will have to impose a four-minute time limit.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in today’s debate. As we approach the festive season, I extend my warmest wishes to everyone in the House—to you Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the dedicated staff who help make this place so special and kind.
Christmas offers a timely opportunity to reflect on the achievements, community spirit and remarkable individuals who make up the heart of our constituencies. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the individuals, charities, businesses and organisations that make Suffolk Coastal such a special place. One such group is Pitstop in Felixstowe, where Liss and her team of volunteers do exceptional work supporting young families in need. Their work goes beyond providing material things such as food and clothes. They work to ensure that no family feels isolated or alone. That is especially important during the holidays, but important at any time of year.
The Woodbridge branch of the Salvation Army is a shining example of our community giving back. During my recent visit, I had the pleasure of meeting Alan, Tanya and their team of volunteers, who work tirelessly to provide food and essential supplies to those facing hardship or loneliness. A few weeks ago, I held a pop- up surgery at the Salvation Army’s food bank. Citizens Advice was there to provide financial support to those in need. I was able to provide financial advice and give support to people who face real and pressing poverty, and to those who had unexpectedly found themselves on hard times. That was a pretty normal surgery experience for me.
Then I met Edward. Edward is 42 and street homeless. He was a fisherman previously, in Aldeburgh. He had a stable job, a home and a relationship. When things started to go wrong for him, as they do for us all at some time in our lives, it affected his mental health, which meant that he turned to drugs. The drugs took over his life, and it spiralled from there. When I met Edward the other week, he was clean. He had managed to get clean on his own, and had been sofa surfing, but then, naturally, the good will of his friends ran out. When that luck ran out, he had moved into a disused caravan on private land that he had found near Woodbridge. His only coat had been stolen some days earlier. My team were able to get him some emergency help, and it was the Salvation Army that so kindly stepped in and bought him a brand-new coat from Mountain Warehouse on the same day. He was later placed in emergency temporary accommodation, and he is now being supported by the council; but it was that friendship and support from the Salvation Army that gave him the first glimmer of hope that he had felt in months, with a warm meal, a new coat, and a safe place to begin the journey to find temporary accommodation. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Salvation Army, and, indeed, to all those groups that do so much to support our constituents.
Woodbridge is one of the many beautiful market towns in my constituency that tourists flock to, and just the other week it was voted the happiest place in the country in which to live. As someone who lives in Woodbridge, I wholeheartedly and unapologetically agree. However, whenever I talk about the beauty of Suffolk Coastal I feel a desperate need to talk about the other side of the constituency as well, and Edward’s story is a real reminder of that. I fear that many people do not see the poverty or the struggles facing so many people in my constituency. In Suffolk Coastal we have 23% of children on free school meals, but in Southwold, the place that the tourists coo over, we have 39%, and in just one primary school in Southwold one in two children receive it.
We have food banks in every single town in my constituency, and they are growing in each of our villages and parishes. We have a housing waiting list that only increases each year, with 150 households in east Suffolk living in temporary accommodation—which means that this Christmas, 188 children will be living in hotels or B&Bs. That is no way for any child to live at any time of year. The work of our community to fix some of the most pressing issues must be commended; I have already talked about the work of some of our amazing food banks, and it does not stop there.
As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I believe that the Government should be holding a debate on the UK-wide impact of the closure of the port of Holyhead. Although ports in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Government, international trade is a matter reserved to the UK Government, and Holyhead’s strategic location is key to the UK economy. Westminster cannot ignore this issue.
The port sustained serious damage in the aftermath of Storm Darragh, and all sailings have been cancelled until 15 January at the very earliest. The storm brought gusts of up to 94 mph and caused enormous disruption to the port, which provides the main sea route between north Wales and Ireland and is the UK’s second busiest roll-on roll-off port. Its closure just before Christmas has had a direct impact on livelihoods and businesses on the island: the sudden ending of freight traffic means that businesses have seen their work vanish overnight.
This is pushing local businesses to breaking point. The owners of Royalty Recruitment, a family-run business, told me that they had had to let 10 brand-new staff members go, three of whom had only recently joined them. Holyhead Truck Service is another local business that has been affected; it has seen its work dry up completely, as 40% of its annual income is from mechanical work for Irish companies. This time of the year would usually be the busiest period for these businesses, but now they are facing huge job cuts and reduced demand owing to the closure of the port. The sudden loss of income is unsustainable for many businesses, and job losses will push families into financial hardship, leaving them struggling to pay their bills.
In a statement earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Wales did not announce any direct support from the UK Government to address the crisis. I am certain that if we were talking about the Port of Dover or an airport in London being closed for at least a whole month, there would be a huge effort to get the site open again and to support the thousands of supply-chain jobs affected, but so far Holyhead has been treated as an afterthought. The UK Government must recognise the huge impact that the closure of the port will have not only on trade—given that total UK exports to Ireland amount to £54 billion and that Ireland is the UK’s third largest export partner—but on the livelihoods of the people of Ynys Môn and north Wales. They should set up a hardship fund to support businesses and families directly affected by the closure, as well as those involved in the supply chain. The funding should be directed towards the council and third sector organisations that are best placed to offer financial and other support to those struggling.
The port operator says that the earliest the port may open is 15 January. However, that is with weather permitting, and I fear that more cold and stormy weather at this time of year will push the date back. Once the port reopens, the damage done to the local economy will take time to heal. Decisive action by both the UK and Welsh Governments is needed to minimise the damage and the suffering that people will be feeling. As climate change fuels more violent storms, the Port of Holyhead will be vulnerable to closure again.
The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), has joined my calls for support for businesses. She wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade yesterday to seek an update on the support that the UK Government are providing to get the port back up and running, and to all businesses and employees impacted by the closure. The Government must step up and provide the emergency funding needed to get us through this difficult period of time.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Given the festive season, I thought it appropriate to use this time to celebrate my constituency and to say a few thank yous. Most importantly, I thank the people of Luton South and South Bedfordshire for re-electing me as their Member of Parliament in July. Following boundary changes, I am proud to represent the good people of south Bedfordshire; a number of villages and swathes of beautiful countryside have been added to the urban landscape of the constituency. I am grateful to people in the new part—including Kensworth, Studham and Eaton Bray, to name but a few places—for electing me, because some of them had never voted Labour before. The new constituency boundary also means that I now represent more animals than ever before—if that is a thing—given that Whipsnade zoo and Appledown rescue and re-homing kennels are both within Luton South and South Bedfordshire. I thank all who work or volunteer with those great charities. My rescue dog, Maisie, would of course want me to remind everybody that a dog is for life, not just for Christmas.
It is an honour and a privilege to represent my home town of Luton—the place where I grew up and went to school, where I live, and where I previously represented residents as a local Labour councillor. This place can be a bit intimidating at times, but I always remember where I came from when faced with challenges. I am Luton born and bred, which keeps me grounded every day.
Luton sometimes has an unjustified bad reputation, but we have plenty to be proud of, and I want to focus on the positives that our town has to offer. This year, Radio 1 brought the Big Weekend to Luton. It was a wonderful opportunity to showcase our town, with brilliant musical performances from stars including Sabrina Carpenter, Teddy Swims, Raye and, much to the delight of many Lutonians, Coldplay. They made up a song entitled “Orange” to celebrate the colours of our brilliant Luton Town football club—but I do not need Chris Martin to say, “I was born in love with Luton and I’m always gonna be.”
Speaking of our football club, it is a brilliant and exciting time for LTFC. This week, the planning committee at Luton council formally approved plans for the new Power Court stadium development. It marks a huge moment of regeneration in our town, with plans for restaurants, a hotel and a music venue alongside the stadium, making Luton a destination not only for football, but for entertainment.
A place is only as good as the people in it, and our beautifully diverse and vibrant community across Luton South and South Bedfordshire is what truly makes the constituency so special. There are some wonderful community organisations and charities that do so much to support those in most need. I thank Luton food bank, as well as NOAH and Signposts, for supporting many people in need. I thank Luton Irish Forum, which provides invaluable support, including debt and welfare advice and so much more. I thank Luton citizens advice bureau for all it does, and for the guidance and support that it offers people across the town in times of need.
We have excellent organisations dedicated to supporting women and girls, and I thank Women’s Aid, Luton All Women’s Centre and Stepping Stones. A healthy society can only be achieved by ensuring that we have support for those who need it, particularly with regard to mental health. I thank Healthwatch Luton, Mind BLMK, Headway, our community mental health hubs and local Samaritans for all that they do. Alongside our civic society, we must remember our faith communities, who, during 14 years of Tory austerity, stepped up to fill the welfare gap that the previous Government created in towns like ours.
Finally, I want to mention all our public service workers who sacrifice so much to keep us healthy and safe, many of whom will not get to rest over Christmas, including Bedfordshire police, Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and all our doctors, nurses, paramedics and NHS staff at Luton and Dunstable hospital.
Merry Christmas and happy new year to one and all.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I often think of our role as place-makers, problem solvers and great representatives of our constituencies, and on that basis, I say a huge thank you to all of my constituents for re-electing me. There is loads of fuel in the tank to keep me going in representing the mighty constituency of Keighley and Ilkley with great enthusiasm and energy. I reaffirm my commitment to doing my very best as their local champion.
Of course, place-making is all about driving local growth within our communities. That is why I want to go through some of the key projects across my constituency that I am honoured to be working on. A lot of this work comes on the back of money from the last Conservative Administration, who allocated and ringfenced £33.6 million specifically to Keighley through the Keighley towns fund. This funding is aimed at driving growth by using public sector money to try to drive private investment into the centre of Keighley.
One of those great projects is Providence Park, which is due to open early next year. Next door to that, we have Keighley train station, which has just benefited from a £9 million funding allocation. Further along the same road, Keighley fire station is undergoing development. We also have a new skills hub, a new manufacturing, engineering and tech hub, and a new health and wellbeing hub coming down the line shortly. That is not to mention our mighty Keighley Cougars, to which the last Conservative Administration allocated £2 million to regenerate the stands for the benefit of fans. Haworth village hall is benefiting from money to make sure that our community groups can continue their range of activities. Keighley central hall is also benefiting from money. The building of a new sixth-form college has also been announced. I urge the Government to stick to this plan, as I know it is currently under review. We need this new sixth-form college, announced by the last Conservative Administration, to be completed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, your constituents will also benefit from our new Airedale hospital, which is a huge achievement. From the moment I was elected in 2019, I campaigned tirelessly for ringfenced money to get our new hospital built, and I am very pleased that work is under way.
We also have the city of culture—or, as I like to call it, the district of culture—coming to the Bradford district. It is incredibly important that Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley all benefit from the money that is coming to the Bradford district.
I also say a huge thank you to our small businesses. I hold small business awards every year, and I am incredibly grateful to everyone in my constituency who nominated our mighty small businesses. I am very pleased to say that this year’s winners were: Within the Wood, from the Worth valley; Clara’s Closet, from Keighley; Raymond Town Menswear, from Ilkley; and Isherwood’s butchers, from Silsden, which won our overall small business award. Thank you to those small businesses that keep our local economy going, and to all those who shop local.
Before closing, I would like to say that I was very saddened to learn of the death of an individual who worked tirelessly as chair of the Keighley towns fund. Unfortunately, Ian Hayfield passed away just a couple of days ago, and I want to put on record my incredible thanks for his tireless energy in driving positive growth in Keighley. I am sure everyone in Keighley will want to do the same.
I thank everyone in my constituency for their efforts in the run-up to Christmas, and I wish all Members a very happy Christmas.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Like him, I would like to continue the wonderful tradition of our late colleague from Southend and do a brief tour around my constituency of Reading Central, starting with a quick word about Reading football club, talking about Reading gaol and local art, and moving on to thank small businesses and charities.
The wonderful Reading FC is one of the longest established clubs in the English league, but sadly, because of poor ownership, it is currently languishing in league 1. The club has a glorious history, has had many great cup runs and holds the record for scoring the highest ever points total in the championship:106 points—99 goals— in the 2005-06 season. If I had one request for Santa, I would ask that Reading FC has a new owner for Christmas. I would like to see Dai Yongge pack his bags and head home, and a new owner, who can take the club forward, come in, invest in its future and get us back into the championship. Who knows, maybe we can get back into the premiership, in which we played for three seasons, over two stints? If we could achieve that, it would be truly wonderful and every child in Reading would be delighted; it would be the best possible Christmas present they could ever wish for.
Dai Yongge has had the club up for sale for a year and has turned down two bids. Sadly, he was associated with two overseas clubs that closed, so there is a great deal of concern from fans and other local residents about the future of the club. We have also lost the manager recently, who has moved to Hull City. I wish the new manager, Noel Hunt, well, but there are real concerns about the future of the club. I hope that Dai Yongge can listen, sell the club and move on.
On Reading gaol, we have better news. I wish the new owner, Reading borough council and Historic England well in their efforts to try to turn the wonderful former gaol into something special, by redeveloping it in a constructive way and providing a significant amount of arts provision in our town centre. Oscar Wilde was incarcerated in Reading gaol. It is an incredible building and a wonderful example of early Victorian architecture. If it were open to the public, it would prove to be an incredible visitor attraction. It was briefly open in the mid-2010s when Artangel held installation art and poetry readings in the gaol, which attracted thousands of people from across the country. Having the gaol as an arts hub would be worthy of our town; it has a very successful music festival and many other arts activities, but it does not have an arts venue of this type. I am campaigning for that and I look forward to success in the new year.
Finally, I cannot mention all the winners of my small business competition individually, but I thank them for their efforts in driving growth in our local economy, providing employment and making our town centre, and other local centres, vibrant places to visit, which shoppers and other residents much enjoy. I pay tribute to the many charities in the Reading area that do wonderful things at Christmas, and all year round, in particular Toys and Teens, which is a fantastic appeal that has made many children very happy at Christmas, and the many other wonderful local charities. I also thank all those working at Christmas, particularly those in our NHS, other emergency service workers and many others who provide vital services while we are all enjoying Christmas with our families.
Before I finish, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues, all our colleagues across the parliamentary estate, including the Doorkeepers and the other staff who make this place such a wonderful place to work. I wish the public, especially residents in Reading, a very happy Christmas and a wonderful new year.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
People up and down the country are big fans of Formula 1, so I am honoured to congratulate McLaren, based in my constituency of Woking, on the extraordinary achievement of winning the constructors’ championship, the first time it has done so since 1998. That monumental success is an indication of the hard work and innovation of the team at McLaren. I have submitted an early-day motion congratulating McLaren on championing the UK’s leading role in Formula 1.
McLaren’s victory represents far more than a sporting win. It shows British high-quality manufacturing at its best—that is what we, as a country, do so well—and although I am focusing on McLaren and Formula 1, our high-quality manufacturing is excellent in other areas too. In Woking, we are immensely proud to be the home of a team that has not just won Formula 1, but stands at the cutting edge of technology, engineering and high-quality manufacturing. McLaren is a major employer in Woking, offering high- quality jobs and training opportunities. It embodies the kind of forward-thinking enterprise that we need more of in Woking, in Surrey and across the UK. British manufacturing is world-leading and McLaren’s success shines a light on that and shows what British firms can achieve on a global stage.
High-quality manufacturing creates the high-quality jobs that we as a country need if we are going to get people out of the cost of living crisis and help them increase their and their children’s life chances. If we attract more businesses like McLaren and give them the opportunities to establish and then thrive, we could ensure that high-quality manufacturing in Britain is here to stay. I want to see Woking continue as a hub for cutting-edge technology and world-class manufacturing. We can create that right environment by encouraging investment and attracting businesses that share McLaren’s ambition. That means supporting apprenticeships and the skills training that is needed, investing in infrastructure and funding more in research and development.
McLaren won the championship in 1998. As a small child growing up in Woking, I remember when they drove their cars around the town, led by Mika Häkkinen. They hit potholes then, and I hope they celebrate on the streets of Woking again—I have called for them to do so—though I fear they will once more hit a pothole. That is why we are proud of them in Woking. I again congratulate Lando Norris, Oscar Piastri and the entire McLaren team on their remarkable achievement, and I hope to do the same next year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone on the parliamentary estate a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to speak in my first Christmas adjournment debate. I want to use the time to make two Christmas wishes and say some thank yous before we all begin driving home for Christmas.
In that song, Chris Rea says,
“It’s gonna take some time
But I’ll get there”
and nowhere is that more apt than in Dartford, where residents face gridlock, spilling from the river crossing at one end of the constituency and a long-term blockage to a major route out to the east of the constituency, where my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) represents the community.
As another song goes,
“I don’t want a lot for Christmas
There is just one thing I need…
All I want for Christmas is”
spades in the ground on the proposed new lower Thames crossing. Perhaps taking my advice from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), it would be remiss of me not to mention it, and I hope that after almost 15 years of waiting 2025 will finally see the project started and I will not have to mention it again.
I also look forward to working in 2025 with Members from across the House, the other place and Ministers to promote fair economic growth across the Thames estuary. If I were allowed a second wish—I promise it is a very simple one—I would like to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) to persuade the Government of the need to get on and get the Elizabeth line out to Ebbsfleet, where it should finish.
I want to use this time to thank some of the wonderful businesses, community groups and faith groups for welcoming me so warmly as their Member of Parliament since my election in July and for making my constituency such a fantastic place to live, full of civic life and activity. They are: We Are Beams and all the businesses that support them; Home-Start North West Kent; Dartford churches food bank, which keeps people from destitution; Rev. Mandy Young at St Alban and St Edmund King and Martyr churches; the Winners chapel in Dartford and its great community work; our great community pharmacies, which keep people well; Helping Hands in Swanscombe; the Ellenor and Demelza hospices, which received good news today from the Government about their funding; the Dartford gurdwara; the organisers of the festival of Ganesh from our Hindu community and the Nepalese teej; Dartford FC, which is currently a brilliant fourth in the Isthmian league and looking for promotion; Fairfield leisure centre and its great public health work with our local community; the team at All Directions; Millie Gooch and the Sober Girl Society, with her great work on alcohol harm; Sue Stockham and her formidable work combating ovarian cancer; Cohesion Plus, which organises the Dartford light festival, Black History Month and so much else; the Ebbsfleet events committee behind the Christmas fair and other great activity; Vijay and the great Dartford Living magazine and networking evenings; Dartford Central Park Athletics and Dartford Central Park parkrun, which has just celebrated its 10-year anniversary; and the amazing team at Dartford fire station.
I cannot let this speech end without congratulating my excellent colleagues on Dartford Labour group and, of course, my amazing team here in Westminster and out in my constituency. I hope the House will permit me one last indulgence: on behalf of everyone who lives in Dartford, I thank the emergency services staff who will work right through the Christmas break to keep us safe and well, including the staff at the wonderful Darent Valley hospital.
I will end by wishing hon. Members across the House, and all the House staff, a wonderful Christmas, particularly the Minister, who will be responding to this debate; she is one of the best things to come out of Dartford. I wish everyone here a merry Christmas and look forward to seeing them in the new year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me thank all my staff in the office back home for all the work that they do. Their efforts are the reason that my constituency office works so well.
In the short time that I have, I want to give a message of hope. I was thinking about what I wanted to say a long time ago. It seems like it was only yesterday that we were bringing in the new year, and now that has passed. I think of the loss of friends and my heart aches at the thought of those empty chairs around the Christmas table, which many of us will have. For those whose loved ones are in hospital and not with them, and those whose families work in essential care, Christmas can be a lonely time. I am reminded of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:
“To everything there is a season, and a time”.
Times can be tough. I think of those who are struggling financially and who cannot find a way to solid ground. They cannot see a way forward, and they have nowhere to turn.
I think of those who have lost relationships with partners or children and who find themselves in a position where they are all alone. I think of those who are awaiting news from hospitals or from tests, or who are watching their ill loved ones, not knowing what the year holds. I can understand the hopelessness that flows from that, yet I have a faith that sustains me. I am reminded of the Christmas message—the ultimate message of faith, hope and love. I often cling to the scripture in Hebrews 10:23
“Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”
I know that, while times may be difficult, God is faithful and will never leave us alone in our struggles. He never leaves me alone.
The Christmas message is from a God who loved us so much that he sent his only son to die so that we could have life. The message that comes from his perfect and sinless life, his shameful death and his glorious resurrection is one that gives us hope over 2,000 years later. This is not a nice story wrapped in a bow. This is a story of desolation and despair, yet the plan of God, which is not always easy to see or to understand, was at work in turning it all for the good for all of us. The baby in the manger—the Christ on the cross—is the King of Glory. I am thankful that this reminds me of the hope that I have when I hold fast to him.
As we consider the Christmas story, we must remember that it did not end with the gift of the three kings, with a miracle at a wedding, or with a cross on a hill. It is an unfolding story in which right hon. and hon. Members have a part to play. We can all choose to bring light and hope. In a world of despair, I find that there is still goodness all around us. I think the goodness of God is seen through the goodness of people around us.
When I think about all the good work carried out by the volunteers, the Church and the charitable sector and when I see the goodness of community groups and neighbours, I am reminded that people are still good. When I read of those acts of kindness to strangers, I think of what it says in the good book—if we entertain a stranger, we could be entertaining an angel. Who knows who we will meet in this world when we do something good for a stranger.
In his introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to helping those homeless people on the street. Again, that reminds me that people are still good. There is still a desire to help others, and God still moves in situations. A world without hope is a world in darkness. Although it may feel like the skies are darkening, I have faith because I have seen goodness and light throughout this year, dispelling the darkness.
To conclude, from my home to each and every home in this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I love telling people that we are all better together in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I wish you all a very happy Christmas and blessed new year. It is with hope in my heart that I trust that we will all see the goodness of God through the goodness of the people we meet in 2025.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I will use my time in this debate to raise an issue that we have heard so much about over the last six months: the crisis in special educational needs. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a coffee morning held by Family Voice in my constituency of Guildford. I was honoured to hear some stories from a group of mums who shared their experiences relating to their children’s journeys, and trying to get support for those young people. Every single one of them stressed to me how challenging those journeys have been, with emails going unanswered; caseworkers who go on holiday and never come back; months—sometimes years—of their children not being able to attend education; thousands of pounds spent on private assessments to get the support that their children need, or appealing decisions made by the local authority; and fighting every day to be heard, and the exhaustion that that brings.
The thing that distressed me most was the moment when one mum shared that, as a result of the whole process, she had considered suicide. Then another mum said the same thing. How are we in a position that the process that is designed to support and provide for young people is creating so much distress that families are at breaking point and even considering ending their own lives? I am deeply grateful to Education Ministers for making it very clear that the Government are committed to addressing the SEND crisis, and I hope to be able to work with the Government to address it in 2025.
I will tell the House two very quick stories to emphasise how desperately the situation needs to change. The first is that of a 17-year-old woman in my constituency who has been out of school for five and a half years. She was not able to do her GCSEs. She was given a placement in October at a place where she has thrived. She has said herself that she has felt seen and has found her community, but that placement has not yet been renewed by the local authority. She has been failed, and the hope that was there has potentially been ripped away.
The second story is that of a nine-year-old boy with autism and pathological demand avoidance. The local authority, Surrey, sent him to an independent school in 2022 to provide for his needs. That school has now said that it cannot provide for those needs. It has removed his placement and said that it will not hold the place while his family try to find a school. I find that deeply unacceptable. They are apparently not the only family who has experienced that off-rolling, but Surrey says that the families have elected to home-school. Will the Minister ask a colleague to meet me to discuss the practice of off-rolling, which I am sure is happening not just in my own constituency?
I reiterate that so many of us will have received deeply distressing emails seeking support from our residents. These are the people who are able to advocate for themselves. How many families are unable, for various reasons, to advocate for themselves? As we try to fix the SEND crisis, we must remember that we do so not just for the families we hear from every day in our inboxes. At the moment, I have nearly 50 separate cases, but we are also seeking to fix the crisis for those families we do not know about. I hope that we will be able to work across the House in 2025 to fix this crisis, because we cannot and must not continue to allow our children to be failed.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I wish a very happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the staff of the House of Commons for the work they do to support all of us. I also thank all the people who work so hard in my constituency in a series of community centres, schools and other places, and all those who help, support and work in the food banks in my constituency. I feel sad that food banks have now become institutionalised within our society. Fifteen years ago, there were almost no food banks; now they are all over the country. We need to look at the problems of inequality and poverty in our society.
I feel sad that over the past five months in this Parliament, since the general election, we have missed opportunities to end the two-child benefit cap and to reduce levels of poverty among many older people. In fact, we have made it worse by ending the winter fuel allowance. We have allowed Royal Mail to be run by yet another private sector operator, which will take profits out of it, rather than bringing it into public ownership to ensure that the people of this country benefit from our oldest public service.
When the House returns in January, the issue of the water industry will have to be addressed. Water companies across the country are paying their chief executive officers the most massive salaries imaginable and taking out huge profits, which are often paid to overseas investors in our industry, and we have catastrophic levels of pollution in our rivers and seas. The water company for my area, Thames Water—the most indebted such company around—expects to put up bills even higher to pay for infrastructure, which it could have paid for itself had it not been paying so much money to private investors all over the world. The case for public ownership of water is absolutely overwhelming.
I want quickly to mention some other issues in the last couple of minutes I have. Our society is precious and valuable, but in the past year we have seen the rise of racism in our society, and a culture of blaming migrants and refugees for the problems people face in housing, education and health. It is nothing to do with them; those problems are the result of a lack of investment in those services. Can we resolve over Christmas to have respect for those people who are trying to make a safe place to live and contribute to our society, rather than this culture of blaming migrants and people who have come from Calais merely because they are trying to survive in a difficult world beset by war and conflict? That would help a great deal.
My constituents are wonderful people, but many have the most appalling housing problems to deal with. There are the street homeless, who are helped by various organisations, including the local authority, and I do not blame them for the problems at all. There are those living in the grotesquely overpriced private rented sector, those living in increasingly undemocratically run housing associations, and those living in leased property where they pay exorbitant charges for ground rent and services and have little control over their own lives. I appreciate what the Government have brought forward in the Renters’ Rights Bill. I welcome it, as far as it goes, but we need to have a further, deeper think about housing as a right and as something that people need, and not the exorbitant costs at present. With that, I wish you a very happy Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This week marks the end of Disability History Month, which has given us all a chance to highlight the experiences of disabled people and to support disability rights. In Bath, 30% of all households include at least one person with a disability.
I recently visited Carrswood day service to learn more about the incredible work it does to support adults with learning disabilities in the city. The service also provides respite for unpaid family carers, who are often the primary caregivers—where would we be without our unpaid carers? The visit also highlighted the Rake Up and Grow initiative—a vocational project that helps adults with learning disabilities gain practical skills through community gardening projects. The project not only helps build skills, but promotes social inclusion and community engagement. By working with local organisations, such as the Royal United hospital, Bath Rugby Community Foundation and others, Rake Up and Grow provides fantastic opportunities for disabled people and people with learning disabilities.
Bath and North East Somerset Third Sector Group—3SG—is a voluntary, community and social enterprise infrastructure network for around 250 charities, providing one-to-one support, training, events and wider advocacy work in the sector. Charities are the ever-constant, extra support going above and beyond every single day. Now more than ever, charities are needed to pick up those waiting for statutory services, or just those who are falling through the cracks. They employ highly skilled workers and strategic thinkers, many of whom are delivering daily lifesaving interventions and deserve to be equal partners in any conversation with the Government and the NHS.
The work of the third sector cannot be overstated, but charities are now at breaking point. For too long they have been asked to do more for less. The third sector applauds better wages for all but urges the Government to reconsider its non-exemption from national insurance increases. I know that 3SG BaNES has surveyed its member charities in Bath and north-east Somerset, and those affected by the Budget will need to find between £4,000 and £400,000 in extra costs every year. Those are big amounts of money for organisations that already have to survive on dwindling resources. So 3SG urges the Government to consider the pressure that they will put on the third sector, including hospices, if they do not lift the NIC increases. I and the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to consider that again. As someone has said, the Government always say no before they say yes, so I am hopeful.
When I think of all our local charities and the good they do, I wonder where we in Bath would be without them and all the wonderful services they provide. I thank all those who work in the charitable sector and in voluntary organisations, all family carers and all those who look after people who are sick and need our support this Christmas. I wish them all a very merry Christmas.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody across the House, a merry Christmas.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for opening the debate. He is a fellow Bob and a fellow Spurs fan. I am not sure how much we will agree on in 2025, but something we certainly do agree on is Spurs winning something.
Bobby Dean
Yes. The hon. Gentleman covered lots of local and international issues, which I think demonstrates the breadth of debate in this place. Before I respond to some of the Back-Bench contributions, I will focus a little on my work in Carshalton and Wallington.
I made three big promises to my constituents: on the NHS, on the cost of living and on the environment. I feel that I have made some progress in my first few months in office. First, I have negotiated with the NHS trust and the Health Secretary on the future of our local St Helier hospital. We hope that will mean that we will retain our A&E services and get a new building in our community in the next year. Secondly, on the cost of living, I am privileged to sit on the Treasury Committee, so I get to examine very closely the country’s finances and, I hope, to make an impact on the economy more broadly. Thirdly, on the environment, I have been focused on my local river, the Wandle. I made a documentary film about it last year, and we are doing a short follow-up in the new year—just in time for the Oscars.
We have heard lots of brilliant tributes to local organisations, volunteers and charities, and a range of issues have been raised, but I will focus my highlights on the Christmas-themed contributions. The right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) almost went into “The Twelve Days of Christmas” with her mention of a partridge in a pear tree. She also mentioned many constituency and international issues of concern to her.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) talked about driving home for Christmas. I am a subscriber to autopay for the Dartford tunnel because my parents live in Essex, so I will go through his constituency in a week or so as I drive home for Christmas. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talked about a local band that will not be contesting the Christmas No. 1—thankfully, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would not be too happy about that. I was shocked that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) did not mention the choir behind our right hon. Friend’s “Love is Enough” single—so I will get that plug in, and keep my job.
There was a mention of what I will dub “Christmas lights”—although not quite—by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who talked about the serious issue of headlight glare. On a more serious point about Christmas food and drink, many Members reflected on how many people will go without food this Christmas, and how important it is that we acknowledge the vital role of food banks at this special time. Our work in this place will never be done until every food bank is abolished.
My Christmas drink reference is a little more tangential. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) mentioned her port, and I classify Christmas port as a drink for this festive period.
Finally, we talked about Christmas sport. We might be moving into Boxing day a bit here, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about our being better together, and sport is a special way of bringing people together at this time. The hon. Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), talked about their respective football clubs; I will be going to watch my local football club on Boxing day, and I hope the hon. Members do the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) talked about Formula 1, not football, but that gives me a really good link back to Tottenham Hotspur football club, who are the hosts of the only F1 go-karting track in the country. Again, my new year’s hope is that we win a trophy.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas, as well as all the staff who have been so supportive of me as a new Member of this House. I thank all our colleagues for the respectful debates that we have had today and throughout the year.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to wind up this end-of-term Christmas Adjournment debate for the official Opposition. We have had a wide and varied range of issues raised during this debate, as well as a fantastic array of facts from constituencies across the United Kingdom. Members in all parts of this House have spoken about the issues that really need tackling, and about the pride they feel in their constituency and their constituents.
Might I give newer Members on the Government Benches a top tip—a genuine, non-partisan top tip? When they speak in these debates in future, they should know that this is the only time when they can speak on the Floor of the House to a Government Whip. They are able to tease that Whip, claim what they want for their constituency from them, and sometimes tease out where they think the Government might be going wrong. I encourage Members to tread gently, however, because if they do so—and I encourage them to; I used to do it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—the meetings without coffee will start again in January. They should enjoy themselves in this afternoon’s debate, though, and I know that they have.
The Whip responding, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will be making a list. She will be checking it twice. She will be looking to see which of her Members have been naughty or nice, and they never know, Santa Claus might be coming to a town near them. I note that the hon. Lady was chair of the all-party parliamentary group for bingo at one stage of her career. I wonder whether in her winding-up remarks, we will see a game of Labour bingo—“14 years”, “fixing the foundations”, “dire inheritance”. She should not be surprised if I shout “Full house” at her while she is winding up, because I am afraid that we will not be taking any of that broken record from the hon. Lady. However, it is a lot less broken than the record that I encourage Members on all sides of this House to buy as we approach the Christmas No. 1 competition: “Freezing This Christmas”, which is raising money for Age UK. I apologise to the Liberal Democrats for not endorsing the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).
I will run through contributions made by Members from all sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned that he has been elected Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and opened this debate in his typically charismatic and factual way. He wears two hats, also being chairman of the 1922 committee. I can guarantee that he will not be receiving any communications from me over the next five years. He also said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is a winning candidate, and I look forward to her taking over as Prime Minister in five years’ time. We should respect the fact that she is the fourth female leader of the Conservative party—something that the governing party needs to take note of.
My hon. Friend also spoke about his campaign on London transport. That is what you get with Sir Sadiq Khan. Labour wants to bring in more directly elected Mayors by central diktat across the whole country. We on the Conservative Benches will absolutely hold Sadiq Khan to account for the dire services that he offers his constituents in London. Finally, my hon. Friend outlined his absolute commitment to the proscription of the IRGC—an issue that he has championed on both sides of this House. I know that he will keep pushing for that, and he is absolutely right to do so as he stands up for the great nation of Israel.
The right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the really important issue of accessibility for all funding for railway stations. All Members from across this House have over the last five years brought up cases of constituents. I have many times brought up my constituents and the funding for Hedge End and Swanwick; feasibility study money was allocated by the last Government. I ask the Minister on duty to request that the Department for Transport comes back to all Members who were promised that money in the last Parliament—it was allocated by the last Government—and outline where we are going with accessibility for all. The ministerial letters that I received did not say when the next steps would happen. I ask the Minister very politely, on behalf of my constituents, where we are on that project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, in a heartfelt speech, all the volunteers across his constituency. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the volunteers we all have in our constituencies, particularly in the NHS and the armed forces. They are a credit to our nation. They will be working across the United Kingdom this Christmas, and we all owe them a huge thank you.
My hon. Friend mentioned the men’s shed charities, which I know from personal experience have helped many men with mental health issues. I do not think we talk enough about that topic. I pay tribute to the men’s sheds across the country for the things that they build on behalf of community centres. We have some lovely flower beds in Hedge End village in my constituency that were built by such volunteers, and I pay tribute to them, too.
The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland)—this is testing my pronunciation of place names across the UK—is a dedicated champion of his constituency. Before we entered this place, we worked together in another sector, namely the social housing and housing association sector in the UK. He is a first-rate brain on housing policy in this country, and I hope that he is used by the Government to unlock the social housing that is much needed.
The hon. Member mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the scheme, and I encourage Members from across the House to take part in it. It is fantastic. We obviously honour the work that our armed forces do, and the scheme allows us to get closer to them, and to really listen to what they have to say about what they go through on our behalf, day in and day out.
As he does every time we have one of these end-of-term Adjournment debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised really important issues in his constituency—particularly the direct train service to King’s Cross, which he has been bringing up consistently in this House since 2011. I say to him: keep going. I did not find him boring, and I look forward to his bringing up the issue in the next such debate, probably in the summer. I look forward to responding on that occasion, too.
The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned animals in her constituency, and a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. I hope that she buys her dog Maisie a big bone this Christmas. I see that she has Maisie on her phone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a dedicated and doughty champion of his constituents. He and I were elected to this House in the same intake, and I do not mind saying to him that his was a stand-out result for me on election night. He is a doughty and committed constituency MP, but his result surprised me—not because of any lack of ambition or lack of ability on his part, but just because winning his seat and getting through this election, which was very difficult for Conservatives, shows the dedication and the work that he puts in.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of Conservative initiatives to fund programmes in his constituency that were ringfenced, and he wants to drive growth. I fear that growth will be damaged by some of the policies of this Government, but he is a tireless campaigner. I would like to know what was in Clara’s Closet, a shop that he mentioned. He was also right to pay tribute to Ian Hayfield, the chair of the town’s bid, who passed away a couple of days ago, and Members across this House send our condolences to his family.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) championed McClaren, and outlined the local investment that such businesses, particularly F1 businesses, bring to his constituency, and he is absolutely right to do that. The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a couple of puns about Christmas lyrics. I recommend that he stick to the day job of standing up for his constituents and focusing on solving issues. However, he brought some fun to this debate; that is entirely what such debates are meant for, and I hope that he is successful in lobbying Ministers for investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always comes to this House—well, he is here most of the time. He said that we all need to think of others at this time, and had a message of hope at Christmas. Whenever he stands up in this House, he offers us hope and shows us how we should be doing our jobs. I wish him and his family a happy Christmas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) mentioned volunteers and special educational needs and disabilities children. When I am sitting here heckling the Labour party, she has often brought up that issue for her constituents, in her short time here. I know that she will continue to do so in her way, and I will work with her to make sure we improve on those issues.
May I take this opportunity to thank all of House staff for their unfailing help to all Members, particularly new Members? A record number of new Members came into the House. I would particularly like to mention—other members of staff should not take it personally—Godfrey, Daphne and Dawn in the Tea Room, who make my lunch and serve me tea very well. I have a lovely cup of tea after being in here, and I will have one after this debate. I particularly thank the Doorkeepers for putting me right when I have got lost, and putting up with my humour. I thank all staff, and I wish them a very merry Christmas. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other Madam Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker a particularly good Christmas, and a rest. I also thank my team, who help me and keep me on the straight and narrow: Steph, Emma, Dan and Charlie.
This debate shows that this really is a place of worthy ideals. It is a place for decency, and a place where we share a common bond: the privilege of representing our constituencies, places we care about, and our constituents, the fantastic people who make up this country. I wish my constituents in Hamble Valley a great Christmas. To all Members right across this House, I say: I look forward to seeing all of them back in the House in 2025, and I hope everybody has a very good rest.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Anna Turley)
Let me begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and thanking him and all the members of the Backbench Business Committee for all the work they do in bringing so many important issues to the notice of this House. I thank him again for his contribution today, although I slightly disagree with him and others on the Transport for London issues. Many of us outside London dearly wish for a transport system that is so well-funded and efficient. I think he was channelling Ebenezer Scrooge a little bit in complaining about capped fares, but I take his comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I also thank him for raising the issue of the hostages taken on 7 October. Our hearts break for them and their families, and we desperately hope for them to be returned. We hope for peace and a ceasefire, and we thank him for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank him for his important tribute to Holocaust Memorial Day; we all agree on its importance.
I wish a very happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, as well as your fantastic team, the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, the Library staff, the security, the catering teams, the police, the guides, the visitor support, the cleaners, Hansard and the many thousands of people who make this place and the other place run. We should never forget what a privilege it is to be here, and how well we are served by the entire parliamentary team.
We also should never forget how precious our democracy is as we stand here in the mother of Parliaments. From the market squares of Damascus to the trenches of the Donbas, people are fighting and dying for democracy—for the right to self-determination, for the right to speak out, for freedom. We must never take this responsibility or this privilege for granted.
While this may be the last speech in this Chamber for the year, it is my first speech in the Chamber for more than five years. I am very grateful to find that this old place has not changed too much. I see one or two new faces on the Benches, and I am delighted at how many of them are on the Labour Benches, and how many Labour Members represent places that have never before had a Labour MP. The lovely Jennie the guide dog, who is normally here, is following in the pawprints of Lucy and Sadie. And of course today we think particularly of the late, great Sir David Amess—we see the commemorative plaque—a phenomenal man who I really enjoyed working with in setting up the all-party group on endometriosis. He is much missed, and I know how much he loved this debate every year.
Of course, I think also of my dear friend Jo Cox, who we still miss very dearly, and who should have been here with us, playing her part in a Labour Government.
I have never been prouder in my life than to have been returned as the Member for Redcar in July. As a so-called retread, I have been denied a maiden speech, and as a Government Whip, I am unable to join in debates. I have swapped voice in this place for influence, I hope, on behalf of my constituents within this Government. As it is Christmas, I hope the House will indulge me if I take a moment to thank my wonderful constituents across the Redcar and Cleveland constituency for putting their faith in me once again. I thank my agent Sarah, my organiser Jack and my brilliant team for their hard work in those long months leading up to 4 July. I thank them and all constituency and parliamentary staff for the fantastic support they provide for us on our constituents’ behalf.
Since the election, I have been thrilled to visit schools across the constituency, including Huntcliff, Riverdale, Nunthorpe, Ormesby primary, Rye Hills, Lakes primary, Whale Hill and Redcar and Cleveland college. I talked to hundreds of pupils to celebrate Parliament Week recently. It has also been my privilege to continue to support local charities, including Footprints in the Community, South Tees Research, Innovation and Education, the Imaginarium, Teesside hospice, the Royal British Legion, Grangetown Generations, the Junction and many more. It has also been a privilege to have watched netball at Grangetown, football at Redcar Athletic, Redcar Town, Marske United and Normanby, swimming with Eston swimming club and boxing at Redcar boxing club. I am thinking today of the home helps caring for our elderly, the steelworkers at Lackenby, the small businesses on our high streets and the nurses in James Cook, Foxrush House and Redcar hospital. I am reminded every day what makes our community great and what a great community I am lucky to live in.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been incredibly active on steel, in her constituency and in this place. She and I both know that the Government are engaged in sensitive and difficult negotiations at this present time about the steel industry, but can she touch on her views and the Government’s views about ensuring that steel is not a sunset industry?
Anna Turley
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the hard work he is undertaking. What a doughty champion he is for the people of East Cleveland, the community in which he was born, and the steel industry. As he says, it is a vital industry to this country, not a sunset industry. It is vital to our defence, our sovereignty, jobs, our plans for building homes, our infrastructure and to our being at the forefront of the global transition on steel. We are all working hard together on the Government Benches for electric arc furnaces in Teesside, for the future of Scunthorpe and for Port Talbot, and this Christmas we think of steelworkers around the country, who are doing their utmost to maintain this phenomenal industry that is so vital to our national interest. We thank them.
This has been a debate worthy of this place, and I believe this is the best democratic assembly in the world, capable of rising to greatness when the occasion demands. In particular our recent debate on assisted dying was testament to our democracy and the quality and thoughtfulness of hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House. Today’s debate has been no less impressive, if a little more local and festive. I pay tribute to a few of the fantastic speeches we have heard today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) raised important issues, and I take to heart the pledge I made to her to bring these issues to Ministers. No one should be denied the chance, for better or worse, to watch their local football team because they cannot access transport. We will certainly be taking that matter up.
I am proud of everything that this Government are doing on cancer, with £1.5 billion being put into scanners and diagnosis. As someone who lost my grandad to bowel cancer, that is close to my heart. I will also take up my hon. Friend’s issues on free schools and arts and museums. I very much look forward to the year of reading, too, as a champion of literature.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) paid fantastic tribute to charities and volunteers, and we all know how crucial they are to our society and our community, particularly at this time of year. We could not function without them. I am reminded that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) mentioned the Salvation Army. We know what a phenomenal job it does at this time of year, when so many are falling through the gaps. Its people are there to catch them, and thank goodness they are. I pay tribute to them and to all our voluntary and community groups. I send all best wishes to Edward and for his future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) has done fantastic work championing Hitachi. He is certainly not boring in his relentlessness in that work. We are delighted to secure that half a billion pounds to support the workers, the supply chains, the jobs and the apprenticeships. We look forward next year to celebrating 200 years of the railways, and as someone who is going back via Darlington tonight, I look forward to celebrating the Stockton and Darlington railway next year.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised really important issues on road safety that I had not really thought of, but I valued the opportunity to reflect on them—sorry for the pun. Lights and glare is fascinating, not boring. Persistence is key. I look forward to him continuing to work with Ministers on that. I am certainly happy to take that up with the Department for Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) talked about fantastic local projects. I congratulate the Music Man Project on its King’s award and wish it all the very best for the future.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) raised a really important constituency case. We listened very carefully to that. He is absolutely right about the numbers of people who, like Patricia, have to wrestle and navigate the system for whole-person care. The Government are committed to dealing with that. I look forward to working with him, not just on that particular case but perhaps in seeking a debate and working on addressing that.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) raised a really important issue. Our thoughts are with all those affected by the storm and the closure of the port. We will continue to press the Secretary of State and the Government for Wales on that. It is a port of massive national significance, and I can imagine that the impact is really hard for small businesses, particularly at this time of year. We will take that up. I look forward to engaging with her on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is, again, a doughty champion for her patch. I spent many happy times in my childhood in Whipsnade Zoo, so I wish it all the very best, as I do Maisie, my hon. Friend’s rescue dog, and Luton Town FC.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was, again, a real powerhouse for his constituency. He paid tribute to some great sports and community groups. I congratulate him on the new hospital, and we all look forward to celebrating the city of culture in Bradford next year.
I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda). We wish the Royals all the very best in their promotion. Likewise, in terms of the fine sport we have in this country, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), we congratulate McLaren on the brilliant work it does. As he said, Britain is at the forefront of high-tech manufacturing and engineering.
We wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson)—my home town—all the best in continuing to campaign for spades in the ground on the lower Thames crossing and on the Elizabeth line, which are both crucial projects. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sadly not in his place, for his classic decency and kindness, not just in his tribute today, but in everything he has done, particularly for new Members to welcome and support us all.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) raised SEND, which has been raised a huge amount in the House—it has been raised with me in every surgery since I have been re-elected—so we know that it is a critical issue. As she said, families are battling the system, and we want to have a country where every child matters and gets the support that they need. The issue of off- rolling is crucial. I thank her for raising those issues and look forward to working with her.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows that I greatly respect his lifelong work and commitment to tackling poverty and inequality. I am sure that he would agree that a Labour Government are infinitely more able to tackle poverty and reduce inequality than a Labour Opposition, and I know that he will support some of our work to tackle inequality and poverty in this country. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for paying tribute to all those working with adults and children with disabilities this Christmas.
I will be brief, because I am conscious of time, but I want to say thank you to the British people who in July chose change. They looked around and saw the NHS on its knees, our dentistry in crisis, our trains stalled and chaotic, raw sewage in our rivers, lakes and seas, rough sleeping visibly scarring our towns and lives, taxes at a 30-year high and child poverty at Dickensian levels. After 14 years, they had had enough. They turned in their droves to a Labour Government once again to clear up the mess and rebuild the social and economic fabric of a fractured nation. Now the hard yards of change have begun.
We on the Government side of the House are so ambitious for change. We have the biggest legislative programme in a quarter of a century, with 38 bills in the King’s Speech. The programme includes: rail back in public hands to put passengers before profit; a raise in the minimum wage and increases for teachers, nurses and public sector workers; maternity leave from day one in a job; more powers for police to tackle antisocial behaviour; a house building revolution; the miners pension scheme; £1 billion for buses, with local people back in charge of them; homes for veterans; a child poverty taskforce; a national wealth fund for a transition to the industries of the future; breakfast clubs for schoolchildren; action on spiking and stalking; bringing back neighbourhood policing; action on sewage; and, in my own patch, the biggest single investment on Teesside in history, with carbon capture and storage bringing jobs and ushering in a new industrial renaissance on Teesside.
This is an exhaustive Christmas list for Britain—only missing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) said, a partridge in a pear tree. Change is coming, Madam Deputy Speaker. The people have cast out the old and ushered in the new.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady has plenty of time, but can I just say to her: one line, two lines, full house.
Anna Turley
Eyes down. [Laughter.]
To quote Lord Tennyson,
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.
In July, the people cast out the old and ushered in the new, and we will not fail them.
At this time, I know we all want to take a moment to reflect on our families, our communities and, perhaps, our faith. We should never forget that Christmas is not always a time for celebration and joy; for some, it is a time of great regret, sadness, grief and loneliness. For many, it is a time of mental stress and financial worry. We pray for peace and for an end to conflict and separation around the world. We think of our courageous armed forces around the world, those saving lives in conflict zones, the NHS and so many other key workers, for whom Christmas day is just another day at work. To everyone alone, or serving abroad, or in pain this Christmas, please know you are not alone, and that you are loved. That, surely, is the true meaning of Christmas.
I am reminded, as I finish, that one of England’s greatest Christmas literary figures, Charles Dickens, began his career here as a parliamentary reporter and sketch writer. So, like Tiny Tim, let me close by saying,
“God bless Us, Every One!”
Bob Blackman
I congratulate the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), on finally getting her voice heard in this Chamber. In addition to the three Front-Bench speakers, we have had 18 Back-Bench speakers, which demonstrates the importance of this type of debate, where Members can raise whatever subjects they choose. They have chosen to talk about their constituencies, their particular causes, their charities and their families. This is a very important aspect of our parliamentary work; it demonstrates to the people out there that we represent how important they are to us.
I would like to correct the record. In my earlier speech, I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) when I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I want to put that on the record straightaway.
Finally, I would like to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Although this is a time when Parliament goes into recess, Members of Parliament will not just be having a holiday; they will be working hard on behalf of their constituents, and our constituents will value the work that we do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I get the opportunity to have the last word. Many Members have mentioned family, and I want to take this opportunity to say merry Christmas to our parliamentary family, making sure we remember our Doorkeepers, the Sergeant at Arms, the Clerks, who keep me in order, and the catering and security people. Godfrey and Margaret got a mention, but I would also like to say—although I may not have been there today—a thank you to Kelly and Jackie in the hairdressers downstairs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
MV Ruby: Safety
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
The MV Ruby is a sorry tale of bad decision making by Government and a selection of unaccountable, unelected quangos operating in silos without any application of common sense. It exemplifies the loss of sovereignty of Parliament, which should be absolute under the 1689 Bill of Rights, which asserted the rights of Parliament and individual rights based on John Locke’s philosophy.
The outcome was a shocking and avoidable double act of environmental terrorism, when around 300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate—better known as agricultural fertiliser—was dumped in the sea about 12 miles off the coast of my constituency. When I fill my drill or fertiliser spinner with fertiliser, I discharge the contents of the double-skinned weatherproof plastic bag into the hopper and recycle the bag. In this case, the bags were dumped into the sea with the ammonium nitrate still in them. They will not biodegrade, and will float to the surface after a storm, potentially becoming wrapped around a ship’s propeller and shaft, causing extensive damage—not forgetting the vast ecological damage to young fish, the seabed, and the inevitable algal blooms that will follow. To make matters worse, as the elected representative of the good people of Great Yarmouth, I was excluded from all communication and decision making leading up to the catastrophic dumping operation on 16 November 2024.
Rupert Lowe
Apart from the terrible outcome, the Government’s account of events conflicts entirely with the local account of events. The locals claim that the Department for Transport-Secretary of State’s representative drove the process and gave instructions for the sitting MP to be excluded from all communications, convinced that it was a Cobra situation. When finally briefed on 28 November by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) at the Department’s offices, he stated that the locals had made a mountain out of a molehill, the operation was never Cobra and the decision to exclude the MP from briefings was a local one. Somebody is clearly lying and the official briefing pack from the DFT suggests that this is the Government. The hon. Gentleman told me in an email that he was too busy to see me to answer follow-up questions and suggested that I pursue usual parliamentary processes, so here we are. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which seeks to inform the House where the truth lies. The crux of the issue is the part played by the Health and Safety Executive and its employee, Dr Nathan Flood.
MV Ruby docked in the outer harbour of Great Yarmouth, following input from the Secretary of State’s representative on 28 October 2024, as a ship in distress carrying 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Peel Ports is used to handling this material, which is commonly landed at ports, distributed by road, stored on farms and used to grow our food. Peel Ports notified the requisite authorities, including the HSE, which declined to inspect the ship’s cargo. Peel Ports began offloading the bags of ammonium nitrate on to the sister ship, Zimrida. On 11 November, Peel Ports identified seawater in hold one and some staining on the lower bags. Peel Ports notified the HSE, Dr Flood, and again requested its attendance to inspect the bags and the material. HSE refused to attend and inspect. Peel Ports sent them photographs and videos of the cargo in hold one. Peel Ports employed its own explosives experts, Dr Jim Warren and Dr Charles Owen, to attend and inspect the cargo. They reported that they could wipe the staining off the bags, concluding that it was unlikely the bags were contaminated. Peel Ports again requested HSE attendance, which was refused. Peel Ports’ view was that it could safely unload the stained bags—the ship had previously carried a cargo of coal—on to the dock for analysis and disposal. HSE threatened sanctions and enforcement action against Peel Ports if one bag was unloaded on to the dock. I understand that legal responsibility for the material passes from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to HSE once unloaded. It is also interesting that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service attended MV Ruby at this time, on either 12 or 13 November, and downgraded the situation.
Dr Flood’s attitude was reported by many of the stakeholders to be aggressive, inappropriate and unprofessional, with the use of foul language and even banging his fist on the table and telling people, “This is going to flatten Great Yarmouth.” Analogies to the Beirut explosion were wholly inappropriate and misleading, causing panic among both local and national Government, who have no experience of handling ammonium nitrate. It is incredible that he did that without either a site visit or proper physical analysis of the material before the dumping. Was he too lazy to do what common sense suggested was the correct cause of action? Dr Flood only attended the site and inspected a small number of remaining split bags of material on Monday 18 November, after being instructed to attend by a Minister. I understand that he put on a new pair of rubber gloves which he thrust into the ammonium nitrate and then threw the gloves on to the table, claiming they smelt of diesel. Other people report that they understandably smelt of new rubber. This was also after the gross act of environmental terrorism. To carry out no inspection before dumping is quite extraordinary.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon from the HSE, which is a law unto itself, clearly employing a policy of “Do as I say, not as I do”. The question is, who regulates the regulator? When we understand that the HSE is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, no further explanation is necessary or indeed possible. We now find that the Marine Management Organisation, the MCA, the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the HSE all blame the dumping on the ship's captain. All other possible sensible options were blocked, but does this silence make them complicit in this catastrophe ? I conclude that it does.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this topic, which has caused great concern to residents of our neighbouring constituencies. In this case there appears to have been a total information vacuum for local people and representatives, which has fuelled fear and speculation. A number of my constituents have contacted me asking simply, “What is going on?” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the event of such a situation in the future, it will be important for all relevant agencies to provide far more clarity and transparency for residents and their elected representatives?
Rupert Lowe
I could not agree more. Good government must be transparent government.
I hope that the Minister has his pencil ready, because I have 18 urgent questions for which I believe the House needs answers.
No. 1: Why did the Minister tell me on Thursday 28th November that this was a local issue?
No. 2: Why did the local officials think that this was a Cobra situation when the Minister said categorically that it was not?
No. 3: Why did the Minister suggest that local officials had made a “mountain out of a molehill”? The locals said it was all driven by the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State’s Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention. Who is lying?
No. 4: Who gave the instruction that the local MP was not to be briefed except by the Department for Transport? Was that because I am a Reform MP, or because I have experience of ammonium nitrate from farming? What were the roles and reports of Andy Gregory, Stephen Benzies and Stephan Hennig?
No. 5: Was the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) involved in the decision making?
No. 6: Was the resignation of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on Friday 29 November in any way linked to the unjustifiable outcome involving the dumping of approximately 300 tonnes of potentially contaminated ammonium nitrate with bags? Was it a coincidence that it happened less than 24 hours after my briefing by the Department for Transport?
No. 7: Why was the load described as “potentially contaminated?” Was it physically tested before the dumping? Is there a certificate to prove that?
No. 8: Why were the polypropylene double-skinned waterproof bags dumped with the ammonium nitrate? When used in farming, such bags are emptied and recycled.
No. 9: Did anyone consider that polypropylene bags float to the surface and damage or destroy a ship’s propeller and propeller shaft, apart from this being an act of environmental vandalism?
No. 10: Why was the view of those at Peel Ports—experts at handling ammonium nitrate—not acted upon? They claimed that the double-skinned waterproof bags at the bottom were stained but dry. They suggested unloading the “dumped” material on to the dock for analysis and disposal. Is it true that it becomes the responsibility of the HSE once on land? Pictures that were obtained back up Peel Ports’ opinion.
No. 11: Why did the HSE throw its weight around and threaten Peel Ports with prosecution/enforcement if one bag was unloaded on the dock?
No. 12: Why were local fishermen, local fish markets and Dutch fishing vessels not informed of the decision to dump offshore in my constituency?
No. 13: How close did Great Yarmouth come to evacuation? Why was that information withheld from the elected representative of Great Yarmouth? Who knew what, and when?
No. 14: was the balance of the cargo safely unloaded by Peel Ports?
No. 15: is it fair to say that the owners and operators of MV Ruby were forced into the decision to dump ammonium nitrate in bags at sea?
No. 16: who signed off on this gross act of environmental terrorism without a test certificate? How can this have happened?
No. 17: why do both the harbourmaster and Peel Ports agree that this matter was not handled well, and that there was the wrong outcome?
No. 18: does this House agree that the Government were right to exclude an elected Member of Parliament by diktat, thereby undermining Parliament and showing disrespect for the good people of Great Yarmouth?
As G. K. Chesterton observed,
“A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon”.
This sorry episode lacked any common sense and resulted in bad decisions by unelected, unaccountable quangos acting in silos. We now need an official parliamentary inquiry, which I strongly request, having researched the matter in great depth. It must not happen again, and the appropriate heads must roll.
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, all the parliamentary staff and all my fellows MPs a very happy Christmas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the season of good will.
First and foremost, I want to say that I am proud of this nation. I think I am prouder of this nation than the hon. Gentleman is. The United Kingdom has a proud seafaring heritage, and we are the home of the International Maritime Organisation. We uphold the rule of law in this country, and we treat seafarers with respect and dignity. We fulfil our legal obligations, and we proud to be pioneers in the maritime industry. These principles informed how we handled this situation.
The MV Ruby left Great Yarmouth on 1 December with no cargo onboard and is now at the Port of Tyne, where she is undergoing repairs. The ship left Great Yarmouth with uncontaminated cargo on 16 December for onward voyage to the Ruby’s original intended destinations. Throughout this situation, my Department and other authorities exercised their duties for the safety of the UK and its population, and for that of the ship and her crew. I stand by all the decisions and actions that we took, and I note that everything has been resolved successfully. We were always confident that that would be the case.
I will briefly set out the background. The MV Ruby is a Maltese-flagged vessel that was damaged during a storm on 23 August 2024, not long after leaving port in northern Russia. The vessel entered UK waters on 24 September 2024 under international legal provisions that allow for the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. She went to anchor in order to refuel, but at anchor she posed a number of potential risks to UK interests—namely, the safety of navigation for other vessels. We were also worried about the safety of the crew, their welfare and the safety of the ship.
There were no sanctions issues in relation to the ship, her crew or her cargo, and she was insured by Lloyd’s of London, which is internationally regarded as having the highest standards for its clients and strong requirements for the insurance companies that conduct business there. The vessel is class certified by Det Norske Veritas, which is one of the 12 world-renowned classification societies within the International Association of Classification Societies. That demonstrated to us that the vessel was operating well within the recommended industry guidelines.
Before entering the Port of Great Yarmouth, the Ruby had been at anchor for a month. The ship was damaged, and the crew were struggling to get basic supplies. At this point, media reporting focused on the perceived Russian connections of the Ruby, as her origin port was in Russia. This made potential suppliers fear Russian exposure and reputational damage, which further impacted the quality of life on board. Beyond this humanitarian aspect, the extent of the damage to the hull was unknown, and the practical and environmental consequences of the vessel sinking in UK waters, with all her cargo and fuel on board, would have been unthinkable.
Given all this, and where safety requirements were met, there was no reason to deny access to port. The Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention, SOSREP, supported the ship’s management company in convening conversations with UK ports to identify an appropriate port for the offloading of this cargo type and a yard where she could then be repaired.
The ship’s management company made a commercial decision to enter a UK port for repairs. This was because the conditions in the bay of Biscay, which the vessel would have had to traverse, can be extremely rough at this time of year. The crew of 19 on board had already suffered through the original storm and subsequent weeks on board a damaged ship. Offering her refuge in port helped to manage all these risks, and at that point, there was no indication of concern about her cargo.
Ammonium nitrate, for a bit of background, is a compound typically used in fertiliser that the UK regularly imports. In 2023, over 200,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were handled at UK ports, and the port of Great Yarmouth is one of the many ports experienced in handling this type of cargo. Once at port, the cargo was safely offloaded for several days before any potential contamination was identified.
The Health and Safety Executive was alerted to the potential contamination on Monday 11 November, as the port identified evidence of seawater and hydrocarbons —fuel oil—on the outside of the bags. When it was identified that seawater and hydrocarbons were present on the outside of some of the remaining bags, all movement of cargo in the affected hold was stopped, and the relevant authorities were notified.
HSE undertook a risk assessment, and its findings were actioned by the port and the ship operator. The port’s harbourmaster made the decision to issue a direction under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, following the guidance provided by the HSE at a cross-agency meeting, and classified the vessel as a dangerous ship. SOSREP was engaged and worked with the ship, the port, the MCA and the HSE to ensure that the ship and the crew were safely removed from port.
The ship was removed from port on Saturday 16 November, and the affected cargo was discharged at a pre-identified location at sea. The master of the ship took the view that, in the light of deteriorating conditions at sea and the unacceptable risk to the crew of the potentially contaminated material remaining on board as the sea became rougher due to the incoming weather front, disposal should commence that evening. The cargo believed to be contaminated represented under 2% of the total volume being transported.
Discharging the potentially contaminated cargo at sea, about 300 metric tonnes, was not an exercise undertaken lightly. As would be expected, there was careful and thorough examination of all the alternative options. A full assessment of the environmental implications and safety risks was also undertaken. The work was overseen by environmental experts and the relevant regulators. The East of England environment group was convened for the purposes of this incident and was comprised of experts from: the Food Standards Agency; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the local authority; the Marine Management Organisation; the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Natural England; the Environment Agency; and the inshore fisheries and conservation authority.
The location chosen for disposal was identified as the least sensitive in terms of habitat, flora, fauna and fisheries. The site is an existing aggregate extraction area, involving mechanical activity on the seabed. We have been assured by scientific experts from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the East of England environment group that ammonium nitrate is not a persistent chemical and, with sufficient dilution, will dissipate without leaving a trace.
As would be expected, DEFRA is now going through the standard procedure of notifying the relevant international authorities of the discharging event, as the British Government treat our duties to the natural environment with the highest seriousness.
Where safety requirements are met, there is no basis for the UK Government to refuse entry into port in those circumstances. After the potentially contaminated cargo had been discharged, the port and ship operator followed the usual processes to enable the MV Ruby to return to Great Yarmouth with advice from the MCA, HSE and environmental regulators. Allowing the ship to return ensured crew welfare and enabled the normal transfer of its remaining cargo. I must emphasise that there was no evidence that any of the remaining cargo was potentially contaminated, and this was borne out by events. No further contamination was found.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
If there was no potential contamination and if all the processes were fully followed, as the Minister is indicating, then presumably the Government will have no problem ensuring that all that documentation is made available and public, in a transparent and open way, so that we can have no doubts about that, and any lessons that need to be learned, will be learned.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wish him a happy Christmas as well; we share the same dry cleaner, Mr George, who regularly asks after the hon. Gentleman. I say to Reform Members that the way this matter is being raised is a playbook: assertions, which are often outlandish or simply wrong, are made that are designed to appeal to malcontents; victimisation comes in that playbook, because they habitually cast themselves as the victim of dark forces, conspiracies and cover-ups, always wanting to know where and when, and to have transparency; they expect others to accept the premise of their questions, but then belittle the officials and workers who have worked extraordinarily hard, often in difficult circumstances in our seas. By belittling those officials and workers, Reform Members are trying to make people believe those officials are wrong and they are right. I think there should be little bit more dignity in the approach taken by Reform Members in this matter.
I have had correspondence with officials at Norfolk county council and Great Yarmouth borough council, as well as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is no longer in his place. I would like to offer my personal gratitude and thanks to the officials at the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Peel Ports in Great Yarmouth for their co-operation and diligent work throughout the period. I also thank the captain and the crew of the ship for their co-operation during this episode.
I am pleased that, by following the expert advice, this episode has concluded safely and successfully. Our ports, and the men and women who work in them, are invaluable assets to our nation, but we can all be guilty of failing to fully recognise the vital role they play in the life of our island nation. I would like this debate to record the respect and gratitude this House has for them and their work. Our Christmases will be a lot merrier thanks to them all.
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff and the House, and a blessed new year as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am minded of that old adage—I suppose I am old enough to remember all these things—that when you ask a fish to climb a tree, it does not make the fish stupid; it just cannot do it. My concern with the qualification review is that we will not have the breadth of scale that allows for student choice and accessibility, and it will try to pinpoint people into roles that they cannot be successful in. How can the Minister ensure that those gifted in academia will have that clear path, and those gifted with job skills will find their place as well, alongside those still searching for their calling who are looking for wide subjects to keep many doors open for their future?
Janet Daby
We are keeping 157 of the courses that were outlined to be defunded. That will be reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on uptake. Our focus is very much on economic growth, and our mission is for growth and ensuring that young people have opportunities in T-levels and other qualifications to ensure that they are able to get the jobs that are desperately needed in our country. We are not removing the rules of combination. More variation should support 16 to 19-year-olds to have access to the jobs they wish to do in the future.
[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1088.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby):
Janet Daby
We are keeping 157 of the courses that were outlined to be defunded. That will be reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on uptake. Our focus is very much on economic growth, and our mission is for growth and ensuring that young people have opportunities in T-levels and other qualifications to ensure that they are able to get the jobs that are desperately needed in our country. We are removing the rules of combination. More variation should support 16 to 19-year-olds to have access to the jobs they wish to do in the future.
Justice
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultations run by the previous Government on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have been reviewing those consultations and we are looking to publish the Government’s response in the new year, but we are aware of the concerns from the sector, and from victims and survivors, about the scheme. We are looking at how much more we can do to support victims and survivors as a whole on these issues.
[Official Report, 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 144.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones):
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultations run by the previous Government on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have been reviewing those consultations and a response will be provided in due course. I am aware of the concerns from the sector, and from victims and survivors, about the scheme. We are looking at how much more we can do to support victims and survivors as a whole on these issues.
Written Statements
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future of Harland & Wolff
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
National security is the foundation of our plan for change—without it we cannot deliver on our milestones to raise living standards across the UK, with good, skilled, productive jobs.
I am pleased to announce that a commercial deal has been reached, subject to approvals, that will see Navantia UK—a specialist in shipbuilding—purchase Harland & Wolff’s shipyards in Belfast, Arnish and Methil in Scotland, and Appledore in Devon. This industry-led deal will secure the future of all four of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards and protect around 1,000 jobs across the UK.
The deal will ensure the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s fleet solid support (FSS) contract. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme. We have agreed with Navantia UK on the absolute minimum of changes to the contract, ensuring its continued delivery.
Defence is at the heart of the industrial strategy, where we have identified it as one of eight growth-driving sectors for the UK economy. Our industrial strategy is unreservedly pro-business, engaging on complex issues that are barriers to growth and investment.
Navantia UK has committed to invest significantly on commercial terms into Harland & Wolff’s shipyards, a major investment into the UK’s industrial base. This is a good deal for Harland & Wolff, its employees, and the British shipbuilding sector more broadly, as it provides the best opportunity to sustain essential sovereign shipbuilding capacity and capability for future naval work, safeguarding both current and future jobs in the UK.
We are committed to supporting vibrant and successful shipbuilding and offshore fabrication industries, and our skilled workforces who deliver them, in all parts of the UK, in which Harland & Wolff has an important role to play.
[HCWS344]
Water Bills: Price Review 2024 Final Determinations
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Our water system needs fixing. Our rivers, lakes and seas are choked by pollution.
Under the Conservatives, our sewerage system crumbled. They irresponsibly let water companies divert customers’ money to line the pockets of their bosses and shareholders.
The public are right to be angry after they have been left to pay the price of Conservative failure.
This Labour Government will ringfence money earmarked for investment so it can never be diverted for bonuses and shareholder payouts. We will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Ofwat, the independent economic regulator, has today published its final determinations for price review 2024. This independent process sets the prices water companies can charge customers in the form of water bills over five years. This includes a confirmed £104 billion of water company expenditure over the next five years—2025 to 2030. This is the highest level of investment in the water sector since privatisation. This investment will be crucial to deliver the improvements in the sector that the public expect to see.
In the next five years, the increase in bills is expected to pay for:
£12 billion investment to reduce harm from storm overflows which will reduce storm overflow pollution by 27%, including upgrading more than 2,800 storm overflows.
An £8 billion investment to boost water supply, including progressing nine new reservoirs.
Leakage reduction of 17%—taking it to the lowest since privatisation.
30,000 new jobs across the country.
While this much-needed investment in the sector is welcomed, no one wants to see these bill rises, but customers have been left to pay the price of Conservative failure.
This Labour Government will ensure that this can never happen again by ringfencing money earmarked for investment, so it is spent on cutting sewage spills and improving services for customers—not on bonuses and shareholder payouts. If the money is not spent how it was intended, it will be refunded to customers.
We expect water companies to put robust support in place for customers that are struggling to pay their bills, and ensure customers know how to access it. This includes:
Bill discount schemes such as WaterSure and social tariffs.
Actively offering payment breaks or payment holidays.
Adjusting payment plans urgently to help with sudden changes in household finances.
Simplifying the processes for customers to get extra assistance.
Helping customers get advice on benefits and managing debts.
Going forward, we have a plan to fundamentally reset the water sector—so we are not just fixing past failure, but also unlocking opportunities for the future.
We are putting accountability back at the heart of our water system. The Water (Special Measures) Bill will put a stop to the behaviour that has so enraged the public. It will strengthen regulations, including new powers to ban the payment of bonuses for water bosses if environmental standards are not met and bring criminal charges against lawbreakers, with new, tougher penalties including imprisonment when companies obstruct investigations.
We have launched an independent commission into the water sector and its regulation to put customers first, transform how our water system works and clean up rivers, lakes and seas for good. This is expected to form the largest review of the industry since privatisation.
This is a once in a generation chance to reset our water sector and deliver the change we all want to see. After years of pollution and decline, it is time to invest in new opportunities and restore our clean rivers, lakes and seas.
[HCWS345]
Hospices
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life.
Palliative care services are included in the list of services an integrated care board must commission. This promotes a more consistent national approach and supports commissioners in prioritising palliative and end of life care.
Whilst the majority of palliative and end of life care is provided by NHS staff and services, we recognise the vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, also play in providing support to people at the end of life and their loved ones.
This Government are determined to shift more healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting and palliative and end of life care services, including hospices, will have a big role to play in that shift.
This Government recognise the range of cost pressures the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years. In recognition of this, I am delighted to update the House that £100 million in additional capital funding is being provided to support the hospice sector. We believe that this capital investment will help with physical and operational pressures that hospices are facing. This package will allow hospices to create an improved physical environment and allow them to focus on providing the best quality care to patients.
The £100 million in additional capital funding will be spent across the remainder of this financial year (2024-25) and next (2025-26).
The principal requirements for the £100 million capital funding would be for hospices to deliver improvements that directly benefit patients, have a tangible impact on the physical environment and provide value for money.
I am also delighted to announce that children and young people’s hospices will receive a further £26 million revenue funding for 2025-26. This is a continuation of the funding which until recently was known as the children and young people’s hospice grant.
These two funding streams will help both adult and children’s hospices in England to continue delivering the best end of life care possible for patients, their families, and loved ones.
The allocation and distribution method for both strands of this additional funding will be set out in early 2025.
[HCWS348]
Compulsory Purchase Reforms
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am today publishing a consultation on reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation provisions in England and Wales.
The Government are determined to achieve our hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament.
To support the delivery of a range of development, regeneration and infrastructure projects in the public interest, we need to make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are all too often frustrated by onerous barriers to land assembly, complex purchasing processes, and unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. The result is significant amounts of developable land that remains unused and overpriced.
In our 2024 general election manifesto, the Government committed to further reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery, and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits in the public interest. We promised to take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission being granted on the land in the future—known as “hope value”.
The eight-week consultation that we are launching today is the next step in fulfilling this commitment. Building on the Government’s 9 September commencement of regulations that enact the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 power to remove “hope value” from the assessment of compensation in compulsory purchase cases by directions where justified in the public interest, the consultation proposes new reforms to the process for compulsorily acquiring land without hope value compensation through general directions on certain types of sites that deliver clear benefits in the public interest.
The objective is twofold. First, to make the compulsory purchase process faster and more efficient so that acquiring authorities are incentivised to make use of it where appropriate. Secondly, to enable more land value to be captured where justified in the public interest and then invested in schemes for public benefit.
The consultation also seeks views on broader reforms to ensure the balance of the assessment of compensation awarded to landowners is fair, both to speed up decisions on compulsory purchase orders and to reduce the administrative costs of undertaking compulsory purchase.
Through this consultation, we want to understand better how the proposed reforms would operate in practice and how successfully they would deliver on our objectives of streamlining the compulsory purchase process and bringing forward much needed development including for housing, regeneration and infrastructure.
Subject to feedback to this consultation, we intend to bring forward measures in the planning and infrastructure Bill to implement the changes.
I look forward to continuing to work with all those with an interest in improving the compulsory purchase process and compensation regimes to make sure our reforms are robust and deliverable.
[HCWS346]
British Sign Language Report 2023-24
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
This Government are committed to removing barriers and increasing opportunities for deaf and disabled people. The British Sign Language Act 2022 provides us with the ability to do this by creating a greater recognition and understanding of BSL, and also by requiring the Government to report on what each Department listed in the Act has done to promote or facilitate the use of British Sign Language in its communications with the public.
The publication of the first BSL report in 2023 provided a snapshot of the activity that had already been delivered by Government Departments in the first year since the Act gained Royal Assent, while also highlighting the areas of Government communication that needed further improvement.
The second BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 April 2024, has been published. A copy of the second report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
This second report summarises the progress Government Departments have made, and highlights where we have further to go. It shows that there has been an increase in the use of BSL compared to the first report—the overall number of BSL communications produced by Government Departments has more than doubled, from 76 in the first reporting period to 176 during the second reporting period. This represents encouraging progress but also shows that there are still improvements to be made.
This Government want to ensure disabled people’s views and voices are at the heart of all we do and ensuring that Government communications are made accessible to deaf and disabled people is essential in supporting us to achieve this goal.
This Government are committed to going further. We will be working with the BSL advisory board, deaf people and their representative organisations, and with Ministers across Government to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.
We will publish a report every year for the next five years, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2025.
[HCWS347]
House of Lords
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from Thursday 19 December, of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cohen of Pimlico and Lady Quin, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the whole House, I thank the noble Baronesses for their much-valued service to the House.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made with the Windrush Compensation Scheme in settling unpaid claims.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
As of the end of October 2024, the amount paid to individuals was over £99 million over 2,826 claims. Over 96% of the 9,322 claims received have now received a final decision—roughly 8,500—or are less than six months old, as just over 500 are. On 8 July 2024 a new single named caseworker process was implemented. This change has streamlined the process, improved consistency, increased transparency and removed duplication that led to avoidable delay.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, the current Windrush compensation scheme is still too slow, too difficult to access and unfair. At least 53 victims of the scandal, which I prefer to call the Home Office scandal, have died while waiting for their claims to be processed. The impact on those affected has been enormous and traumatic, with long-term consequences for their mental and physical health and financial security. The burden of proof for claimants needs to be reduced. A report by Justice found that providing funding for legal aid would result in savings for the Home Office and reduce caseworker time. Applying to the Home Office for compensation retraumatises applicants; therefore, legal representation creates a buffer as the applicants would not have to deal directly with the Home Office. Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out on the provision of legal aid for Windrush compensation scheme applicants and, if not, why not?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in raising this consistently, before I came to this House and beyond. The type of campaigning she has undertaken is one of the reasons why the Labour Government put a pledge in their manifesto to both introduce the Windrush commissioner and put some energy into the system, for the very reasons the noble Baroness has mentioned.
We have put in £1.5 million to support advocacy groups. The noble Baroness mentioned legal aid, and I know she is meeting Minister Malhotra in early January; I hope the matter can be discussed then. I want to reassure her and the House that there is real energy to make sure that Windrush victims get compensation early and speedily, for the very reasons that she has mentioned, and I will take that commitment back to the Home Office today.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister reconsider the decision to exclude loss of pension rights from Windrush compensation? The loss of employment and of employment opportunities means that the people affected by the policy have lost significant amounts of their pension rights. Will the Government reconsider that decision?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the question. We will examine the points that he has made, and I will write to him about the detail of the potential Home Office response on that. He needs to be reassured that the Windrush commissioner proposals that we are bringing forward, the £1.5 million we have put in to help with advocacy—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin—and the commitment to deliver this scheme quickly are for the whole purpose of recognising the hurt and suffering of Windrush victims, and giving them proper redress for that hurt and loss.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that it had been significant that a single caseworker had been allocated, and that it had really improved the system. The Windrush compensation scheme is one of many that the Government are running at the moment, such as the Post Office and infected blood. Can the Minister please make sure that he shares the lessons learned across government, particularly with the Cabinet Office, to ensure that people are getting a speedy redress when they are owed compensation by the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly do that and take that back to pass on to my Cabinet Office colleagues. One of the reasons why the new Government introduced the single named caseworker was in direct response to the type of criticism that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has brought forward. We hope that it will streamline the process, improve consistency, increase transparency and remove the duplication, because those are the factors that have led to delay. If there is good practice from the Post Office and infected blood compensation schemes, and/or vice versa from this, the Government should self-evidently adopt it and make sure that victims get the justice they deserve at the time they deserve it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful that the Minister just referred to the two other schemes that are ongoing at the moment, but victims of those schemes are saying that it is not just about the speed but about the very intrusive and traumatic questions they are being asked, and delay is coming in. Can the Minister ensure that, following the Home Secretary’s reintroduction of the Windrush unit in the Home Office, we will not again see cases like that of Dijoun Jhagroo-Bryan? He is the son of a Windrush victim and submitted paperwork, but the Home Office unit demanded that he also supply a DNA test to prove that he was his father’s son. Some months later, that has now been rescinded, but will the Minister guarantee that this sort of behaviour will never happen again?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the individual mentioned has had that level of distress, I will apologise from the Dispatch Box for the intrusion into their private life and for the justification for a scheme for which there should have been automatic qualification. The purpose of the Windrush unit—it was disbanded but has been re-established by this new Government—is to tackle the very issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton and Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned. I will take those factors back and we will resolve them. I hope that this House can accept that this Government are committed to putting energy into the scheme, which we will deliver as quickly as possible, and that we will announce a Windrush commissioner shortly. That is a solid manifesto commitment, not just a whim from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister rightly said that this scandal has plagued Governments of all colours. Can he explain some of the difficulties that the Home Office’s internal processes face when trying to identify the victims and prove that they are actually victims of this scandal? What is slowing down the process, and what are the Government doing about that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have received more than 9,300 claims, and decisions have been made on 8,448 of them. Some claims have been turned down, which means that it is a bureaucratic process by its very nature. People have to prove, difficult though it is, that the issues that have driven them to apply to the scheme are valid, because ultimately this is about using taxpayers’ money for an injustice. There are a number of problems, but we are trying not to worry about what happened previously. We are trying to reset the relationship to ensure that—with the new Windrush scheme, with an independent commissioner and with energy from Ministers to get this driven through—we can resolve this issue in the interests of not only Windrush victims but wider society as a whole.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, before I ask my question, I wish all noble Lords a happy Christmas and a prosperous and peaceful new year.
I congratulate the Government on recognising the contribution that the Windrush generation have made over the years, because they helped to build Britain after the Second World War. The Government funded a commemorative statue at Waterloo station some years ago; I went to see it last year and was really proud of it. Do the Government have any plans to give similar recognition to other minority communities who also played a significant role in helping to build Britain after the Second World War, such as the Sikh communities who helped to keep the West Midlands foundries going?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I second my noble friend’s welcome for Christmas and new year—in fact, I third his welcome, because I think we are all ready for that break in due course.
He mentioned the contribution of many people who came to this country from our Commonwealth partners abroad, and who have contributed to building the Britain that I grew up in. It is important that we recognise their contribution. People from both the Sikh community and the Windrush community have helped make the Britain that I am proud of, and I wish them well. I cannot commit to a statue today, but I note his representations and will certainly reflect on them. We hope that, however it is done, the recognition will be made.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, when I was the Minister responsible for the Windrush compensation scheme, some of the best of the Home Office’s staff worked for it. It is a very impressive team based in Sheffield, and I recommend that the Minister visits its office and sees its work. On that basis, I also welcome the decision to have a single point of contact; I was keen to try to achieve that, so I am very glad that they have managed to do it. What is the current average time for processing a new claim to the Windrush compensation scheme?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has got me there—if he allows me, I will reflect on that. Before I go on the welcome Christmas and new year break, I will make a telephone call to Sheffield and encourage the team to inform him, via me, of that delay in due course. I hope that, between us, we can have a very merry new year and resolve these issues for the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the others who deserve that recognition and resolution.
E-scooters and E-bikes
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise legislation around the use of e-scooters and e-bikes.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, resolving the long-standing problems and missed opportunities of micromobility, including e-scooters, is a priority for my department, and we will work with colleagues across government to tackle this as soon as possible. We recognise the need to ensure that dockless cycle rental schemes, including for e-cycles, work for the whole community. That is why on Monday we announced plans in the English devolution White Paper to empower local leaders to regulate these schemes.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the White Paper, with the promise to allow local regulation of micromobility schemes. However, the public continue to buy e-scooters, which are illegal on public highways and which may not be built to the highest safety specifications. When will the Government bring forward urgent legislation on the use of personal e-scooters, covering safety issues, including batteries?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s view. As of December 2023, circa 1 million people aged 16 or over owned an e-scooter in England. In July 2020, e-scooter rental trials were set up to inform future regulation, and in May 2022, the last Government announced primary legislation to legalise and regulate them. This was not delivered, meaning that e-scooters are, as she implied, still illegal to use outside of the e-scooter trials, which are due to run until May 2026. That is why, as I said, it is a priority for my department. We will move to tackle this as soon as possible.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, some agencies, such as the Safer Essex Roads Partnership, have two or three-week blitzes in which community volunteers and the police combine to stop illegal e-scooter drivers, but this enforcement is piecemeal and only partially effective. When will the Government spread this neighbourhood crackdown on illegal scooters across the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to a crime and policing Bill—I was discussing it with my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint just before Questions—which will look at the plight of local communities being plagued by anti-social behaviour. That Bill is intended to give the police stronger powers to stop vehicles being used to bring misery to our neighbourhoods, with officers no longer required to issue a warning before seizing them. That will allow them to swiftly deal with off-road bike nuisance in public parks and dangerous e-scooters on pavements, as well as street racing and cruising.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, Spain has started a scheme to identify those riding e-scooters who are driving too fast and are not wearing helmets, and a €100 on-the-spot fine has been introduced. Should we consider that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have with me a summary of the way in which 22 European countries have dealt with e-scooters. One of the most striking things is that there is no consistency across Europe or across the other countries surveyed about how to deal with this. One of the challenges of the legislation opportunity that we will take is to work out what is best for this country. There are all sorts of variations: minimum ages, whether you can ride them on pavements and whether you need mandatory helmets, and one or two countries have registration schemes—though that seems as hard for e-scooters as it might be for bicycles. We will have to work through what the best scheme is for this country in order to put forward the appropriate legislation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to a trial conducted by the previous Government which has gone on rather a long time—rather too long, in my view. Would it not make sense for the Government to draw that trial now to an early conclusion and see what lessons could be learned from it before proceeding with legislation, so that it could be informed by the results of the trial? Will the Minister be able to give a commitment that that will be done? When he learns the lessons of that trial, and will he take a particular interest in the use of e-scooters in relation to crime which we see on the street, which is a cause of great concern—not least mobile phone theft?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Happy Christmas to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Gosh, that is a distraction.
There is a criminal aspect to the use of e-scooters, particularly illegally, which is why legislation needs to be brought forward to regularise this. As regards the trials, it is implausible to suggest that we will curtail them, simply because they are the only e-scooters used on the public roads which are legal. However, I agree with the noble Lord that we should be learning the lessons of the trials that we have had as quickly as we can—they have been going on for five and a half years, as he recognises. Understanding what is going on in the rest of Europe and in developed countries will help us bring forward the right legislation for the United Kingdom.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, with reports of deaths on the pavements from e-bikes and e-scooters, there is a lot of worry about safety, particularly for those who are disabled or partially sighted. Can the Minister assure us that, when the consultations go ahead, charities working with people in such situations will be consulted, so that we can make sure we are offering them the maximum protection on our pavements and streets?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely recognise the risk to pedestrians from e-scooters and, for that matter, e-bikes and ordinary cycles on the footway. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we will consider fully the needs of disabled, partially sighted and blind people in bringing forward the appropriate legislation. We want people to feel safe walking around our towns, cities and countryside; riding bikes too fast or riding e-scooters on the pavements is completely unsatisfactory for those people.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, then from the Lib Dem Benches, and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the recent meeting on the potential regulation of cyclists in the future. On the issue of e-bikes, scooters and cyclists, one of the things that none of them has is insurance, which means that they cannot compensate victims. Insurance could play the positive role of modifying human behaviour. The premiums reflect the risk; the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Can the Minister explain the argument against these people having insurance?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The dialogue with the noble Lord continues. As he said, we had a very fruitful meeting recently, following the earlier debate in the autumn on the whole question of cycling. The practical difficulty of insurance is simply that clearly people do not need a licence for these things, and a requirement for insurance would itself need enforcement—on which he is better qualified to opine than I am. There is a real difficulty with some of the propositions around licensing and insurance, which we will have to fully consider. He is right that, in the absence of insurance, if there is an accident and people are injured or worse then there is a real problem, but we have to crack this in a practical manner.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, on average, the London Fire Brigade is called to an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every two days, some of which lead to loss of life. My noble friend Lord Redesdale has a Private Member’s Bill, the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, which is designed to tackle the issues of substandard battery design, unsafe battery chargers and dangerous conversion kits. Will the Minister undertake to examine that Bill in detail, with the intention of providing government support to get this legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly undertake to look at that in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. In October, the Department for Business and Trade launched the Buy Safe, Be Safe campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of buying faulty and unsafe e-bikes, e-scooters and components such as batteries for the very reasons she suggests. These fires, some of which are catastrophic and have caused fatal injuries, are completely unacceptable, and the people selling these things ought to be brought to order.
National Insurance: GDP
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Altrincham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions for employers on gross domestic product growth.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the £22 billion black hole left by the—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government meant we had to make very difficult decisions to repair the public finances, rebuild public services and restore economic stability. Following the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised up its growth forecasts for the next two years, as has the Bank of England. The OECD now expects the UK to be the fastest-growing European G7 economy. The OBR has also said that there will be significant increase in growth as a result of the Budget over the longer term.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I wish the Minister a happy Christmas, even with the reminder of the schwarzes Loch.
Memories of Christmas past and the story of A Christmas Carol remind us that extracting the most amount of money from a business can have surprising consequences. In this case, can the Minister comment on whether increasing employment costs will lead to an increase in prices or a reduction in jobs, and can he specifically comment for us on the impact on the hospice sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord a merry Christmas and a happy New Year in return. As I said, we did have to clear up the mess that we inherited, and that did mean taking some very difficult decisions. I of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, and we have consistently acknowledged that there will be wider impacts as a result of the decisions that we have taken. But I do genuinely say that not to act and not to repair the public finances and restore economic stability was simply not an option. As I have said, let us be clear: following the Budget, the OBR, the Bank of England and the OECD have all revised up their growth forecasts.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, a report in 2021 by Skills for Care calculated that adult social care alone contributed some £70 billion to the economy and that:
“Sustained growth in adult social care will boost local economies via the induced and indirect effects”—
and this was especially in northern and Midland regions. Does the Minister understand that the ongoing lack of investment in social care, combined with new burdens—notably the increase in employers’ NICs—could put this growth into reverse? Will the Minister make to his Government the economic case for exempting the care sector from increased employer NICs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness’s consistent focus on the importance of social care. The answer to her last question is no, but the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care in 2025-26, as part of the broader estimated real-terms uplift to core local government spending power of approximately 3.2%.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drop in job vacancies in November at the steepest rate since the pandemic is not only bad news for economic growth but reflects very poorly on both the run-up to the Budget and the Budget itself—in particular, raising employers’ national insurance contributions while increasing the minimum wage at three times the rate of inflation? Is this not a recipe for job destruction rather than job creation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, no. The OBR has been very clear that the number of people in employment will increase by 1.2 million over the course of this Parliament. As I said before, we had to take some very difficult decisions to clear up the mess that we inherited. I would simply ask the noble Lord and other noble Lords what their alternative is to the course of action that we took? Are they seriously saying that we should not have repaired the public finances? Are they seriously saying that we should not have restored economic stability? Quite frankly, that is the path that the Liz Truss mini-Budget took. We saw what happened then: she crashed the economy and working people are still paying the price today.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in the 12 months leading up to the general election, the previous Government, in reducing national insurance on employees by 4p, actually gave away £20 billion and that there has been no discernible improvement in economic activity as a result? Is not this entirely their fault and not ours?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that the actions taken by the previous Government were consistent with the actions of a Government who had a total lack of regard to the stability of the public finances—which is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion hole in those public finances because, although they willed the ends, they never willed the means.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I think it is the turn of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister respond to the question from my noble friend on the Front Bench about the impact of national insurance contributions on the care sector, and specifically on hospices?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care in 2025-26.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, colleagues in all parts of the House will have received representations on a scheme drawn up to help disabled children get to school, which is being undermined and will probably have to close down as a result of this increase in national insurance payments. Was that sort of scheme considered by the Government, or was it not considered at all before this decision was taken?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not aware of the specific scheme that the noble Lord raises, but I will happily look into it and I shall write to him on it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Given the ever-increasing demands for more and more public expenditure which we listen to every day of the week in this House, will the Minister consider presenting a form of debate for the House whereby we can look to try to extend the area in which tax might be raised to meet those public expenditure demands? Could he also look at the possibility that we may increase national insurance contribution returns by extending national insurance contributions beyond the state retirement age, as we now have 1.5 million people working beyond that age?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The question of which debates the House has is not a matter for me—I think that is somewhat above my pay grade—but my noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we hear consistent demands from the party opposite for more and more spending, but they never seem to be willing to tell us exactly where the funds for that will come from. Of course, that is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances: because they never took the difficult decisions to pay for any of their promises.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I may only have an economics degree but, none the less, that makes me an economist in the way things are currently. As such, the OBR has made it clear there is no £22 billion black hole, which is why there is the same response from this side of the House. But what is clear is that £40 billion has been taken from the private sector to the public sector. Companies have to respond to that. Their only choices are either to increase prices, which they are, to reduce wage increases, which they are, or to reduce investment in jobs and other capital items. As a result, of course, the PMI is at its lowest level since 2009 and, within 24 hours of the Budget, the gilts went up 40 basis points. Can the Minister explain that and can he also please address the issue of care homes? I am involved in a charitable care home which has received a £1.5 million extra bill. We do not know how we are going to pay that bill. I will not name the care home, but I will take this opportunity to wish the Minister a happy Hanukkah.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his last comment and I obviously say the same to him. I am also grateful to him for raising the £22 billion black hole again. He is possibly the only Member of this House who mentions it more often than I do and he will be absolutely aware of the outcome of the OBR’s review. It conducted a review into a meeting it had with the Treasury on 8 February, when the Government were obliged under the law to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve. The OBR’s review has established that, at that point, the Government concealed £9.5 billion. The OBR made 10 recommendations to stop this ever happening again, which this Government have accepted in full. But, of course, the previous Government still had five more months left in office and they continued to amass unfunded commitment after unfunded commitment that they did not disclose. By July, records show that that had reached £22 billion. The noble Lord asked a number of subsequent questions and I simply ask him: is he seriously saying that we should not have repaired the public finances? Is that his serious contention? That is absolutely what the Liz Truss mini-Budget did and we saw exactly how that ended up.
Home Schooling
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the rules on home schooling in the light of the murder of Sara Sharif.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Before I address the Question, I beg your Lordships’ indulgence as I would like to say a few words about Sara Sharif. On behalf of your Lordships’ House, I pay tribute to a beautiful 10 year-old girl who loved to sing. I extend our condolences to those who knew her, who must be devastated by her loss in such circumstances. Sara’s father, stepmother and uncle have rightly been brought to justice, and I hope that this serves as some comfort to those who love her. While the local child safeguarding practice review into Sara’s death will identify any failings, we must also recognise that social workers, police officers, health workers, teachers and others, serving our country’s most vulnerable children and families, strive every day to keep them safe.
Protecting children from harm could not be more important to the Government, and we are already taking swift action through our landmark reforms to children’s social care, the biggest overhaul in a generation. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, introduced this week, brings forward a series of new safety measures, with a focus on a joined-up system to help prevent vulnerable children falling through the cracks. This Bill contains measures requiring parents to obtain local authority consent before they can home educate if their child is subject to a child protection inquiry or has a child protection plan. Local authorities will have powers to require any home-educated child to attend school if their home or learning environment is unsuitable.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
I thank the Minister for her moving Answer to my Question. The death of Sara Sharif and the subsequent trial have, understandably, caused the deepest upset across the nation, especially in the diocese which I serve and the church school from which Sara was withdrawn by her father and stepmother. I welcome the proposals in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Prime Minister’s strong stance during PMQs in the other place. Could I ask His Majesty’s Government to go further than is currently envisaged and consider creating a new statutory duty on local authorities to visit home-schooling homes at least once a term to ensure that children’s education and their welfare are properly monitored and protected?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I put on record our thanks to the right reverend Prelate for the work that he will be doing in his diocese to support the communities which will be struggling, especially right now, and coming to terms with the consequences of the trial. With regard to the proposals put forward by the right reverend Prelate, we are about to start consultation on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was introduced in the other place just this week. Consultations will continue in this place, and I look forward to discussing it with him. In advance of such discussions on the legislation, I have spoken to the Minister responsible in the other place, and she has offered to host a round table immediately after Christmas with noble Lords who are interested so that we can discuss these issues in detail in a more appropriate setting.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I echo the Minister’s sentiments about the tragic death of Sara Sharif and thank her for starting her Answer in that way. On these Benches, we welcome very much the proposal in the new Bill that children who are subject to a plan or an investigation will not be allowed to be home educated. I wonder whether she could commit to going back and talking to her honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families, urging her to write to every director of children’s services now to establish how many children who are home schooled currently are on the child protection register or subject to an investigation, and make sure that we check up on their safety.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, who has great experience from her previous role in engaging with this. I reassure your Lordships’ House that local authorities are already actively engaged in this area. On the safeguarding statistics related to home education, of the 111,700 children in home education, 1% were children in need, while less than 0.5% were recorded as having a child protection plan or being a looked-after child. This compares with 3% of children in need, 0.4% having a child protection plan and 0.7% being looked-after children among the wider child population. We have the statistics, but, obviously, all local authorities have an onus to make sure that children are safe.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the MP for Woking, where this young girl Sara lived, was, interestingly, on the child protection register himself. He said:
“Sara’s life cannot be brought back, but we owe it to her—and every vulnerable child—to ensure her suffering was not in vain. Change must happen, and I will not rest until it does”.
Sadly, for many children, it will not be a happy Christmas this year. It is not just the issue of home education but of children in care: children in unregistered care homes and schools and those put in care homes miles away from their family and community. I am interested in what the Minister said about round-table discussions, and I hope and am sure that these issues will be picked up in the Bill that is due to come before us.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for the work that he has done in this area. We look forward to working with your Lordships across the House to make sure that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers. This is not party political. This is genuinely about how we keep children safe from harm. While I have the opportunity, not only are there many children who will not be having the Christmas—or the Hanukkah, for that matter—that we wish for everybody but there will be public servants who will be giving up time with their own families and will endeavour to keep others safe. We thank them for their service at this time of year, too.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, there is a disproportionately high number of minority-ethnic children in home elective education. If we look at the numbers where ethnicity is known, they amount to about 30%. What are the Government doing to look at the contributing factors, including that the local schools do not meet their educational needs, including special educational needs?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there are many different parts to this. To answer the noble Baroness’s question, reforming social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life they deserve, whichever ethnic minority they come from. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill follows the publication of Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which sets out the Government’s commitment to whole-system reform of children’s social care. Additionally, the Budget announced £44 million to support kinship and foster carers. This includes the largest ever national investment in kinship care. We have also just announced half a billion pounds for the next financial year in direct preventive services, to help fund local authorities to fulfil this work. If the noble Baroness would like to have a specific discussion about how we can make sure that this is getting to every community and no one is excluded from it, I look forward to meeting her.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does not the case of poor Sara indicate the urgent need for removing the legal defence of reasonable chastisement of violence against a child? Surely doing so would send out a message that it is never reasonable to beat a child.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I personally agree very much with the noble Baroness but, in terms of what we are doing, this Government does not condone violence or abuse of children in any form, and there are laws in place to protect children from this. We are looking closely at what is happening in Wales and Scotland and will continue to build our evidence base but have no plans to legislate specifically for smacking at this stage, which I believe the noble Baroness was alluding to. We want to consider further evidence carefully ahead of deciding whether a change in law is required. We want to make sure that the voices of children, parents and trusted stakeholders are fundamentally at the heart of this discussion, and that will feed into any amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that part of the difficulties of this tragic case were the inadequacies of the social work supervision? Would she therefore support much more emphasis on the recruitment of adequate numbers of social workers with sufficient experience and on support for them thereafter in the very difficult work that they do?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. The reality is that we do not yet know the detail of the specifics related to Sara Sharif, because, on the advice of police, the local child safeguarding practice review was not to be undertaken until after the completion of the trial. I would be reluctant to put any blame on any individual. In terms of next steps, I would like to take this away from Sara Sharif, because this is about how we protect all children who are at risk of harm. This is about how we can deliver stronger, multi-agency working protections, which we are doing. Statutory guidance reinforces multi-agency working across the whole system of help, support and protection. Recently introduced national multi-agency child protection standards and our new child wellbeing Bill will build on this. I also raise the fact that, as part of the legislation, we are introducing the unique signifier information, which will make it easier for multi-agency working to work. Some 56% of cases failed, and children slipped through the net, because one agency could not link up with another, so we need to introduce the single unique child identifier.
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill
Thursday 19th December 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill 2024-26 View all Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 18 December 2024 - (18 Dec 2024)
Tributes
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as we bring the last sitting week of 2024 to a close, it is not only traditional but important that I and my colleagues in the usual channels take this opportunity to pay tribute to individual members of staff who have recently departed or are soon to depart from your Lordships’ House. This also includes taking a moment to reflect on and celebrate the lives of those colleagues who are sadly no longer with us. Many of the individuals mentioned today will be known to noble Lords, having provided many years of exemplary service to this place.
Before doing so, I acknowledge the work of the almost 600 individual currently serving staff members across the House. In many cases, these people are here first thing in the morning, during the day and working late into the night. This equally applies to staff in the Government Whips’ Office and other usual channels offices, who have supported us and the whole House in managing our business. I extend a huge thanks to them all.
Sometimes, it is the things which are carried out quietly, inconspicuously and without fanfare that have the greatest impact on our ability to perform our duties well. These efforts are what enable this House and our work to operate seamlessly and without interruption. This collective effort could not have been demonstrated more expertly than in the moments immediately preceding this year’s general election. One thing that is never in doubt is the reassuring feeling that every team member in the House will always pull together and rise to the occasion, whatever the challenge may be.
Becoming Government Chief Whip in July, after three years as Opposition Chief Whip, was a huge privilege. I pay a particular tribute to the civil servants who work in the Government Whips’ Office, led by Ayeesha Bhutta. Their professionalism in the transition and working with the new Government is a wonderful example of the Civil Service at its best.
I come to individual tributes, beginning with Parthe Ward, who passed away unexpectedly at home in June this year. After joining the House as an assistant librarian in 1990, Parthe was a familiar face at the Library information desk, sourcing and issuing books, answering questions and lifting the spirits of everyone who interacted with her. Answering Members’ queries proved to be Parthe’s forte. Her knowledge of the House, its work and the Library’s collection, and her ability to track down obscure pieces of information were invaluable. More so, her kindness, sense of humour and willingness to help always shone through.
When the opportunity arose in 2016, the Library successfully applied for Parthe to receive an MBE. Modest as ever, when she received the letter she thought somebody was having a joke. She promptly telephoned the honours and appointments secretariat and was told that it was an actual fact and not a joke. Parthenope Lucy Ward had been awarded an MBE for parliamentary services—a true testament to her dedication and service to your Lordships’ House. Parthe is greatly missed by colleagues and Members alike, and we pass on our deepest condolences to her family and friends.
I now come to Clare Treanor, managing editor in Lords Hansard, who is retiring this month. Clare came to the Lords Hansard office from the House of Commons in January 2006. Since 2013, she has been the linchpin of Hansard’s Select Committee transcription work and has read an astonishing volume of Select Committee evidence, to which she has brought to bear her formidable work ethic, keen editorial eye and meticulous organisational skills. Her colleagues have hugely appreciated her steady and thoughtful guidance, and will greatly miss her warm presence in the office.
For her retirement, I understand that Clare is planning to move to Cornwall, an area of the country she knows well, to be closer to her sister and nephew, to whom she is devoted. She is looking forward to taking advantage of the potential for open-air swimming, visiting local galleries, and deploying her enthusiasm and flair for interior design in her new home. We wish Clare all the very best for her well-earned retirement.
The last individual on my list is Elaine Tarry, who retired from Black Rod’s team of formidable doorkeepers in January this year. Elaine joined the House in January 2017, having previously worked as a station manager on the London Underground. A much-liked member of the team, Elaine was always willing to help others and pass on her knowledge. I hear she took to the role very well. I wonder whether that is because, I am told, Elaine is apparently in possession of an unclear number of cats. One of the unique but necessary skills possessed by many doorkeepers is unflappability in a difficult situation. Cats, commuters and Members of your Lordships’ House alike are notoriously difficult to herd. Elaine has now moved on to pursue part-time charity work in her local area and is much missed by the team. We wish her every success in her new role and all the very best for her retirement.
In my closing remarks, I pass on my personal thanks to all colleagues across the usual channels for the support they provide. I suspect we may have a few challenging times ahead but, with the usual courtesy and friendship displayed in our discussions, I am convinced we will continue to work together, and if we cannot agree we can at least disagree amicably.
Finally, as a small festive treat, I am delighted to be able to confirm the answer to a popular question—the Conference Recess dates for 2025. I have already announced recess dates up to that point, which, of course, remain subject to the progress of business. If business proceeds as currently planned, I can confirm that the House will rise for the Conference Recess on Thursday 18 September and return on Monday 13 October. I hope colleagues will find this useful in planning.
I wish colleagues from across the House and all noble Lords a very merry and restful Christmas, followed by a very happy new year.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by completely endorsing the remarks made by the Government Chief Whip. I also personally thank the Government Whips’ Office team for their sterling support and work during my time as Government Chief Whip. They are a great team and it was a real privilege to work with them. One of the things about a change of Government is that it does not give you a chance to thank people, so I am very glad that I can publicly do so now.
I also thank my team in the Opposition Whips’ Office, who have provided support for our Front-Benchers and Conservative Peers. Again, they are a superb team and I am most grateful for the way they have hit the ground running—literally—in such a professional and enthusiastic fashion.
I am also grateful and thankful for the Government Chief Whip. Despite appearances sometimes, he and I work very well together, sometimes in more testing times than others, but I think we can say that we respect each other and our roles. I hope we can continue to bring the Christmas good cheer well into the new year.
It is my honour and duty to pay tribute to Justus Jerome Abrao. He was a cherished member of the catering and retail services team who passed away in April. He was a dedicated member of the waiting staff, playing a pivotal role in the banqueting team, and he occasionally lent his talents to the Peers’ Dining Room. He joined the team in June 2023 and quickly became known for his exceptional work ethic, his warm personality and unwavering commitment to excellence. Very sadly, Justus passed away in a tragic accident in India in April. He has left a profound void in the team and in the lives of all who had the privilege of knowing him.
From all reports, Justus bought an unparalleled enthusiasm to his work. Whether attending to guests in the banqueting team or assisting in the Peers’ Dining Room, he consistently went above and beyond, embodying the true spirit of teamwork. His colleagues could always rely on him to offer a helping hand or take the initiative in tackling the next task. Even on the most demanding days, he faced every challenge with a genuine smile that lifted the spirits of everyone around him.
Justus’s kindness, positivity and professionalism did not go unnoticed. He had a unique ability to make those around him feel valued and appreciated, be they colleagues or guests. His calm demeanour, coupled with his relentless dedication to his role, made him a standout member of our team. Though his time with us was tragically cut short, his impact was immense. He will be remembered not only for his contributions to our service but for the warmth and joy he brought to our workplace. May he rest in peace.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I express our most sincere condolences to Parthe Ward’s colleagues in the Library and everyone who knew her. She was clearly a highly regarded person, and across the House we were all shocked and saddened to hear of her death. She is greatly missed.
I too echo the thanks to everyone who works to keep the House running smoothly. There are times when I suspect it is rather like the swan: all appears calm and serene, but I am sure there is lots going on underneath.
My first tribute is to Gordon Hunt. Gordon worked as head cashier for more than 25 years before retiring this May. He has a warm, approachable personality and was well respected by colleagues in the catering team and by staff across the administration. He was an exceptionally knowledgeable and diligent member of the team, with a keen eye for detail, which is useful in a cashier and in finance. He was often the first point of contact for many colleagues, helping to resolve many and various issues, and going above and beyond the call of duty to help his colleagues. Gordon was a well-liked member of the team and is missed by all his colleagues. He will, however, now have more time to watch football—he is a proud supporter of Fulham Football Club—follow the cricket and spend time with his grandchildren. Given Fulham’s past fortunes, watching them will be more enjoyable now than previously.
Peter Linge’s colleagues wrote an essay, which shows how popular he is. This is a shortened version. Peter was senior commercial manager in the Parliamentary Commercial Directorate. He had worked on parliamentary procurement projects since 1977 and moved over full time to the Parliamentary Estate on secondment in 1991. The House authorities obviously spotted a good thing, because they made him permanent 16 months later, and Peter worked here ever since. For the majority of the time between 1977 and 1991, he was involved with some of the procurements involving Parliament, including the first competitively tendered maintenance contract for the Great Clock and phases of the external stone cleaning and restoration project. For more than 17 years, Peter was the only procurement support for the then Parliamentary Works Directorate. He worked on a large number of procurement projects, including the cast-iron roofs, Operation Marquee and Millbank House. However, he was at pains to say that he was not involved at all in the procurement around Portcullis House.
Considering Peter’s exceptional accomplishments and significant contributions to the commercial field within Parliament, he is highly deserving of this mention in the House. His tireless efforts have undoubtedly had a profound and lasting impact on Parliament as a whole. Beyond his official responsibilities, Peter consistently went above and beyond to actively mentor colleagues. His significant corporate memory has been invaluable to colleagues, and he will be missed. Outside work, Peter has a wide range of interests, in particular researching his ancestry. Associated with this activity, he is a member of the Society of Genealogists. He has recently taken to horology, and has an interest in working on historic clocks, servicing and repairing many grandfather clocks dating back to the 17th century. He loves pre-1960s films and old gramophone records and is a keen amateur discographer—yes, I had to look that up.
Mark Ogden started in the House of Lords in October 1993 and at the point of his retirement this year had completed more than 30 years’ service. Initially, Mark was employed as a porter, but the following year he moved to the catering department as a kitchen porter under the direction of the then executive chef Mark Thatcher. After some time in the kitchens, Mark moved to the catering stores as a storekeeper, ensuring the smooth handling and transition of all catering deliveries, and that they got to the right department of the right kitchen intact and on time. In 1998, Mark moved to the House of Lords Gift Shop as a senior sales assistant, where he remained until his retirement in 2024. In between filling the shelves and replenishing, Mark would be on hand to offer his exemplary standard of customer care, assisting Members, staff and visitors with purchases or inquiries. Mark was a very popular and respected member of the catering and retail team. This was also shown through his role as a trade union representative within that team. Members of staff were always happy to approach Mark for advice and support, and he was always ready and willing to provide it. The whole catering team wish Mark a happy and healthy retirement, as do we. It will provide him with the opportunity to spend more time following his beloved Millwall Football Club. Unlike the Millwall fans’ chant, it is clear that everybody likes him, and they do care.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, before I pay tribute to three most wonderful staff members, I fully associate myself with the thanks expressed by my fellow usual channels’ colleagues in general to the whole House. I add two additional thanks. The first is for the many additional kindnesses that so many staff have shown to Members in doing things that are entirely outwith their job descriptions; with our slightly older Cross Benches, that is a special and helpful thing.
Secondly, I want to mention the security guards whose job it is to stand in the wintry cold of our current front door arrangements. They have the warmest of smiles and the quickest of witty remarks as one emerges from the pod.
James Cameron-Wood retires at the end of December after 12 years of dedicated service. Prior to the House of Lords, he had 29 years of exemplary service in the Royal Navy, rising to the rank of chief petty officer and specialising in electronic warfare and intelligence. He joined the House as a doorkeeper in January 2013 and became Deputy Principal Doorkeeper in July 2019. He has, with his much-medalled chest, had leading roles on numerous state occasions, particularly for the lying in state of Her late Majesty the Queen. I was on duty on a vigil guard and could see him for a number of the 20 minutes there, with often very distressed people, helping them along and keeping the whole thing flowing, and that gave us strength in doing what we were doing. He was, of course, also present for the Coronation.
In 2014 he received a commendation from the chief superintendent of the parliamentary police for outstanding professionalism and vigilance. This concerned preventing three protesters from disrupting the visit of the Canadian Prime Minister—and I am jolly sure that other chief petty officer skills were employed on that occasion.
James was instrumental in the design and development of the Peers’ Guest Room booking system, a practical system that works very well and that I use every day. He and his wife Alison have now moved to Scarborough, and I wish him on behalf of the House very well for a long and happy retirement.
Jane White started in the House of Lords in 2003 when she was appointed to the snappily named Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee as an adviser. This was rapidly renamed our very own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and Jane worked for that committee from its inception in 2003 until her retirement. She played a critical role in developing the committee as the highly regarded mechanism for effective scrutiny of secondary legislation that it is today. She was instrumental in getting systemic improvements made within government departments for their treatment of secondary legislation—through, I know, force of logic and force of personality in equal measure.
The committee met great scrutiny challenges in Brexit and in the Covid pandemic, and a number of its members have commented to me what a tower of strength she was then and how inspirational she was in handling those issues. Over her career she became the institutional authority for all issues relating to secondary legislation and, unsurprisingly, in 2020 Jane received an OBE for services to Parliament. She has a joyful and wicked sense of humour and, as a number of colleagues whom she line-managed have said, their careers have flourished under her tutelage.
To celebrate her well-earned retirement, Jane and her husband went to Japan, although at that time they were without their two daughters and spaniel Indie. A lover of gardening and whisky—she should be Scottish—I wish her too on behalf of the House a very long and happy retirement.
Sarah Kerr, who is my private secretary, has worked in the Lords since March 2003. After roles across the House and in the Leader’s office, Sarah became assistant private secretary to three successive Clerks of the Parliaments. They and their private secretaries relied on her calm and authoritative presence and organisational skill. When she took on that role, she focused on ensuring that services were resilient, and chose to cross-train her teams to cover each other’s tasks. As Covid hit, that attention to colleagues and continuous process improvement proved utterly vital. Due in large part to Sarah’s foresight, the Clerk’s office was able to continue nearly seamlessly, including providing support to ensure that sittings of the House could carry on unimpeded.
In Sarah’s role, her mix of kindness, tact and nous have enabled her to excel, having arrived at the Cross Benches, in the pastoral elements of supporting 180 or so Cross-Benchers and in the varied diet that is the convenor’s work. She particularly shone following the sudden illness of Lord Judge. While as upset as all of us, she quickly made arrangements for an interim convenor, handled the many messages from members and staff and made arrangements for the election of the new convenor. In short, she single-handedly kept the show running. She is very highly regarded by each and every one of the Cross-Bench Peers, and in my 20 months I can say that I have become in awe of her capacity, skill and work ethic. As a manager, she has concentrated on coaching and developing those who reported to her, and time and again she has had vacancies in her team caused by the promotion of staff whom she had selflessly encouraged in their careers.
Sarah’s favourite band, the Felice Brothers, specialising as they do in Americana—that blend of country, folk and rock—has a notably loyal following, and very much to the fore of that are Sarah and her husband Dougie. Her retirement will give Dougie and her even more time to stalk the Felice Brothers around the world, and I am sure that she will.
I have had quite a lot of people write to me about Sarah’s retirement. Ed Ollard has put it better than I could, saying that she
“has an amazing skill and grace. The sort of person you want to have around & you will be confident that she will ensure any outcome will be as good as it could be”.
I can only agree.
I thank my fellow usual channels, who have been incredibly helpful to me and indeed to the Cross Benches this year. We have made a number of requests, and I am deeply grateful that they are almost always met in whole or in part. It is a lot of fun working with people whom I see regularly and share the odd Jaffa cake with. Having said that, I wish the whole House, every member of staff and every Member a happy Christmas.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, if this deal is not yet legally deceased then it certainly seems to be on end-of-life support. Can the Minister explain why the Government were in such a hurry to give away strategically important British sovereign territory to a country 1,500 miles away within weeks of taking office, just before important elections in both Mauritius and the US and without even having the courtesy of consulting the Chagossian community who in fact used to live there? We have had no detail on what is in the agreement or how much we are paying to lease back something that we already own. It has had the effect of destabilising the entire region and it is concerning some of our closest allies. Is it not time to scrap the entire thing and start again?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the negotiations with Mauritius are not destabilising the entire region, and we were not in a hurry to conclude them. As we have said before, these negotiations commenced two years ago and had gone through many rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. On the issue of scrutiny, I say that the treaty will be subject to the usual process in this House. There will also be primary legislation that will go before both Houses and be amendable in the usual way; I do not think we have explored that in our exchanges previously.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday with my Commons colleagues to discuss this issue; I am grateful for that opportunity. Does she agree that this is, regrettably, turning into a bit of a political football, with the principal Opposition claiming discourtesy now, after having 11 rounds of negotiations without consulting the Chagossians or providing any details of the basis of those discussions? It was also regrettable, perhaps, that this Government released the announcement after the general election but before the Mauritian general election, and it was regrettable that the previous Government allowed the matter to drag on before our general election. However, there is an opportunity now for the involvement of the Chagossians and for there to be clarity with regard to what the treaty text might be. As the Minister has heard me say before, an enhanced parliamentary scrutiny procedure is now very important. We need to put in reassuring measures for the Chagossians that this political football will not be to their disbenefit again.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s comments on his desire, which we share, that this should not be a political football. We should all tread carefully and respectfully in the way that we discuss this. The timing of the Mauritian election was not in our gift. The negotiations reached a conclusion that day, and our Prime Minister thought that the right thing to do was to be open about that fact. Yes, there has since been an election in Mauritius and, quite rightly, the new Mauritian Government wish to cast their own eye over the treaty. We respect that; it is what any incoming Government would want to do. Having said all of that, I strongly agree with the noble Lord on the way we discuss these issues, because they matter so much to many people. They affect our security but, as he rightly points out, they matter most of all to the Chagossian community.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the benefits to the Chagossians is that they will be able, if they wish, to resettle some of the outer islands? Has this been agreed by the Government of Mauritius yet, and will it be in the treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, this was something we wanted to secure as part of the negotiations. It is intended that the Chagossians will have the right to resettlement on the outer islands, but not on Diego Garcia, because that is where the military base is sited, and the view is that that would not be feasible or in our national security interests. But the noble Baroness is quite right in what she says.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to the Friends of the British Overseas Territories charity. In the other place yesterday, the Minister repeatedly said that the interests of Chagossians were absolutely at the heart of this agreement. If that is so, why are so many Chagossians here campaigning against this deal? Will the noble Baroness respect the right to self-determination and grant the Chagossian people a referendum on the sovereignty of these islands?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No, we will not be granting one. Bluntly, there is no point in stringing people along on these issues; that just compounds the wrong that has been done to them. The Chagos Islands have never been self-governing and the view among the Chagossian populations varies quite considerably. While there is a view among Chagossians here, we should be humble enough to accept that the largest Chagossian community is not in the UK but in Mauritius. That Chagossian community has been clear that it supports the deal, I suspect largely because of the point made my noble friend Lady Blackstone: that they would have that right to settle on the outer islands. The situation is not quite as straightforward as it is sometimes suggested.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the House would do well to note how warmly our friends and allies in the Pentagon, the State Department and the NSC have welcomed the extended and improved security of tenure of the base?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The security of and continuation of legal certainty regarding the base on Diego Garcia has been our prime objective in these negotiations. We would not have entered into any kind of agreement or deal that did not have the support of our closest allies, because if something might be acceptable to us but is unacceptable to them, the stability and security that we were trying to achieve would have been compromised, so the noble Lord is completely right.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one of the key reasons why previous Governments did not conclude these negotiations was the issue of security. That is why there are repeated requests to see how that has been aligned. My question, however, is about the United States, which is a key component. What representations have been made to and what conversations have been had with the incoming US Administration of President Trump regarding negotiations on Diego Garcia? I say to the Minister that their perspective will be markedly different from that of the current Administration.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we deal with the current Administration until they are no longer the current Administration. I note that as negotiations concluded, support was provided by our US allies not just at the political level, but throughout their Department of Defense and Department of State. This is seen as a desired outcome not just by leading politicians; those who are closely concerned with the security and stability of the base and its continued viability and legal certainty have very much been in support of this treaty.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I very much welcome my noble friend’s assurances about the Chagossian people who, in all these discussions, must be central in view of the gross injustice inflicted upon them in the past. Can she give us some further assurance about the extent and form of the discussions going on with the Chagossian communities now? This is perhaps an impossible question to ask, but I will try it. We know that there are divided opinions among the Chagossians, but when there is division there comes a point at which one has to reach a conclusion about what the majority view is, in any set of circumstances. Has my noble friend formed that opinion? Do they support, broadly, what is happening, or oppose it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It really depends on who you seek the opinion from. There undoubtedly will be Chagossian communities who are deeply unhappy about this—there is no point pretending otherwise—because what they have wanted and asked for since they were removed by this Government from Chagos in the 1960s is to be able to return and to continue their life as it was previously. Since that happened, that has never been possible. To make that possible, we would need to withdraw our base and our military activity, alongside the United States, from the islands. We have taken the view that we are not prepared to do that. That being the case, the next best thing, as one could describe it, is for those Chagossians to be allowed to visit and settle on the outer islands. That is what has been achieved, potentially, through this treaty.
English Devolution
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this White Paper will take away powers from local communities and risks making local government less responsive to the needs of local taxpayers. As my honourable friend in the other place rightly said:
“This is not bottom-up local leadership, but top-down templates for local government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 38.]
In government, we supported joint working between local councils, which included some unitary restructuring as well as district mergers, but Conservative Ministers were clear that any unitary restructuring had to be locally led and have local support. It was not a condition of devolution deals.
If I may, I would like to raise some of the most pressing concerns of my noble friends on these Benches. Unitary restructuring does not necessarily result in better value for money for local residents, and alignment of council taxes across different councils has generally been upwards. Creating an additional mayoral tier above local authorities also risks wasting any savings achieved through unitarisation.
This has been proven in Labour-run mayoral regions, where we have seen eye-watering mayoral precepts imposed on residents. Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khan massively hiked their council tax precepts in London, now topping £471 per band D household in London under Sadiq Khan. Only Conservative mayors such as Boris Johnson have cut council tax precepts; Andy Street and Ben Houchen—now my noble friend Lord Houchen—charged nothing at all. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government’s plans to change the structure of local government will deliver better services without imposing significantly higher council tax on local residents?
We expect Labour to invite proposals from councils for local government restructuring. The first wave of this restructuring would then result in county council elections in May 2025 in those chosen areas being cancelled. Does the Minister agree that no council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring?
The Government’s true attitude to devolution is clear from their approach to housing delivery. Their introduction of the concept of grey-belt land explicitly removes the green-belt requirement to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. When their assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land is considered alongside the imposition of mandatory housing targets, it is increasingly clear that the Government intend to concrete over as much of the countryside as they can, while cutting building targets in cities.
Despite these changes to the planning rules and the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, the Government have cut new housing needs targets in areas where new homes are needed—minus 11% in London, minus 38% in Birmingham and minus 55% in Coventry—while increasing the targets in areas where the housing need is clearly less acute: it is 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness. These mandatory targets are just one example of the Government’s centralisation of control over local authorities and reduction of the power of local leaders, who know their communities’ needs best. Can the Minister tell this House why a Labour Government have cut housing targets in Labour-run London, Birmingham and Coventry while imposing higher housing needs assessments on the Conservative-run councils in the New Forest and North Yorkshire, as well as in the Liberal Democrat-controlled Westmorland and Furness?
This announcement could have been so much more. It could have been a chance to rethink from scratch the duties, responsibilities and funding of local government, and to ensure that its form follows its function. Before I sit down, I have a few final questions. Can the Minister reassure this House that local authorities will be fully consulted and given time to consider the Government’s plans fully before making any decisions about their future? Can she confirm whether local authorities will have genuine choice on restructuring? Most importantly, will local residents themselves be consulted directly before any decisions on restructuring are taken forward?
In order to ensure electoral equality across the country, will His Majesty’s Government also look at the representation per capita in London and in some of the other metropolitan councils? That is really important to ensure that every person in this country gets equal representation.
Finally, I understand that local councils have been asked to submit their expressions of interest by 10 January. Can the Minister confirm that councils will then have more time—the time that they need—to consider their further steps?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that the Statement says:
“We will deliver a new constitutional settlement for England”.
That is a very ambitious claim. What we have in the White Paper is a great disappointment by comparison. There is a deep confusion between what is “local” and what is “regional”, which are used interchangeably and loosely throughout the White Paper. We are promised “regional Mayors” who will, we are told, also be “vital local leaders”. They will take part in the Council of the Nations and Regions alongside Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers; they will also sit on a separate Mayoral Council with the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no link with Parliament here, I note, nor any link to Gordon Brown’s proposal to reform the Lords as a second Chamber to give us a role in representing the nations and regions in UK-wide debates. This looks to the Liberal Democrats like a plan designed in the Treasury both to save money, by shrinking local democratic institutions, and to convert elected mayors into agents of central government, spending funds that they hope to obtain by negotiations with the Treasury—the integrated settlements—without taking into account the importance of embedding democratic government in local and regional networks.
Chapter 4.1 of the White Paper begins:
“England is made up of thousands of communities—towns, cities and villages”.
It then proposes to squeeze those thousands of local communities into somewhere between 30 and 40 combined authorities, with fewer than 100 unitary authorities beneath them, each containing between 500,000 and 1 million people. That is not a unitary system; it is a new two-tier system in which strategic decisions will be taken by the upper mayoral tier—in effect, by one elected person. Local democracy rests on the relationship between voters in their communities and the councillors who represent them. It is the bedrock of democratic politics and of political parties, which draw their campaigners, their members and, often, their recruits into national politics from these local activities. But here is a proposal to cut further the number of elections and elected councillors and to remove them to a much greater distance from those they try to represent, with 15,000 voters or more in each ward.
England’s voters tell pollsters that they deeply mistrust Westminster politics and trust their local representatives more. This measure risks deepening public mistrust of democracy further and weakening political parties; it asks voters to identify with one elected mayor overseeing some millions of people and quite possibly elected on little over a quarter of the votes cast. I remind the Minister that, in July’s election, five parties won more than 10% of the national vote in England. First past the post risks producing some remarkably unrepresentative mayors elected on perhaps 27% or 28% of the vote.
We will need to strengthen the really local tier—the town and parish councils—to compensate for this shift of power upward. I could not find any discussion of parish and town councils in the White Paper. Did I miss some passing references? No other democratic state in Europe, North America or Australasia has such a thin framework of local and regional government. England will remain the most highly centralised state in the democratic world.
Chapter 4 declares:
“There is clearly an appetite for reorganisation in parts of England”.
We are given no evidence of such an appetite among the public. We have had multiple reorganisations in the past 50 years. Now we are going to have another one, which will cost additional money—as all reorganisations do—and disrupt services during the transition. Has the Treasury budgeted for the costs of transition? It then goes on to propose that there should be new rules on remote attendance and proxy voting for councillors at meetings. This is not surprising, given the size of some of our new councils. In the new North Yorkshire Council, it takes some councillors 90 minutes or more to drive to council meetings, so remote attendance and proxy voting are necessary. That is not local government or local democracy, however.
Lastly, in chapter 5 we are told:
“Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will be held to account for the outcomes associated with their Integrated Settlement”
by “reporting to central government”. That is mayors acting as agents of central government, not responding to local and regional issues. The Government seem to want to rush through this reorganisation without waiting for local consultation or the agreement of other parties. This is not the best way to deliver a long-lasting constitutional settlement for England at a time when trust in our local democracy is lower than it has been for a very long time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who attended the drop-in session on the White Paper yesterday.
The English devolution White Paper sets out what I will not apologise for being an ambitious new framework for English devolution, moving power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best as part of our plan for change. We want to see all of England access this devolved power by forming strategic authorities that can make the key decisions to drive economic growth, with a clear preference for mayors. We will do this with areas and will launch a devolution priority programme for those that want to be on the fast track to mayoral devolution. We will legislate for a ministerial directive for areas that are not able to agree, so that no part of England misses out on that programme.
We have created a new devolution framework to be put into statute through the English devolution Bill, which will give areas a range of new powers across planning, infrastructure, transport, skills, business and energy, with consistent voting arrangements to allow effective decision-making.
We will also clearly set out the criteria by which all mayoral strategic authorities will be able to access further powers, including integrated settlements, to allow greater flexibility of funding by becoming established mayoral strategic authorities. This framework will grow over time, including through suggestions from strategic authorities to be discussed at the Mayoral Council.
We recognise that devolving power requires us to fix the foundations of local government so that we can empower communities at all levels. We will give communities a new community right to buy for valued community assets.
As councils are the foundation of our state, we will fix their foundations through fairer funding and multiyear financial settlements to give councils the certainty they need. We will also end the destructive “Whitehall knows best” mindset that micromanages their decisions and replace it with the principle of constitutional autonomy and partnership—so devolution by default.
It is important that councils are the right size and shape to serve the people they represent, with simpler structures that people can understand. That is why we will facilitate a bold programme of local government reorganisation for two-tier areas and for smaller, failing, unitary councils. We will invite proposals for reorganisation from all these areas and phase delivery—a point made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord—taking into account where reorganisation can unlock devolution, where areas are keen to move quickly, or where it can help address wider failings. We will work closely with areas to deliver an ambitious first wave of reorganisation in Parliament.
Before I answer the specific questions, I would like to say that I am not going to take any lessons from the party opposite about the management of councils. When we came into power, many councils were going bust and issuing Section 114 notices, with a growing queue behind them of councils struggling with their finances. The lack of fiscal discipline in the audit regime left a backlog of 1,000 audits and £100 million that the previous Government could not account for. How has that helped democracy and local accountability? There was also a deepening crisis in adult social care. Parents were having to take their own councils to court to get the special needs provision their children were entitled to. There was a homelessness emergency that has seen the utter scandal of 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation, and councils having to use up to 40% of their net revenue budget to fund it. I am taking no lessons about the stewardship of public finances or efficiency of local service delivery.
I turn to the specific questions. It is not taking away local powers to give a range of new powers from Westminster to local areas so that decisions can be taken locally. I have already outlined what some of those areas will be. Making sure that decisions on health, transport, skills, workforce and so on can be taken at a local level is an increase in local powers, not a reduction.
The noble Baroness asked about the mayoral tier and whether that would waste money. Of course, she spoke about Labour-run mayoral precepts. I suppose if your principle is to deliver worse services with more cost, we could look at the previous Government’s management of funding. In a Statement later today, I will make a number of announcements about local government funding, making sure that local government is funded properly to deliver the services it is charged with delivering.
The noble Baroness also said that no councils should be bullied or blackmailed into doing this. This programme has been driven by local government; the demands have come from local government ever since we started the devolution programme. It is local councils that will work together with partners in their areas to pull together the programmes. This is a locally driven programme.
The noble Baroness made some points about the green belt and the grey belt. I am afraid that the assumption she made is just wrong. There is a specific proposal to protect those areas of green belt that are nationally protected areas or have sites of special scientific interest. There is a specific proposal about brownfield first. A sequential approach to the use of land is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The noble Baroness raised the new calculation on housing targets. When the previous Government withdrew the requirement for mandatory housing targets, we immediately saw a reduction in supply. We have made a new calculation based on affordability and housing need. Everywhere needs to contribute to the delivery of housing. It is really important that that happens. The new assessments are fairer from that point of view.
The noble Baroness asked about time to consider the proposals. The letter that went out—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has asked some questions about this letter too—clearly set out the programme. Councils and areas that want to go faster can submit proposals, but there will be more time, for those who feel they need it, to take the time they need.
On consultation with residents, it will be a legal requirement to have a consultation and the department will undertake that consultation through MHCLG resources.
Turning to the noble Lord’s questions, I am not apologising for the ambition of this plan. I think it is an ambitious plan. It is certainly not a plan from the Treasury; it has come from local government. But it is true to say that it is the problems in local government funding that mean we have to consider more efficient and effective ways of delivering service.
I understand the noble Lord’s points about local representation. When surveyed, only 23% of people felt they could have any influence over decision-making in their local areas. That is not good enough. We need to improve that rate. Whatever the system is now, it is not giving people a feeling that they can influence decisions in their area.
When you look at some of the activity of our mayors, they can use their mandate for change to make difficult decisions and drive growth in their areas, as Oliver Coppard has done in taking the Supertram back into public ownership in South Yorkshire. Mayors provide coherent leadership for their place. We have seen this already, with mayors such as Tracy Brabin leading trade missions to drive growth in their region. We want every part of England to take its place on the Council of the Nations and Regions and to have strong, effective partnerships with councils and other partners to deliver the missions we have set out to transform the country.
There is some wording about town and parish councils in the White Paper. If the noble Lord wants to contribute more on that topic, we would be pleased to hear that. I have been talking to the National Association of Local Councils and its officers about how we use them in this new system, and how the parish and town councils respond. There will be a vital role for them. There will be a vital role for front-line councillors as conveners of their neighbourhood areas in order to drive this programme forward. Mayors will certainly not be agents of central government. I know some of them quite well and it is a long stretch to describe them as such. They work very hard for their local areas and deliver really well.
I thank noble Lords for their comments today. As the former Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, said about devolution to another of the United Kingdom’s countries, devolution is
“a process, not an event”.
We have a way to go yet. This devolution offer is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition. We want to continue to deepen devolution across England, developing policy with regions, including through the Mayoral Council. The White Paper is very explicit about engaging with the sector, seeking proposals from areas for devolution and local government reorganisation in their area, and engaging with mayors and councils on policies for the English devolution Bill, which we intend to lay in this Session. We welcome your Lordships’ input on how, but the aim is clear: a devolution revolution that helps us rebuild the country, deliver growth and change the politics of our country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a really interesting document. I wish her well, because the pressure has come from the mayors for devolution—rightly, in my opinion—and what they have come up with is a laudable solution to this. My noble friend’s challenge is how to deal with the other parts of England that are not subject to the current mayors. A variety of solutions are in the White Paper, which we all have to look at, but she is still trying to get more devolution to the other parts of the UK, which they all want. I have one question. The smallest area with a council currently is probably the City of London. How will she fit that into this new structure? Clearly, it does a good job, but it needs some kind of structure within this overall requirement. I congratulate my noble friend.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his support for the overall programme. London already has a devolution arrangement, but I am assured by colleagues that we will look at the GLA and how it works. I am sure that we will take account of his comments about the City of London in that programme.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I bring Members’ attention to my registered interests, and I thank the Minister for the briefing yesterday. Can she confirm, now that we are in a public session, that the intention for 500,000 as a guide size for reorganisation is not a hard and fast rule but that some bids with a population under 500,000 will be allowed? Can she confirm that authorities already in the unitary system with populations of less than 500,000—all the councils in this country, bar 11, will be in scope—are also in scope for the reorganisation conversation? This is not an attack just on the Conservative-majority controlled two-tier areas; this is for the whole of the local government sector to be a representative size of approximately 500,000. That means that most of the boroughs of London are in scope and not excluded. Finally, I have a word of advice. If the Government are going to try to stick to a 500,000 unit, I tell them to forget about the number and the size of the council when they go to Rutland, because the Government have previously had some very bad experience of trying to remove Rutland.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his advice on Rutland. I am happy to confirm that. On the 500,000 number, it is very strange: ever since July, people have been saying repeatedly that we need a guideline number, but when we give a guideline number, they say, “No, not that number. That is not the right number”. I hope that was not how the Conservatives did the accounting, because that would be a problem.
The 500,000 figure is intended as a guideline; it is what works best for local areas. I imagine that some sort of de minimis size will be incorporated in the Minister’s thinking as we go through this programme. We feel that 500,000 is around the right size to get the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery and the scale of managing the strategic requirements in a local area; that is why we have said 500,000. We are looking for councils to come forward with their own proposals about how this works for their local areas. On the other question, this is intended to cover all areas of England, so they are all welcome to come forward with proposals—including Rutland.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this Statement and I congratulate her and the Government on entering what are very difficult areas, as I remember well. One thing that has happened in the last 14 years—I know some noble Lords on the other Benches approved of this—was the abolition of the Audit Commission. Whatever people’s view about that, it has left nothing to give guidance and understanding to the combined authorities about audit. I hope that the Government will introduce something that gives clear guidance and authority to the audit process in these areas. Local people have the right to know that money invested there is being spent well and according to best value. Had we had that, I believe that the mayoral authority in Tees Valley may not have had the real problems that it has had, where we have ended up with 90% of the money that is invested, or of the contracts that are given there, being invested in two men who now live in Dubai. That is not best value for the public or what anybody intended in setting these issues up. I hope the Government will take hold of how we audit combined authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point. It is impossible to overstate the importance of having an accountable and transparent process for local government. I mentioned in my opening remarks that it is an absolute scandal that we have found ourselves in the position we have in relation to local government audit, with 1,000 audits outstanding—that is just not good enough. Accountability is absolutely vital. As well as a complete review of local government audit systems, and making sure that we have an audit service for all of local government that is fit for purpose, we will consult on something for mayoral combined areas. I do not know what it will be called, but it will be the equivalent of a local public accounts committee. We think that the work of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament is helpful and useful, and we will consult with local government on whether a local public accounts committee, along similar lines, would be useful.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declared interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister will know that I share her enthusiasm for strategic planning, but will she acknowledge that it may be some time before strategic authorities are established, or indeed before some strategic authorities have the necessary capability for strategic planning? In order to maintain momentum, will the Government issue guidance that will enable local planning authorities to go ahead with spatial strategies at a sub-regional level as quickly as possible?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. It is important that we get development moving as quickly as possible. The New Towns Taskforce will make recommendations to government on the best delivery approach when it reports in July next year. The appropriate delivery vehicle will always be place-specific, and we expect development corporations to be used in most cases. Mayors, local authorities and government can establish development corporations, and we look forward to engaging local partners to understand what will be the best delivery approach for them to support future growth. If these need to come forward sooner rather than later, we will work with local areas to make sure that we facilitate that as best as possible.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if I understand the Minister right and the policy, there is to be no financial disincentive for authorities that do not wish to go in this direction. That being the case, will any other inducements and/or sweeteners be offered in order to try to take this forward? If not, what incentive is there for an area that does not have a mayor to do this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there are two absolutely key incentives to this programme of going forward with a mayor. Mayors will get new powers, devolved from Westminster, in a number of areas of competence. With the patience of the House, I will repeat those again: transport and local infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, well-being and public service reform; and public safety. We are already setting out integrated budgets for the more established mayoral authorities to enable them to do that. There is a huge incentive to do that, as well as a seat around the table of the Council of the Nations and Regions. I hope local areas will see that as a positive opportunity. If they want to take more time to get there, that is fine, but it will be a great opportunity for our local regions.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have the dubious distinction of holding a job as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, in the role that my party wished would never exist, so we have had an interesting debate. I absolutely understand some of the positives of the mayoral model—she would say that, wouldn’t she?—but I also appreciate the issues about democratic deficit. When Tony Blair imagined and brought into being directly elected mayors, he saw that the democratic deficit and the electoral process worked against a mayor having a real broad consensus in an area to be the chosen person. So he rightly ditched first past the post and brought in what we would consider to be an inferior PR: the alternative vote system. As we know, that was abolished by the previous Government—and one can only think about the reasons they might have had to do that. Genuinely, if you want a super-mayor with superpowers to really command authority and respect over an area, people must feel that their vote counts. At least in an AV model, the vast majority of people actually get their first or second choice candidate to win. Under first past the post, the winner, as we all know, can actually receive fewer votes than the rest of the field put together, which cannot be right if you are devolving that amount of power.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness provided a wonderful role model for mayors going forward. Some of the innovations that she introduced during her time as Mayor of Watford are legendary, so I thank her for that service.
Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed. As the noble Baroness will be aware, they have both standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems directly, exercising devolved powers and attracting inward investment. They have a platform for tackling obstacles to growth that might need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable to their citizens, as she rightly points out, and have the profile to stand up for them on a national stage and to partner with and challenge central government where needed—and of course it is needed sometimes.
As for the electoral system for mayors, we are not proposing to change that just now.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware, I hope, that as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber I am a huge supporter of devolution and I welcome the White Paper. However, I also know that, for devolution to work, it needs strong support through organisations such as the sadly abolished regional development agencies. To avoid what she called micromanagement, can she assure me that there will be proper support from the Civil Service, perhaps even by moving civil servants out of London to the regions to deliver the devolution settlement?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and she is quite right. I remember very well the regional development agencies, back in the day. Some of the departments in government already have a regional presence. My own department has offices in each of the regions, and we intend to extend that and offer a widespread programme of secondments to regions. I think it will be of real benefit to the Civil Service to be working in our regions and then bringing that back to central government, or the other way round: working in central government and going out to the regions. I look forward to seeing how that programme develops. My noble friend is right to say that it will be very important to see that the offices in our regions are fit and well equipped to serve the mayors and combined authorities.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we are the most centralised country in the OECD. Can the Minister enlighten the House on the real powers and fiscal devolution that this will lead to? In particular, what is the Government’s target for the proportion of taxation that is devolved? Secondly, I appreciate the Minister’s comment on the letter. However, it is causing confusion to a number of councils, which have been told that they need to submit a letter by 10 January. Many believe that, if they do not, they will miss out on devolution and it will be imposed on them. What is the deadline, what is expected of those who do submit and what does it mean for those who do not meet the deadline? Can this be clarified to councils?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. This is about real devolution of powers and funding, and there are real benefits there to those who take up the offer. The earlier they start to get established, the more powers they will be able to take on. That is a really important step for councils to take.
In terms of the letter, I have looked closely at it and it is asking for expressions of interest only by 10 January. For those who want to move quickly, we will ask them to submit their proposals by May—that is, full proposals for reorganisation and devolution. For those who want to move more slowly, they can do that at their own pace. We would hope to get proposals across the board by autumn this year.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, as a feudal hereditary being thrown out of Westminster, I am quite excited at the prospect of devolution. I have been Earl of Devon for 10 years and, in that role, have tried to understand how local government works across Devon. It is complicated and very difficult, with eight district councils, two unitaries, a county council, et cetera. I was with Exeter City Council on Monday as the announcement was being made, and people there were incredibly uncertain as to the implications for the city council and their plans going forward. Lots of people across the region are confused about the implications of this.
There is so much work to be done at local government level, not least the 1.5 million new homes—and later we are going to debate economic development. I am concerned that, with yet another change in local government, and another step in devolution, people simply will not understand where they have recourse and how it works. I still do not understand it, and I wonder what effort the Government will make to inform people, educate them and make sure that local people really feel that they understand what is happening.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl. I have already started a series of meetings with councils in local areas to understand where they are with this programme. I am happy to meet with any of them, so, if he wants to encourage his colleagues in Devon to meet me, I would be more than happy to do so. I shall take back to the department the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl have made about the letter, and see whether we feel that any further clarification should be made.
Of course, there will be a programme of communication with the public, but the point about this is that it is a White Paper, so it is for consultation. If there are points in it that need clarification, I urge people to get in touch with the department, because we want to get people’s responses to this and, if there are elements that need clarifying before people feel that they can respond, we are happy to do our best to clarify those—so I do urge people to contact myself or the department.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, in this age of black holes, will mayors’ offices be adequately resourced to fulfil their potential? The newly elected mayor for Warrington and Cheshire is warmly encouraged by business locally, ensuring greater accountability and focus from local leadership on local growth plans. Previously, mayors have been targeted mostly on urban areas. The ambition from Warrington and Cheshire, with a higher proportion of rural communities, is to reach out to market towns and include prosperity across the rural economy. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that the wider concerns of subregions in the countryside will be adequately addressed by a well-funded devolution process? For example, transport solutions beyond town boundaries need to be integrated with rural areas, with planning powers suitable for the needs of rural communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I warmly welcome the extension of mayoral arrangements into parts of our country outside metropolitan areas. I thank my noble friend and all those in Cheshire and Warrington—I met some of them earlier this week and I met them with him a couple of weeks ago—for the spirit of co-operation that has got them where they are in this process. We believe that there are huge benefits to urban and rural areas in having more powers and funding devolved to enable decisions to be made locally about what will work best for their citizens and to drive their local economies.
I can confirm the Government’s commitment to ensure that new powers are matched with real devolution of funding. On the proposed integrated settlements, we will start with Manchester, Liverpool, the north-east, South Yorkshire, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire combined authorities. All of them will receive consolidated budgets so that mayors do not have to slalom between the complex funding pots to deliver the right solutions for their communities. I look forward to this exciting programme of devolution and to continuing to work with noble Lords on the White Paper as we go forward.
Rural Economy
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
That this House takes note of the importance of growing the rural economy.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have signed up to speak in this debate on growing the rural economy, not least because of the breadth of experience and knowledge that is represented in your Lordships’ House which we will be drawing on today. In doing so, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Many people dream of moving into the countryside because of the quality of life that it can offer. I think of the strength of rural communities, the high levels of social capital and the way that people support one another—no wonder it is attractive. We in the Church of England are glad to play our part in that: we are at the heart of many of our rural communities across the country, wanting to contribute to their flourishing and thriving.
Very often in this House, we raise problems associated with living in the countryside, such as rural crime, fly-tipping and the lack of access to services. Today, however, I hope that we can frame our debate in terms of the untapped potential of the rural economy and on the prosperity that it can deliver for our nation—that is, if we can get the right policies and support in place. I note that His Majesty’s Government have committed to making economic growth a top priority, to deliver on
“what matters most to working people in every corner of the UK”.
To start with, it is good to remember that there are many, many working people in rural communities: nearly 20% of the population of this country live in the countryside and over half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, employing 3.8 million people. The rural economy contributes over £315 billion a year to England alone. It is vital, then, that the Government’s missions not only deliver for rural communities but enable the rural economy to play its part in helping to deliver them.
Unlocking the pride and potential of every nation and region across the British Isles will not be possible if our strategies and policies are primarily focused on urban areas, on towns and cities. We need to be strategic and intentional about unlocking the potential of our rural areas too. For many people, the phrase “the rural economy” conjures up pictures of agriculture and tourism. Farming, for example, has been dominating the news lately, and the impact of the Budget on farming communities has been the subject of a great deal of controversy and debate. We need to be clear, however, that the rural economy is diverse and innovative. Farming, as important as it is—I am the son of a farmer—is not interchangeable with rural industry. There are many other aspects to the rural economy.
The recently published report Reigniting Rural Futures, commissioned by the Rural Coalition, of which I am president, shows that the biggest employer in rural authorities is the sector comprising public administration, education and health. It accounts for 30% of workers compared, incidentally, with 33% in urban areas for that same sector. It is significant that agriculture, mining, electricity, gas, water and waste as a sector employs just 2%. The Pragmatix report shows that, in the rural economy, productivity stands at just 82% of its non-rural counterpart, with a continuing downward trend in the future if we carry on with business as usual. However, if we could enable our rural economy to perform at a similar level to that of Scandinavian countries, for example, we could be looking at an additional £19 billion in tax revenue for the public purse, not to mention the associated benefits that such prosperity could bring to the communities themselves.
If we want the rural economy to grow, we need additional capacity. The Government need to recognise that there will be some additional costs associated with delivering services and projects in rural areas where sparsity of population poses so many additional challenges. There is often a lack of access to education and job opportunities, compounded by the lack of reliable and affordable public transport. When you talk to rural employers, one thing that they say is that people very often want the jobs but simply cannot get to them because of the transport difficulties. There is a desperate lack of affordable housing, exacerbated by the huge number of second homes, particularly in the south-west, driving up prices and driving out young people from their rural communities.
But there are some hugely positive aspects of our rural communities too. Over the years, I have been privileged to visit many rural businesses and farms in the diocese in which I serve, covering Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. I think of my visit to an eco tomato-growing plant in East Hertfordshire, using an anaerobic digester that produces biofuel. The exhaust gases emitted by the engines are cleaned and then used in the greenhouses to support and enhance plant growth. I think also of the very innovative Groundswell festivals in Hertfordshire on regenerative farming systems—I know that some members of your Lordships’ House have been. We are absolutely at the forefront of horticultural and agricultural development across the world; we should celebrate and be proud of that.
Our rural areas also have a big part to play in the transition to net zero. There are already some outstanding examples of investment in renewable energy taking place in the countryside. In addition, some of the best examples of community ownership and co-operatives are to be found in rural communities, safeguarding a range of commercial services and with long-term survival rates. An excellent example of this is the Bathford village shop and café in Somerset, which won an award at the Plunkett’s Rural Community Business Awards. I will not describe it, but noble Lords might want to look at it, as it is an extraordinary initiative.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative sector. Some village halls and even some parish churches have been opened up in rural areas, providing spaces for free wifi and offering hubs where people working from home—it sounds a great idea when you start, but after a few months it can be very isolating—can gather together perhaps once a week for half a day to network and build support and friendship. These are just some of the wonderful, innovative projects that are already going on in our rural communities. If we are to see more of these, however, there needs to be a little more early-stage capacity support for initiatives so that they can be self-supporting, robust and, in the long run, transformative. If the barriers are removed, all the signs point to rural communities being up for it—they will realise their potential.
Then there is tourism, which is a significant part of the rural economy, not least in areas such as Devon and Cornwall and in Cumbria in the north-west, which are able to compete with some of the most attractive areas across the whole of Europe. However, to attract tourists, we cannot just leave it to local tourist boards. We need a national strategy that can attract people to come.
With so many opportunities, what are the barriers that rural areas face? Let me just briefly mention three, if I may, although there are many more. The first is poor broadband. As the Pragmatix report shows, only 69% of rural premises have a 4G signal indoors, compared with 90% in urban areas. It hinders home working, home banking, the growth of online businesses, and indeed even tourism. This will probably need different solutions from the ones that work in urban areas. I have recently been involved in discussions, for example, where we are looking at installing 4G equipment in some of our remote village spires and towers in order to bounce signals up into areas that, at the moment, cannot get decent coverage.
A second barrier is access to banking services. The pandemic accelerated the movement away from cash and, with the industry keen to reduce operating costs, the way many start-up businesses and small charities use banking services no longer fits with the business drivers of today’s banking industry. The transition to online banking is happening too fast for many small charities and businesses in rural areas, with little thought or support to aid the transition. Many are now operating in areas where local bank branches have disappeared. We need the convening power of central government to bring together the Department for Business and Trade, possibly the FCA, UK banks, the Charity Commission and community sector organisations to find solutions. Power and co-ordination are the answer in this case, rather than large amounts of extra funding, to ensure equal access to financial services.
Thirdly—I am conscious that time is going on, so I will be very brief—rural public transport is obviously a huge issue for us if we want young people to be able to stay in rural areas and if we want to enable workers to come and work in them.
I will make a few comments on local government funding and access to services. Organisations representing rural communities have been calling for a long time for fair funding for rural local authorities that takes into account the additional costs of delivering key services in sparsely populated areas. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be reviewing local government funding next autumn, although it is concerning that the rural services delivery grant has been withdrawn. I note the Government’s commitment to repurposing the money from this grant, which will be going back out in the form of the recovery grant, although the details are unclear. I hope that the settlement will take into account the costs of service delivery in light of the withdrawal of the grant, as well as the factors of rural deprivation, which are often lost in the scale of geographical data that the Government use to calculate deprivation.
Sadly, when one turns to the national and regional level, one finds that the rural dimension of policy and funding is sometimes lost. If funding is targeted towards the largest areas of deprivation, it may well ignore the smaller pockets of rural deprivation that are often hidden in the statistics, or are in fact so small that they are not picked up at all. I remember that the previous rural advocate used to say that if you add up all the tiny pockets of rural deprivation in this country, you get a community the size of Birmingham. It is a significant issue but one that is often not identified.
Deprivation is not the only thing that places demands on services. There is a large ageing population in rural areas, which places demand on social care. Is the Minister able to commit His Majesty’s Government to producing something that we have long asked for: a comprehensive rural strategy? Will the Government undertake to rural-proof all legislation in the meantime? Will they commit to consulting rural organisations and stakeholders when renewing the indices of deprivation next autumn, so that a better interpretation of rural deprivation can be produced?
I am aware that the Minister sits on the Child Poverty Taskforce as the Defra representative. Can she give us an assurance that the forthcoming child poverty strategy will focus on the particular challenges experienced by young people growing up in poverty in rural areas, to ensure that they can thrive?
I am hugely grateful for this opportunity to set out some of the many opportunities that we need to grasp and to highlight some of the barriers that we need to overcome, which I believe are not impossible at all to overcome, as we seek to grow the rural economy. I look forward very much to hearing Members of your Lordships’ House bringing their considerable expertise and knowledge to bear, so that we can strengthen this important part of our national life.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this very important debate, and on bringing to it his great knowledge, his experience and his insight into the workings of the rural economy and rural people. Today’s debate is timely. The new inheritance tax rules for family farms announced in the Budget have dealt a hammer blow to every rural community in the country. I very much fear that, if the Government do not modify their proposals, as suggested, for example, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they really will have damaged any prospect of growth in the rural economy for generations. Because growth in the rural economy depends heavily not only on the prosperity of the farming sector but on its stability. Nicholsons, a farm machinery business in Norfolk, is already facing increased wage costs from national insurance changes and says that the uncertain future for family farms will
“reduce investment in people, infrastructure and technology, if not wipe it out altogether”.
The very essence of the prerequisites for growth will be lost.
These issues were impressively rehearsed in the recent debate on family farms called by my noble friend Lord Leicester. From memory, there was only one speaker in favour of the Government’s intentions. I am sorry to repeat myself from that debate, but I do feel that the Government have got this wrong: their plans may destroy and not grow the rural economy. Rural communities, as described by the right reverend Prelate, already face many challenges. I agree with him that one of the most vital is that of access, getting to work, getting to schools and colleges, getting to health service provision, and of course getting access to broadband internet and phone coverage.
I will give some examples of difficulties of access. Difficult or non-existent transport links can mean that almost all working households in rural areas, whether they can afford it or not, have to have a car, and sometimes two cars—certainly for part-time or shift work. Domiciliary care workers struggle to provide a reliable service to their clients. Travel at night can be difficult for many. Providing school travel, in particular for special needs pupils and for colleges, is an added cost for rural local authorities. A visit to the GP or out-patients’ clinic can take the best part of a day.
There has been a slight improvement in access to internet and phone coverage for rural businesses in the year to September 2023, but it is still not as good as that in urban areas. And, of course, there is our old friend, the power cut. This is a regular occurrence where I live if there are gales, snow, frost or storms—or sometimes, one wonders, just for fun. Having been brought up without either electricity or running water, I obviously have an armoury of candles, torches and storm lights. But this is a serious problem for rural households and businesses.
As in all communities, we face potential conflicts: choices, for example, between providing the affordable housing which would prevent the closure of schools and the hollowing out of our villages, or catering for the thriving second-home and tourist market, with jobs for builders, craftsmen, designers and architects, and in hospitality and retail. Then there is land use: for building, for solar power and wind farms, or for food production.
However, all communities face their own challenges, not just rural communities. We are nearing Christmas, it is the last day of term and I feel I should say that those of us who live in rural areas enjoy some of the most wonderful benefits: a beautiful environment; strong and self-reliant communities, supported by incredible volunteers in every sphere, from the car hospital service to lifeboats, to supporting those isolated by ill health, age or location; our rural schools, nearly a quarter of which in Norfolk are church schools, where teachers strive to nurture and to encourage ambition and aspiration; and our network of churches, a lifeline for many. I have a message of cheer for the Minister. We do not know whether the Treasury consulted Defra, of course, but, if she somehow has the feeling that the Treasury picks on Defra, I can tell her that all her predecessors—several in this House, including myself, whether at MAFF or Defra—felt the same. It goes with the territory—but happy Christmas.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, not only for calling this debate but for his tireless work on behalf of rural communities. At a time when the Bishops’ Benches are somewhat under assault, it is notable how much work he does. The recently retired Bishop of Exeter similarly did an awful lot of work for rural communities, and the Bishops’ voices are incredibly powerful.
I note my interests as a rural business owner in Devon and champion in this House of a very rural county which suffers from all the problems that have been identified. It suffers from being very beautiful and therefore a place that people imagine is very well-to-do; indeed, many well-to-do people own second homes there—this is Devon. It also has the largest road network in the country, and an ageing population, with all the implications of that. Due to its beauty, it has many crumbling coastal towns built in Victorian and Edwardian times, which cause all sorts of challenges and deprivations.
I also note that I am a supporter of the Great South West, which champions the interests of the rural south-west peninsula. It is focused on three themes: food security, energy security and defence security, which is a good indication of the broad range of services that the rural community provides to us nationally.
In the previous debate, I mentioned that I co-chair the Exeter Partnership. In that capacity, I see myself as a champion and a voice of the rural hinterland of Exeter, within the workings of the city. This brings me to the first point I want to make, which is that this debate and the way in which we look at rural England and the rural economy often seek to draw a line between our rural and our urban communities. I wonder whether that is really that sensible, because what I seek to do within the Exeter Partnership, and what we need to do, is to focus on how wholly dependent upon our rural hinterland is the entirety of our urban population. Perhaps by focusing solely upon rural issues we forget that the urban and the national economy are entirely dependent upon the rural economy for their well-being.
A very wise Minister said recently that
“our biodiversity is in crisis. Without nature we have no economy, no food, no health and no society”.—[Official Report, 11/9/24; col. GC 121.]
The Minister may recognise her words. Our nation is entirely dependent upon the rural economy, so for us to sit here and focus solely upon the rural economy and forget about the rest of our economy is perhaps a false distinction.
I had the privilege recently of meeting Professor Partha Dasgupta, who famously wrote about the economics of biodiversity and reminded us all that there is a vast amount of economic work inherent in the natural capital that resides within our rural communities that we simply do not value and do not identify. Therefore, when we are talking about the contributions of the rural economy to our nation, we need to insist that the Government begin to look much more closely at that natural capital—what is the value of the fresh air and fresh water? Sewage and water companies are being much considered today, with Ofwat’s announcement, but that is all being provided by our rural natural capital—the water that comes into our urban centres and the sewage that departs from them. We really do not think about that nearly enough.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned rural deprivation. On Devon County Council’s behalf, I note that the ending of the rural service delivery grant removes some £10 million from its budget, which is a vast proportion of its budget. Of course, the Government are seeking, perhaps worthily, to redirect those funds to deprived areas but, as has been identified, it is very difficult to identify deprived areas within a potentially wealthy-looking rural county such as Devon. The idea of deprivation requiring a whole area to be deprived is a fallacy; there is deprivation in the most bucolic parts of the country—it is deprivation that is simply not caught or identified by the way that deprivation is currently measured. The county council notes services such as getting children to school, fixing the vast network of roads and simply getting people to doctor’s appointments, et cetera, are incredibly challenging.
I turn to housing and planning in the few minutes that I have left. I take note of the Devon Housing Commission, which reported back in July when we had the change in Government. The provision of affordable housing within our rural areas is in crisis. I know the Government have a plan for 1.5 million new homes, but the challenges of building new homes within variously protected landscapes, the complexity of the planning challenges, the lack of staff within planning departments in rural district councils and particularly the lack of SME builders in rural areas are real limitations, and I hope the Government will look at these.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing this timely debate and I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and thank him for the leadership he has given in relation to so many agricultural issues.
I have lived for over 60 of the past 75 years in the same village in rural Gwynedd, since 1947, when my parents moved into a half a farmhouse. I had the huge benefit of living my formative years in close proximity to the next-door tenant farmer, who made a very modest living out of a 60-acre holding.
It may be timely to remember that it was the post-war Labour Government who largely rescued agriculture in Wales, which had suffered massively in the 1930s. Indeed, the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, was tagged “Feather Bed Williams” for giving the farmers too comfortable a time—an accusation which I do not think the present Labour Government are likely to suffer. Agriculture is still the backbone of our rural communities. Its well-being is essential if we believe in producing food from our own resources. I greatly enjoyed a period of 12 years as president of the South Caernarfon Creameries, a good example of agricultural self-help.
The confidence of the industry is vital to maintain the investment needed for our agriculture to work efficiently. The Autumn Budget’s proposed change to inheritance tax rules has undermined that confidence and I urge the Government to reconsider their proposals, so as to exempt modest family farms from a punitive tax regime which will drive small family farms out of business. This will trigger an inevitable outcome: such land will be bought up by rich corporations, pension funds and forestry interests. Ironically, such investment is often driven by tax avoidance strategies, but it inevitably heralds a withering of the food production capacity in rural Wales and elsewhere. Is this seriously what the Government want? There has surely rarely been such a blatant scenario of unintended consequences.
Life is rural Wales is immensely challenging at this time, without being further undermined by government action. Ordinary working families are being driven from rural Wales by a combination of factors. The most fundamental has been the failure of economic policy to deliver a reasonable range of well-paid jobs, leading to a situation where the average income per head in parts of rural Gwynedd is 40% below that of south-east England. This leads to the best of our young people moving away to seek better-paid work, and of those who wish to remain, living in their own communities where they have their roots, they find that they cannot compete in the housing market against those from distant cities with fat chequebooks, buying up local housing stock as second homes.
This is not just a problem for rural Wales; it is equally felt in rural counties such as Cornwall. The effect is to further erode rural life, often leaving villages as ghost communities through the winter. This is exacerbated by the run-down of local services, such as bus services, which makes it increasingly difficult for those on low incomes to travel from rural villages to nearby towns to seek work. Young families are forced out by such factors, leading to declining school numbers and accelerating school closures. We also see rural communities being hit by the loss of facilities, such as banks and post offices, which hits local businesses and older people who are more reluctant to turn to internet banking.
The availability of fast broadband connectivity is very patchy in many rural areas. Surely the UK Government should make it a high priority to ensure that rural areas are not deprived of such an essential part of any modern commercial and social infrastructure.
Some people still believe that tourism offers the solution to the economic problems of rural areas. Of course it can make a contribution, but it is highly seasonal in rural Wales, and any economy which operates at 200% capacity for a few weeks in summer and at 20% capacity for most of the year is, by definition, economically inefficient.
Rural Wales desperately needs capital investment projects, such as the hydroelectric schemes and pump storage facilities which are being considered. The SMR projects at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd should be driven forward without delay, the latter linked to the medical radioisotope manufacturing unit proposed by the Welsh Government.
The loss of young people from rural areas, such as rural Gwynedd, and their replacement by people who move in after retiring has led to a disturbing report this week from Gwynedd council. It projects that, over the next 20 years, there will be an increase of 56% in demand for home help services from the Gwynedd social care department. This emanates from an absence of family living locally to help care for their elderly relatives, and because of an inward migration of retired people who do not have roots in the community into which they move, and in which they have to face the challenges that come with old age.
Unless there is an awakening to the crisis currently hitting rural communities, we shall find the fabric of rural life eroded beyond recovery. I urge the Government to address this issue without delay.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in our short debate on the 15 October, I was struck by the positivity of most of the speakers for the rural economy and the potential that it offered. In today’s debate, the right reverend Prelate, to whom we are all grateful for introducing this debate so well and so fully, picked up on those ideas of positivity. I so agreed with the phrase that he used: it is time for a strategy for the rural economy. That was the title of the report of this House in 2019, and I was privileged to serve on the committee.
There are undoubted opportunities. The right reverend Prelate reminded us of the gap in productivity between rural and urban areas. It is worth looking at the proportion of gross value added. In England, it is only 16%, whereas in Scotland it is 26% and in Wales it is 28%. Would the Minister get in touch with the devolved Administrations and find out whether there is any potential from up there and over west that could be used in England to improve the productivity and increase the percentage of GVA?
What has changed between now and the debate we had only two months ago? There has been a very significant change: we have had a Budget. The Budget was so beautifully described by Sir James Dyson as
“an egregious act of self-harm”.
The enthusiasm and potential that I thought the rural community had for this Government has been squashed. Small businesses, which the Minister in a recent letter to me described as the beating heart of the high street, were taxed with extra costs, burdens and bureaucracy—the very things that rural businesses do not want if they are going to thrive in the modern world.
A small but very important percentage of people in rural areas are farmers. In our debate on the Budget and small farms the other day, I listed all the extra taxes that the current Chancellor had imposed on farmers. The cumulation of that is the complete lack of confidence in the Government on the part of farmers, and a reduction of the incentives farmers have to plan for the future. It must be a very difficult time for farmers.
Combine that with the fact that climate change is making a third of our clay-based soils in lowland England unfarmable and it is going to have a very large effect on the productivity of farms and the ability to feed ourselves. Food security is one of the things that the Government thought was important before the election. How are the Government going to square the circle of making our food supply more secure, at the same time as berating those who are actually producing it?
In the debate two months ago, I mentioned Project Gigabit, and the right reverend Prelate picked that up earlier. I would add a different aspect to that: the download speed for internet. In rural areas, 5% of the community cannot get a download speed of 10 Mbps, whereas this is only 1% in urban areas. With so much having to be done on the computer now, unless you have a good download speed you are in serious trouble. Could the Minister address Project Gigabit and give us a bit more detail of how she plans to increase the availability of good broadband and social media supply in rural areas?
Another question I asked in our debate two months ago was about the size of Defra staff. Yesterday, I was emailed a written reply. As it is not in the Library, I will quote the first sentence. Our report in 2019 said that there were 60 staff. The reply says:
“It is complex to place a specific figure on the exact number of colleagues in DEFRA who work on Rural policy, given the wide-ranging nature of rural policy and that rural-proofing of Government policy is a cross-DEFRA and cross-Government effort”.
Sir Humphrey would be proud of that.
As the Minister takes her train home for Christmas—I hope she has a lovely, relaxing time—and looks out of the window at all the farms, will she consider that 50% of those farmers earn under £25,000 a year, yet her train driver probably earns three times as much? As she will be on an Avanti train, will she also think, as she looks at the stock farms and the farmers who are working 365 days a year, that these Avanti workers are about to go on strike over rest days?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness. I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales and that I am a member of the CLA and the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important and timely debate.
Much has rightly been made, including by me, on the impact of October’s Budget on the rural economy and, in particular, family farms and rural businesses. However, today I will make my remarks on policies that I believe can grow the rural economy. A lack of housing and opportunities forces young people from rural communities and reduces demand for local services. This situation is only worsened by an urban-rural digital divide, which holds back rural businesses’ ability to grow. The Government were elected with a mandate to grow the economy, and this must include rural areas.
I know from my own experience in Defra that the rural economy is hindered by poor cross-departmental working. Ministers and officials from other departments assume that Defra has sole responsibility for the rural economy. In reality, Defra does not have the economic levers to unlock the countryside’s potential by itself. That power lies in other departments and, increasingly, local authorities, as we heard in the Statement earlier today. Much better cross-departmental working is necessary to ensure that economic policies are designed to generate growth in the rural economy. The Government have thus far failed to address this issue, which is most evident in the industrial strategy Green Paper’s lack of focus on rural issues.
The poor delivery of the rural England prosperity fund by local authorities illustrates the effect of a lack of understanding of the rural economy on devolution and localism in rural areas. There have been breakdowns in communication and misunderstandings of the rules and guidelines of the REPF, and some local authorities have failed to engage with external stakeholders. A future REPF needs to encompass better engagement between central government, local authorities and external stakeholders, and better promotion of such funds to small businesses that could benefit from them.
As we have heard from several noble Lords, the primary barrier to rural economic development is the planning system. In its current state, it does not appreciate the improvements that small-scale development can make to the viability of rural villages. In planning terms, these villages are often deemed “unsustainable”, creating a spiral of decline. In the plan and decision-making process, weight must be given to development that will improve the sustainability of a settlement, whether through the provision of new homes, services or facilities. The Government should follow the mantra of a small number of homes in a large number of villages.
To develop rural planning policy meaningfully, the Government must introduce permission in principle for rural economic development. This would encourage planning applications by reducing the risk of high financial input without the guarantee of consent. The Government should also enable the repurposing of redundant agricultural buildings and sites. Planning applications to repurpose these sites are often rejected, as they are not deemed to be “sustainable development”. In many cases, the development of these sites would lead to economic growth and, through diversification, provide a much-needed boost to a farm’s profitability.
As the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Caithness described, the lack of access to sufficient broadband connection is a massive barrier to rural productivity. Mobile connectivity in rural areas continues to be an issue, with the previous Government having allocated £500 million for the shared rural network to fix not-spots in mobile coverage. Will the Minister commit to publishing a road map to improve rural connectivity and provide transparency over how public funds have been allocated?
The proposed £100 million cut to the nature-friendly farming budget is estimated to reduce the amount of nature-friendly farmland by 240,000 hectares in England. This will present significant issues for farmers’ finances, food security and the UK’s ability to deliver its legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. The Government must restore the nature-friendly farming budget to £2.8 billion in real terms and index it to increase with inflation over the Parliament. This would ensure that farmers have the confidence to adopt regenerative practices and help close some of the funding gaps to achieve our biodiversity goals.
The Government must change course, protect APR and BPR for all rural businesses, and extend them to farm businesses engaged in capital markets. This will ensure that farm businesses engaged in public and private agri-environment schemes can be passed between generations. It will also provide the necessary incentives to continue producing food while restoring farmland and naturally sequestering carbon.
I know how much the Minister cares for the rural economy and the countryside. I hope that she can champion it and stand up to other departments for what is right. I look forward to her reply.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his passionate work for rural communities and for bringing the future of the rural economy to the attention of the House today. I declare my interests as set out in the register: I live in a rural village, work in a rural market town, and run a veterinary practice that relies on rural businesses and the community for its turnover.
So, what makes up the rural economy’s Christmas list to the Government to enable it to grow and prosper in the coming years? The first item on my list is very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech: government thinking to ensure that the rural minority is not forgotten when major decisions are made by government departments.
The farming community is the cornerstone of the rural economy, and is reeling from the recent Budget, as debated recently and mentioned today. This is an example of how the rural community suffers from the lack of joined-up government and policymaking. There appears to have been very little consultation between Defra and the Treasury on this decision. Will the Minister continue discussions with the Treasury, on behalf of the farming community, on the impact of this change to APR and BPR?
The Government can also support farming by monitoring and reviewing the dominance of food manufacturers and supermarkets in the food market. The price that food is sold to the consumer needs to reflect the cost of production for all businesses in the supply chain, and to ensure that farmers are not the ones squeezed to create profit for those dominant companies.
Joined-up thinking between local towns and local district councils would also be of benefit, ensuring that we can maintain and develop town high streets, which are essential for the rural community. In the town of Malmesbury we have a proactive town council that is looking to develop the town, but one of the frustrations of the local traders is parking charges. These are set by Wiltshire Council and are seen as a revenue generator. The result is a frustrated town council, as it wants to encourage the local community to come into the town to support local businesses and maintain a thriving town centre.
Number two on the Christmas list is planning reform, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other Peers. We welcome the review of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the delivery of new homes to address the affordable housing crisis in rural areas and the creation and development of rural businesses. The planning process is costly, bureaucratic and painfully slow, especially in rural areas. An example is Cirencester, in the Cotswolds, which has planning for a housing development of 2,350 houses. It initially went into planning in 2017 and building started in the summer of 2021, but as of today, only 65 have been built, 14 of which are affordable. For an area in need of homes and low-cost housing, building 65 houses in seven years is just too slow to meet demand. That begs the question: is the developer controlling the supply to maintain higher house prices? Would the Treasury consider charging large housebuilders a tax on developments that have not sold any property within five years of granting an outline or detailed plan, to encourage home building? Also, I hope that planning reform will optimise the development of brownfield sites in rural areas, especially redundant farm buildings.
Number three on the list is transport. Ours is a medium-sized business in a rural town, and 95% of our 125 employees drive to work; no one uses public transport. Bus services are difficult to run due to the large number of locations that need to be visited, and passenger numbers are relatively low. So again, we welcome the Government’s review of bus services, but the rural economy needs better public transport to prosper. Future bus services must be more flexible to make them efficient for users, and economically viable for bus companies and local councils. There has to be innovation, such as technology that could request pick-ups and drop-offs in villages when required. I appreciate that these ideas present challenges, but my hope is that the Government can address them through innovation—trying new and risky ventures in public transport to resolve this long-standing problem.
Number 4 on the list is communication, which many Peers have mentioned. I have spoken in the past about communication in rural areas and the deterioration of mobile phone coverage with the turning off of 3G. I have read Ofcom’s response to the Minister of State, and it is reassuring that it will continue to monitor 4G and 5G coverage. The 4G network is essential in rural areas, as signal strength is much greater than with 5G. Project Gigabit continues to be rolled out, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned. As a beneficiary of broadband home fibre in a rural area, I know that it brings massive improvements that enable home working and less frustrating domestic internet use.
This sort of connectivity is essential to growing productivity through the use of current available technologies; it will allow a vast array of small businesses to grow and develop in rural areas. But not all rural properties can be connected economically, especially in Wales, by fibre to the home. Will the Government consider supporting extreme locations with subsidies for satellite broadband to enable businesses to develop in these remote areas?
The list of support could be endless, but the opportunities are great. With joined-up thinking between rural communities and the Government, and with innovation, we could reverse the tendency of rural businesses to decline.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I declare that I am a member of the Conservative Environment Network, the new Climate Tech APPG and Peers for the Planet.
First, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, for whom I have great admiration. Alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, he adds immense value to discussion of the crucial issues of rural communities and the environment. Like their namesakes on a chessboard, when they are combined, they are formidable, and they bring important views to this Chamber.
I am a proud Lancastrian, born in the constituency of Pendle. The area has two former mill towns and three smaller towns surrounded by stunning fields, hills, reservoirs, forests and scattered villages, with Pendle Hill majestically looking on. Until recently, I was adamant that I am from a rural constituency. My friends and sister agreed with me. However, my good friend the temporary former MP informed me that Pendle is actually classed as urban. I was amazed. I swiftly discovered the rural/urban classification which defines areas. It is based on the census and purely on population.
I understand that funding has previously been available to those areas specifically classified as rural. While I am sure that that is well-intentioned, it can disqualify rural parts of urban-classified locations. For instance, in Pendle, a quarter of the population is still classified as rural. My plea to the Minister, if I may, is to be cautious about using that formula in future.
Obviously, farming is a key part of this debate. I will not repeat the many powerful arguments that have been made already concerning the Budget, but have any departments assessed the effects of these changes on nature, rural economies, food security, economic security and the appeal to young people to become farmers? Are there any steps that the Government will take domestically to promote locally produced food, and what more is being done on better trade deals? Farmers farm land; they know the land; they nurture it; us greenies need to bang the drum for them now more than ever.
I turn to the future and, first, the need for diverse job opportunities in rural areas, which I think has already been raised. Research has found that over a third of rural residents are likely to consider moving to a town or city within 12 months, with 30% citing a lack of jobs. How can we undo that? There is more to the countryside than farming, and rewilding can play its part. There are direct economic benefits of nature, such as through tourism, but also indirect ones, such as tackling flooding and pollution, as we discussed with the Water Bill.
Increasingly, companies and projects such as Nattergal are facilitating these efforts, not only through nature restoration and improving biodiversity, but by maintaining traditional jobs such as drystone walling, hedge growing and coppicing. Yet there is more. A fantastic study by Rewilding Britain found that rewilding projects created over 50% more jobs, with new roles in ecology and forestry and increased revenue from sources such as tourism, weddings and education; and they continue to produce food and support livestock. Yes, farming does not need to stop in the interests of nature. One in three mouthfuls of the food we eat is dependent on pollination. Nature’s benefits are numerous, including economic, and it is essential for life.
Secondly, we need to promote rural life and local agricultural shows. While there are many large events such as the Royal Lancashire Agricultural Show—which I am sure my noble friend Lady McIntosh will agree is arguably the best—there are other smaller, local ones. In Pendle, some have not survived, but others have, such as the Trawden show, which started its life in 1925. My dad used to judge and show, and I remember being dragged along as a kid. Those packed tents would eventually be emptied, the entrances sealed shut. Then, like some strange ritual, my dad and others would meticulously study, cut into, sniff or even taste an assortment of produce that had been neatly laid out on tables, be it flowers, onions, or carrots. After a few mutters, they agreed the best, certificates and rosettes would be left behind, and I would be whisked off to sit in a tractor or see cows being paraded or dogs performing tricks. Not only are shows great family fun, but there you saw pride, love and a sense of community. People had spent all year preparing for that moment, lovingly nurturing whatever was on show. What more can be done to promote these events and rural life? They help tourism, unite communities, support local industry and educate.
This is my final point: my dad showed me much, so my education was not just at school. Across our land, we have amazing farms, and I visited loads when I was younger. I grew to love my surroundings—the countryside, fields, valleys and hills—and I came to respect them but only when they were gone, when I had moved to London; hence I bring up my daughters to do everything to love wildlife, nature and the countryside. This year’s Children’s People and Nature Survey for England showed that, in one week, 62% of children and young people visited a park or playing field and 27% visited woods, yet 15% visited fields and farmland in the countryside and 4% recorded no visits at all. What more can be done to encourage farm visits and outdoor learning, helping farms but also helping children understand where food comes from and the importance of nutritional quality?
In conclusion, as the Rural Coalition says, there are enormous challenges but also opportunities. To me, this is not nostalgia. It is a way of life, now. It is real. It is the food we eat, the walks we take and the breaks we make. Like all things, it needs nurturing and a chance to help it grow, not just for rural communities but for us all.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this debate and for all his work on rural affairs. I am delighted to sit with him on the rural interest group of the Church of England Synod. I pay tribute to the role of the Church in rural areas in times of crisis, as I witnessed during the foot and mouth outbreak in the early 2000s. I declare my interests: I work with the rural doctors—my father and brother were dispensing doctors—of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I am also a patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, honorary president of the Huby and Sutton agricultural show and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which have a role to play in preventing flooding in low lying areas.
As a proud Yorkshire lass, I would say that there is lots to celebrate in the rural economy, not least farming, countryside and food—and the best show in town, the Great Yorkshire Show. There is also a role for auction marts, which set the price and have a presence in market towns. They have a role in the rural economy and the community, playing a specific social function. Farmers are fiercely proud and independent, often visiting the auction mart well into their retirement as well as during their active farming lives. When the auction marts closed during the foot and mouth outbreak, there was really nowhere for the farmers to gather and chat. Country shows show the best local farm produce and educate the next generation in the joys of the countryside and farming. The Great Yorkshire Show showed children livestock first hand, and I am delighted to say that I have attended since I was a schoolgirl in Harrogate.
What are the current barriers to the growth of the rural economy? As others have said, the whole rural economy has been impacted by the employers’ national insurance contribution increase—doctor’s surgeries, care homes, hospices and veterinary practices specifically, and every walk of life. The inheritance tax proposals and the revision of agricultural property relief, as well as the removal of capital grants, will severely impact on the farming community. There is also a shortage of farm workers as a result of a shrinking rural population, poor local transport and the cost of housing. All this could be remedied in part by increasing the number of seasonal workers on farms and the length of time they spend on the farms. Rural broadband and mobile phone coverage is still below par, making farm and rural businesses less efficient and competitive. There is less access to banking services, with bank branches and post offices having closed.
The Government should encourage productive farming. We should not build solar farms on grade 2 or grade 3 productive land, as in the test cases currently in Old Malton and east Yorkshire. Tenant farmers have a particular contribution to make, especially in the uplands. Some 48% of farms in North Yorkshire are tenanted, yet their future is bleak and uncertain, given the Government’s Budget proposals.
I pay tribute to the charities supporting the farming community in rural areas; their role is valuable and, sadly, increasing. I am mindful of the mental ill-health and state of anxiety among farmers, which is now sadly also affecting their children. I am also mindful of the levels of farm vehicle theft and other rural crimes, the impact of marital breakdowns, and the fact that farmers are reluctant to visit their doctor and often neglect their own health.
Others have mentioned tourism, hospitality and leisure in the rural economy, and I support their impact. I am delighted to be the honorary president of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. I hope all noble Peers will take the opportunity to visit it during one of the forthcoming recesses.
The UK is on average only 60% self-sufficient in food, yet only 16% in fruit and vegetables. The power of the supermarkets is great; that of growers and the supply chain is weak. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s role needs to be addressed to ensure that it can undertake reports on its own initiative and not identify those who seek to make a complaint.
What is the way forward? All government policies should be assessed and rural-proofed. That used to happen in the past; it should happen in the future. We should recognise that farmers are key to growing the rural economy, but they need help in meeting the current challenges, whether climate change, flooding on farmland or the increases in oil prices and in the cost of fertilisers and pesticides. Environmental land management schemes are rolling out at a slower pace than the reduction in basic farm payments, leaving farmers with a huge gap in their income.
I beg the Minister not to play Scrooge, as in A Christmas Carol, but to be as generous as the Government can possibly be to farmers. Farmers face an uncertain future. If you want something done, ask a farmer, but they are asking whether we want them to produce food for us anymore. The future of our food system, our rural communities and even our environment is in question. Their future—for the farmers and for growth of the rural economy—is in the Government’s hands. We look to the Minister to provide answers today.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this timely debate. Given that it is a UK-wide debate, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I intend to concentrate my remarks on the contribution of rural areas to economic prosperity in Northern Ireland.
According to the most recent figures published by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, more than half of Northern Irish businesses—58%—are located in rural areas. People living in rural areas are more likely to be employed, with almost three-quarters—74%—in work. Workers living in rural areas are more likely to have high skills and report greater job satisfaction than their urban counterparts; both those figures are at 84%. Finally, between 2001 and 2020, the population of rural areas rose by 20% compared with an increase of just 7% for urban areas. In short, Northern Ireland is highly dependent on a healthy and expanding rural economy for its prosperity. His Majesty’s Government, in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive, must do everything they can to support and protect it.
One way the newly elected United Kingdom Government have acted positively was by finally signing off the remaining two growth deals for Northern Ireland. As the House may be aware, the previous Conservative Government announced four city and growth deals for the Province in the Belfast City region, Londonderry and Strabane, Mid South West, and Causeway Coast and Glens.
However, on taking power, the Labour Government chose to pause the growth deals designed for predominantly rural areas in the Mid South West and Causeway Coast, with Ministers resorting to the now familiar excuse of a hole in the public finances. That situation was rectified by the Chancellor in her Autumn Budget Statement, but the level of uncertainty, disappointment and worry felt in those rural areas was palpable and did nothing to build confidence that the new Government have either understanding of or empathy with those seeking to grow the rural economy in the Province.
As I made clear in my remarks in this House last week, the Government seem to have little understanding of the farming community in Northern Ireland, or indeed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Agriculture provides £6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. However, the Chancellor’s decision to slap an inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million has placed the future of many farms, and indeed a way of rural life, under grave threat. According to analysis by the Department of Agriculture, around half of the 26,000 farms in Northern Ireland could be impacted by the tax changes. This will account for 80% of farmland across the Province, including 40% to 45% of cattle and sheep farms and 87% of dairy farms.
The Windsor Framework, which the current UK Government are fully behind, is making life for the people of Northern Ireland more difficult by the day, and it is having a particularly detrimental impact on local agriculture. A succession of Ministers in this House—I hope the Minister will not be the latest—have habitually fended off concerns about life in Northern Ireland by saying that any particular issue is a devolved matter. However, Budget decisions and responsibility for the disastrous Windsor Framework, agreed in partnership with the European Union, are not devolved. This Government have the power to fix them, thereby helping Northern Ireland’s rural economy. I urge the Minister to heed what I say and act accordingly.
Finally—and I accept that this is a devolved matter—according to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, rural crime is costing the Province’s economy £2 million every year. In an effort to combat this, the Rural Crime Partnership has been formed. It is made up of numerous organisations, including the Department of Justice, the PSNI, the Department of Agriculture, the Ulster Farmers Union and the Federation of Small Businesses. The group is engaged in several initiatives to tackle this scourge on the local community, including Rural Crime Week, which runs each September.
As well as people falling victim to petty crime, a sad reality in many parts of society is that rural communities are regularly targeted by organised crime groups. This criminality takes various forms, including waste crime, animal and machinery theft, and illegal puppy breeding and smuggling, and the proceeds are funnelled back into further criminality. Given the organised nature of these activities, will the Minister say whether there is scope for police and security forces across the United Kingdom to work more closely together to tackle this rural crime? Our Prime Minister is fond of telling us about his previous role in taking down gangs. This might present an ideal opportunity to show the country what our Prime Minister is made of.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests, which are financial, as set out in the register, and also personal, given my actual involvement in things. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this debate. It may disappoint him, but it seems to me that rural Britain is not really homogenous, and I am afraid I am not really interested in the Home Counties. Rather, my concern focuses on the shires and beyond—what I like to think of as l’Angleterre profonde. They are particularly important to us in this country as a whole, partly because they are part of our collective sense of Britishness and of a perception, from the outside, of what this country is. In their own way, they are as important as, for example, the building where we are this afternoon, or Canterbury Cathedral, or the National Gallery.
Rural Britain is experiencing two revolutions. The first is in town and country planning. The important thing for the countryside is that the underlying thinking behind the settlement of the post-war planning regime is now under challenge. Rural Britain is not only for farming and forestry. Particularly with the development of connectivity, all kinds of possibilities are opening up that are consistent in land-use terms with what was tried to have been protected. Of course, we all know that connectivity is pretty erratic in the countryside, but I hope the relationship between fibre and mobile, with the two—as I understand it—coming together, means it may be possible to achieve an adequate overall system quicker than perhaps was previously thought possible.
Secondly, now that we have left the common agricultural policy, there is a revolution in that area too. It is worth remembering in this context that agricultural policy has always been a distinct specialist phenomenon in politics, going back to the Middle Ages, for rather obvious reasons. Public money and the public goods that the public are going to receive for it are in a state of flux.
The questions that we need to ask are twofold. First, what is rural Britain for? Secondly, how is that aspiration going to be achieved? In my case, much of my thinking is derived from looking at the Lake District, which the Minister obviously knows well. It is 40 years ago that I became a member of the Lake District special planning board and chaired its development control—that is, its planning committee. Subsequently, I have always watched what is going on very carefully. In many ways, it is completely unrecognisable from what it was then.
The point about the Lake District is that it is England’s premier national park. It is the crucible of the Romantic movement, both here and abroad, and relatively recently has been inscribed as a UNESCO world heritage site, both for its landscape and for cultural reasons, and they are equally important. It is not just any old corner of contemporary Britain or just part of our nation’s family silver; it is part of the world’s patrimony. The point of that is that it is much more significant than simply a bean-counter’s analysis of a profit and loss account.
Despite all that, productivity, as it is now measured in this country, means that the Lake District is below the national average. To a degree, that may be to do with the methodology employed. It has always interested me that water, which in very large quantities is exported into what used to be known as industrial Lancashire, does not play a proper part. It is not only that they cannot spend a penny in that area without our water; industry—and everything in society—would simply grind to a halt.
Equally, as a number of speakers have mentioned, housing policy is seriously flawed. There are plenty of houses in the Lake District, but the problem is that people who want to live there and need to work there cannot do so because housing has become a must-have asset for rich, moneyed southerners and international money. If you think about it, the houses are there. The place is a national park, so the solution is not building more houses; it is finding a way of moving the houses that are there into a category which means they will be restricted to people who live and work there. You have to think out of the box a bit, but it is far from impossible to see relatively easy ways as to how that might be done, given the political will.
The visitor economy has been mentioned. It is important, but it is beginning to cause problems along the very general lines of the problems that it is posing in places such as Venice and Barcelona. It requires considerable thought. I was a bit startled the other day when my son said to me, “You know, dad, I think the Lake District is now more famous for food and fine dining than it is for the landscape and what it’s really all about”.
Our economy is dysfunctional. Despite providing and contributing a lot to UK well-being, it still seems to be unable to generate enough money to look after itself. Its liquidity, taken across the piece, is haemorrhaging. That is why the ideas proposed in the Budget for taxing small businesses and farms are, frankly, cuckoo. You must not take working capital out of a series of activities that are losing money.
I suggest that the Minister looks at the system used for dealing with works of art in a similar context. There are all kinds of pointers that seem to suggest that there are ways of both taxing and collecting the money at the time when the asset’s value is realised. That is a much more sensible way of doing it.
The world is changing. We are not yet in a world where the policies and systemic framework surrounding all this are stable. Until just the other day, I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, which is 50% industrial and 50% rural. I believe that we managed to achieve a harmonious partnership between local authorities, the voluntary sector and industrialists. In particular, industrialists and businesspeople are important, because they are the people who know how things are done. It is very important that, as we go forward, we find a way of making sure that those who do the business take part in and drive the policy.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate—or perhaps, in view of earlier remarks, I should say Primate—for tabling this timely debate. I draw attention to my farming and other rural interests as set out in the register.
As most economists and others would agree, if growth is the Government’s priority then their Budget should incentivise businesses to grow, rather than raise taxes on them. This applies throughout the economy but is particularly relevant in the case of rural business, which is dominated by farming and small family businesses. I note, however, that the Government have moved from the growth that they were targeting in opposition to the less ambitious task of raising living standards in the recently announced six milestones. The rise of over 16% in the national living wage—a 40% rise in just five years—together with the increase in employers’ national insurance to 15% will have a disproportionate impact on horticulture, tourism and the hospitality industry. This is not promoting economic growth and creating favourable conditions for investment.
On top of this, as we have heard, there are the changes to APR and BPR. I will not dwell on this, as it has been the subject of much debate already, but will repeat my remarks from a previous occasion. I pointed out that independently verified figures were required for those likely to be affected, in view of the significant differences in the estimates of the NFU, the CLA, Defra and the Treasury. At that point, a sensible government decision on tax could follow. This is particularly important in the light of the 2019 report by the Office of Tax Simplification, which said:
“It is generally understood that the main policy rationale for BPR and APR is to prevent the sale or break up of businesses or farms to finance Inheritance Tax payments following the death of the owner”.
No doubt the Minister or her Treasury colleagues will tell us what has changed since then.
In this debate, I wish to highlight the effect of these tax changes on growth and productivity in the rural economy and how they undermine much-needed investment and innovation. Family businesses of all types will be quantifying their future tax liabilities and avoiding value-adding investments that would increase their tax burden. Long-term resilience, diversification, competitiveness and environmental care will all be affected. On the farming side, this is compounded by rising input prices, the unexpected cuts in BPR and APR, delays in some farming subsidies and poor profitability. This has resulted in farmers reducing investment and not hiring staff. The Government’s claim that they have committed £5 billion to farming rings particularly hollow when inflation is taken into account and after the inheritance tax hike.
Reduced investment affects productivity through new technology, buildings and IT systems. I am a member of the APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, where we have focused on the need to attract investment to support farm-level innovation, as the UK is a recognised powerhouse in plant science and agriscience. Robotic equipment, autonomous machinery and the use of AI to advance crop and livestock breeding, together with vertical farming, will improve productivity, efficiency and the environment.
I note that none of these technological advances is covered by the eight areas of focus—that is, the areas that will generate the most growth—identified in the recent announcement of the Government’s industrial strategy. With the right investment climate, we might even be able to emulate the United States in trying to deliver a 40% increase in food production by 2050 and reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%. Can the Minister tell us how the Government’s industrial strategy and new tax regime will support this type of productivity investment?
Although noble Lords have mentioned many other important issues, the tax system is the most important factor in the growth of the rural economy and it is far from being fit for purpose. It inhibits growth, not just in farming but in horticulture, hospitality and tourism—I could go on—as well as in family businesses, from builders to butchers and garden centres to timber merchants. Contrast this with the support being given to so-called creative industries producing films, TV and video games. Tax credits for this industry are calculated to cost the Treasury £2 billion a year, compared to the new cap on BPR and APR which will generate the Treasury some £520 million a year. The Government have chosen fun over food security and family businesses.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak as a council member of the Royal Norfolk Show, which is much better than the other ones that have been mentioned. This is a debate about growing the rural economy. There is so much I want to say but, in the six minutes I have, I will focus on rural governance and show how the Government’s actions are making the country cousins the even poorer relations.
Before we start, there is not even a firm definition of what constitutes “rural Britain”. Yes, it is the rolling countryside, but are our county towns and market towns part of that scene? No one is really sure so, as part of my prep, I thought I would create a definition myself. It is that part of Britain where, at 4 am, you cannot get an Uber within half an hour after a particularly heavy bender or a night on the tiles: “Can’t get an Uber late at night? Well, you’re in the sticks. That’s just how it is”.
The confirmed city dweller looks down on these sorts of places. It is all rather provincial, you see. That is the problem: rural Britain is governed by metropolitan voices who ill serve 70% of the landmass. Even the new mayors are to be called “metro mayors”. When the governance and rural voices are marginalised, it is harder to champion the rural economy.
There are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. The metropolitan bias is structurally embedded in our nation. The shires are levelled down to London. It takes just 3,109 electors to elect a councillor in London but 15,000 in Essex and 18,000 in parts of Kent. Contrast this with the approach for parliamentary elections, where constituencies must, by law, be of the same value so that everyone has the same weight of voice. Somebody who lives in the shires has between a third and a fifth of the say of the townie. That is a problem for rural democracy, which is not addressed by the devolution White Paper.
As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne mentioned, the closest the Government have to a rural definition can be found in Defra’s local authority districts rural-urban classification 2021 dataset, which classifies local council areas as either predominantly rural, rural with some urban or just urban. It turns out that the Government will abolish all the 84 predominantly rural councils. Another 50 that are “urban with significant rural” are likely to be abolished, with their rurality subsumed into urbanised population units of half a million and their local distinctiveness decorated by the detritus of chicken shops.
Then, of course, there are 175 urban, city, London borough and metropolitan authorities, mostly controlled by Labour, untouched by abolition if they do not want to ask for it. I know it is Christmas, but I think we all know that turkeys do not vote for this kind of thing. Labour denies that there is a war on the countryside, but these announcements prove that there is a war on rural Britain and the lack of Members on the Government Benches rather proves this point. Labour always secretly wished we all lived in big cities and now it gets to pretend that we do.
Labour is slashing £110 million from the rural services delivery grant. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place. He identified that £10 million out of a £100 million will be taken from that county. Norfolk is not far behind and North Yorkshire will be £12 million short. We are being short-changed. Reorganisation will increase stealth taxes to mayors and a levelling-up of council tax where rural people used to live to pay for their urban neighbours. With no money, how can the countryside grow?
The White Paper promises a new fair funding settlement for what is left of local government, but we all know what that means: redirecting money from the countryside to their friends in the city, where social problems can be concentrated. It totally ignores rural areas, where poverty is diffuse. Being spread out does not make it any easier. In fact, isolation can make it worse. The additional cost of delivering services in areas where houses can be miles apart is ignored. I could go on. The point is that short-changing the countryside and diluting its say makes it harder for rural areas to grow in stature and make the economic contributions they should.
At least you can say that rural Britain has resilience—which it needs, with a Government characterised by townies hell-bent on fighting a class war that never really existed. Labour does not understand rural Britain, but rural Britain understands Labour. I almost feel sorry for the 90 Labour MPs representing the countryside. They have been abandoned and sacrificed by their party, unforgiven by those who lent them support. It is not too late to change tack. But, unless there is a change of tack, it will be difficult to grow the rural economy as part of a United Kingdom.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this has been a well-informed and wide-ranging debate at a time when the core of the rural community, the farmers, are feeling betrayed by the reduction in inheritance tax relief, putting the long-term survival of up to 75% of working farms at risk. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to whom we are all most grateful for securing this debate, addressed the importance of growing the rural economy and made many excellent suggestions, alongside other noble Lords. Before I address the rural economy, I will start with the wider economy.
The overall UK economy is challenged by this Labour Government, so how can the rural economy grow? It is deeply depressing that we in government had finally got the economy on an upward trajectory, with inflation falling, GDP growing and real wages expanding after the disasters of Covid and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. This Government were elected with a commitment to kick-start economic growth, with the explicit statement:
“A new partnership with business to boost growth everywhere”.
Since winning the election, the Labour Government have talked down the economy, leading to two months of GDP shrinking, and then delivered a Budget that disincentivises investment in family businesses and employment. The S&P Global flash UK purchasing managers’ employment index now highlights shrinking employment and was the worst reading since 2009, excluding Covid, when Labour was last in power.
The Government plan to increase spending funded by tax increases, but also underpinned by economic growth assumptions that now look flawed. The UK 10-year gilt has sold off to 4.6%. The last time the yield was so high was also under the previous Labour Government in 2008. Given that we brought inflation down from its highs, this can only be as a result of reducing confidence in the Government’s economic management increasing the Government’s borrowing costs, putting further pressure on the Budget.
Economic growth has been undermined by this Government, whose spending plans look increasingly unfunded by available resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently went on the record saying that there would not be further tax increases in the spring and that, if her fiscal rules are broken, she will cut spending to meet them. From the evidence we have seen of above-inflation public sector pay increases and increased spending, that would seem to be wishful thinking. I ask the Government: what spending will be cut to balance the books? Can the Minister reassure us that this will not impact on Defra budgets and existing spending commitments?
On the rural economy, I declare my interest as a dairy farmer, an owner of rural property and businesses, and an investor in a number of businesses that provide goods and services to farmers and land managers. I also declare my residential and industrial building interests and renewable development interests. The rural economy is reliant on farming and family businesses, where the reduction in IHT reliefs will reduce investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, amply demonstrated. Without needing to repeat the many arguments against this tax, I will just highlight that CBI Economics estimates that it will reduce economic output by nearly £10 billion, cost 125,000 jobs and lead to a net reduction in tax receipts of over £1.2 billion. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—the Minister in the debate brought by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester—that, given the destructive impact of this tax and the misery it brings, it is either ideology or a mistake. I hope it is a mistake and that the Government are big enough to concede that and reverse or heavily revise it.
We left an unspent surplus in the Defra budget in the 2023-24 fiscal year, as farmers were slow in their take-up of ELMS and capital grants. That should have allowed the increased application rate for ELMS and capital grants to be easily accommodated in this year’s budget. However, the Government have now stopped applications for new capital grants in the current year and delayed applications for the Countryside Stewardship higher tier until the middle of next year. The farming community does not believe that this Government really are interested in championing British farmers, no matter that the Minister sitting opposite me is clearly understanding, sympathetic and supportive.
As I have discussed in previous debates, the rural economy has a significant growth opportunity in being part of the solution to climate change and nature restoration. Changes in land management over decades, centuries and millennia are blamed for up to 30% of anthropomorphic carbon emissions in the pursuit of cheaper food. The process of cutting those emissions, restoring nature and turning land back into a carbon sink requires funding. ELMS is an important segue into introducing private capital into these markets, to which this Government have previously restated their commitment. On this point, I thank the Minister once again for listening to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and other noble Lords and for including greater incentives for nature-based solutions in the Water (Special Measures) Bill. I hope this will be a catalyst for more private sector investment in natural capital.
Private capital will need high-integrity standards to govern its investment in carbon sequestration and nature restoration. Can the Minister update us on the likely timing of the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code accreditation into the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s core carbon principles? Further to that, has there been any progress in the consultation around the entry of woodland carbon code units into the UK emissions trading scheme? Encouraging the development of these activities creates significant employment and new business opportunities. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the Groundswell festival and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne mentioned Nattergal, but I also highlight many other businesses developing in this area, such as Forest Carbon and Agricarbon, in which I disclose a shareholding, as well as many others.
Joined-up thinking and policy delivery between the various parts of government, departments and local authorities will be critical for stimulating the rural economy. This was highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, my noble friend Lord Harlech and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. Defra does not have the power to address all the areas that have been mentioned in today’s speeches, but it does seem as though responsibility has been devolved to it from other departments that do have the power. In that light, it is depressing that the over £100 million rural services delivery grant has been repurposed away from rural areas in the draft local government finance settlement, published today.
It is also concerning that the planning statements appear to dramatically increase the rate of housebuilding in rural areas, with urban centres under much less pressure. It seems in vain to ask the Minister how she can reassure the House that the rural economy will be given the support that it needs, when it seems that policies and funding are targeted at towns and urban centres—but I ask anyway.
The House continues to eagerly await the land use framework. Can the Minister update us on timing? The Government’s various commitments will require more rural land to be developed for renewable energy, housing and infrastructure projects. Can the Minister reassure the House that the land use framework is not intended to be prescriptive but to be guidance for changes of land use that will streamline the planning process and help land managers to make good decisions with their land?
When we take together the reduction in IHT relief for family business, delayed capital grants, delayed Countryside Stewardship higher-tier schemes, repurposing the rural services delivery grant and dramatically increased rural housing targets, as well as the cuts in the nature-friendly farming budget, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Harlech, it is hard to dispute the claim of my noble friend Lord Fuller that this Government would appear to be at war with the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing what has been an excellent debate. In the short time I have allocated, I shall do my very best to respond to the various questions and issues that have been raised—and there have been a lot, so I shall follow up any outstanding questions in a letter and write to anybody whose questions I have not answered.
First, I would like to say that the Government have been clear: sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and people’s living standards, and this is equally true for those living and working in rural areas. Rural England makes up over 85% of the land mass and is home to 9.7 million people, equal to the number that live in the nation’s capital. We recognise that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are absolutely central to our economy. The right reverend Prelate referred to untapped potential: over half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, with the rural economy contributing over £315 billion a year—and that is just in England.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the wide range of industries that work and support our rural communities. There is a good example in west Cumbria with Sellafield, a major industry that supports a much larger rural economy. I note that the Lord Bishop is the president of the Rural Coalition, which I have met with in the past, and I know that the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner MP, is going to attend a meeting in January. It is important that we work with organisations, and we are keen to do so in government. As we have heard, overall productivity in rural areas is just over 80% of the average for England. As noble Lords have said throughout this debate, there is significant potential to improve this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked how we could do this, working with devolved Governments. That is a very good point. I assure him that I meet regularly with devolved Ministers, and this is one of the issues that we pick up and discuss. We are committed to improving the quality of life for all people living and working in rural areas, because we need to reach the full potential of rural business and our communities. While farming, forestry and other traditional land sectors are essential for delivering so much of what we value in our countryside, we know that businesses found in rural areas are just as diverse as those found in urban areas, with 86% operating outside agriculture and related sectors. In fact, the largest contributing sectors to the rural economy include education and health, distribution and hospitality, tourism, real estate, manufacturing and administrative services—and there is so much more. The Government are taking steps to support businesses right across every sector of the rural economy. To achieve this, we are ensuring that the needs of people and businesses are at the heart of our policymaking. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we need to be strategic about this, if we are to succeed.
Noble Lords are clearly aware of our growth mission, which includes announcing a series of planning reforms to get Britain building; removing the de facto ban on onshore wind; establishing the National Wealth Fund; announcing a pensions review to unlock growth, boost investment and deliver savings for pensioners; launching Skills England; announcing the Get Britain Working White Paper; and taking the first steps to create Great British Energy.
The industrial strategy will be a significant driver of national renewal and a central pillar of this growth mission. While the industrial strategy’s focus will be on growth-driving sectors and places, it will include addressing cross-cutting challenges and supporting a pro-business environment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some really good points on that, on innovation in farming and rural businesses and on how that can be used within the industrial strategy; I will feed back those suggestions. All sectors can shape, and will benefit from, wider policy reform through the broader growth mission. We believe that it will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ and for consumers to spend with confidence.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the importance of natural capital, which is absolutely central to this. I am not sure if he has seen the recent report on that; it is quite big and I am slowly working my way through it. There is a lot of good information out there that we can refer to and use.
The Government have also recognised the specific challenges and opportunities that make rural economies distinctive, acknowledging the importance of direct support to the rural economy through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. To those who mentioned co-operatives, I strongly support the benefits that can be brought through co-operatives; they have an important role to play in rural communities.
Small businesses are essential to our economic success; that is true not only for our urban centres but for every community up and down the country. In fact, more people are employed in micro-businesses in rural areas than in urban areas, as we have heard in today’s debate. Our plan for small business will hardwire the voice of small businesses into everything we do in government. We will use the levers at our disposal to boost small business growth and productivity. This includes addressing barriers through prompt payment and regulatory reform to improve the business environment; creating opportunities for UK business to compete on our strengths, break into new markets through exporting and attract investment; and helping small business to access the skills and support that they need to grow. Community-owned businesses also play a vital role in rural areas, providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services. We recognise, however, that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses, and that the Government can play their part in overcoming them.
Although the rural economy extends beyond agriculture—as many noble Lords have said—this Government recognise the vital role that farmers and growers play in national economic growth. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and we recognise the strength of feeling expressed recently by farming and rural communities. We are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry, which is why we have announced that we are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years. I remind noble Lords that this is the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.
We have already started to deliver on this commitment to restore stability for farmers by continuing the rollout of the Sustainable Farming Incentive. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the slow rollout. I am pleased to say that the uptake has increased in the last year. More than half of farmers now have an agreement, and we will continue to promote it. We need go further by optimising our schemes and grants, ensuring that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers— including small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms—while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, which, I am sure he is aware, is going to open next year—we recently made that announcement. The reason for that is that since the Government came in, in the summer, we have been prioritising the rolling out of the SFI and confirming the budget through the spending review, because these obviously affect the largest number of farmers and the largest-scale outcomes in the short term. Also, those with expiring agreements will be offered an extension to give them time to apply for the expanded scheme. Beyond this, the Government have also recently confirmed the intention to produce a long-term road map, Farming 2050: Growing England’s Future, which is to provide a vision for our farming sector into the future. It will outline how the farming system will boost food security, deliver on our environmental objectives and drive innovation, unlocking delivery across our government priorities.
Rural transport is also key. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, opened the discussion on this and many noble Lords mentioned it. We know that, for a prosperous rural economy, we need to improve rural transport as well as our digital infrastructure and the availability of affordable housing and energy, all of which came up in the debate. We know that people living and working in rural areas often travel further to access work, education and training and other essential services and that this can be not just more costly but more time consuming. We are determined to deliver better bus services and we have set out a plan to achieve this in the Bus Services (No.2) Bill. This is based on the idea of giving local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve. I recognise the challenge in many areas and the need for innovation in this area.
A number of noble Lords mentioned digitisation. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about Project Gigabit. That is designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be built by the market without subsidy, with the aim of ensuring nationwide gigabit connectivity by 2030. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are of course in rural areas, but there are also commercial not-spots in urban areas. The point is that we recognise that these areas will need government subsidy if we are to get the kind of broadband gigabit coverage that we need. We are also determined to ensure that businesses that are still reliant on 3G are not left behind as a result of the 2G/3G switch-off. 4G coverage is increasing, thanks to the Shared Rural Network, which the Government will continue to invest in.
Genuinely affordable homes were also mentioned and are essential to sustain our vibrant rural economy. We know that the housing shortage has been driving high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home, so we are reforming our planning laws to build the homes that our rural communities desperately need. At the same time, we must protect our green spaces and our natural environment. As part of this, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the National Planning Policy Framework. We need to look at how best to build more homes. How we get more growth-focused interventions that will help us build the homes that people need in the places that they are needed is key.
Housing was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord de Clifford. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to funding the rural housing enabler programme until the end of March next year. Funding allocations for individual programmes for the next financial year will be determined in the coming months through the department’s business planning exercise and we will announce these in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked about affordable housing. We know that there are real issues with unmet demand for affordable housing in rural communities. The Government’s aspiration is to ensure that in the first full financial year of this Parliament, 2025-26, the number of social rented homes is rising rather than falling. We have also asked Homes England to maximise the number of social rented homes in allocating the remaining affordable homes programme funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned the huge challenge of second homes and their impact on places such as where he and I live, in the Lake District.
Permitted development rights were also mentioned, and we recognise the importance of improving and streamlining the planning system to underpin the growth of rural businesses. We are working with MHCLG as it reviews the planning system, to ensure that it supports farm diversification and the provision of affordable rural housing through mechanisms such as permitted development rights.
On energy, it is clear that rising energy costs present a challenge to rural businesses and communities, many of which, like mine, are off-grid—which has its own challenge when we are moving to a low-carbon energy system. We are clear that we want to lower bills, boost energy security and protect our environment, and are looking to do this through Great British Energy, which we are setting up. It is also designed to support local and combined authorities and community energy groups, which are an important part of rural communities, to roll out small- and medium-scale renewable energy projects. The idea is that we will increase local generation across the whole country by eight gigawatts of capacity by 2030.
Another significant requirement for a prosperous rural economy is a skilled workforce. We are planning to extend our childcare and early years system to drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum, and to boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, to give businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We also plan to open new specialist technical excellence colleges, to give rural communities the chance to fit the skills they need to their local economies and empower their local businesses to play a bigger role in this skills revolution.
The delivery of health services, such as GPs, dentistry and women’s health services, faces particular challenges in rural areas. It takes longer to access services due to longer travel times, but also rural communities increasingly tend to have living in them people who are going to need the services the most. We have ageing populations in many of our rural areas, so that is a challenge. Integrated care systems will have a key role to play in designing these services.
The issue of community assets was raised. Village halls, pubs, post offices, local shops and banks are all incredibly important, but we have been losing too many of them in recent years. Where they do remain, they often need repair or modernisation, so we are taking this very seriously and looking at how we can best tackle it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked about cross-departmental working. I can confirm that Defra is committed to this. One example is the Child Poverty Taskforce, which the right reverend Prelate asked about. I am proud that I am part of that, and we want to ensure that our efforts cover all communities in all areas, because you do not tackle child poverty only in urban areas, but right across the countryside.
The right reverend Prelate asked about the index of multiple deprivation. We are working very closely with the MHCLG, which is responsible for the IMD, to ensure that it works more effectively in rural areas. Work has been commissioned which will specifically feed into the planned review. I also recognise the point concerning hidden deprivation in rural areas, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Noble Lords may not know this, but I used to work in rural Devon, doing outreach into particularly deprived communities in areas where people were very poor, although it was not obvious. I totally understand that point and am always very keen to ensure that colleagues appreciate it as well.
Crime was mentioned, and the National Rural Crime Unit helps people across the country tackle organised theft and disrupt organised crime groups. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is going to deliver thousands of additional neighbourhood police and community support officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that the Government do not understand farming in Northern Ireland. I am sure he would be pleased to know that two weeks ago I visited a dairy farm in County Armagh with the Ulster Farmers Union, which I have been meeting regularly so I can fully understand their specific concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned seasonal agricultural workers. To underline the Government’s commitment to the horticulture and poultry sectors, on 21 October the seasonal workers’ visitor rate was confirmed for 2025, with a total of 43,000 seasonal worker visas available for horticulture, and 2,000 for poultry.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked about local government. Yesterday, we launched a consultation on the principles of any reforms to local government funding, which will inform the development of a new local government funding assessment. The recovery grant is not an assessment of relative need and resource in itself. We are proposing this because we must act quickly, given the state of local authority finances, and start to fix the distribution of funding.
I am almost out of time, but the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about access to visits. I recently went to the Yorkshire Dales and met children from a deprived area of Liverpool who had come to stay at the youth hostel there as part of Generation Green, a Defra-funded project which is absolutely fabulous. I recommend that everyone get to know about it.
I have to give a plug for the Cockermouth Show, as everyone else has mentioned their show.
I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to talk to the Treasury from Defra, and I will always stand up for the countryside and our rural communities. We recognise the importance of the rural economy and wider rural communities. I will continue to do everything in my power, through Defra, to ensure a prosperous future for them. I end by thanking everyone once again and wishing everyone a very happy Christmas.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive reply. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said, we understand the difficulties that Defra has and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, much of what goes on in government is run by the metropolitan elites. I have been grateful for the extraordinary breadth of contributions. I noted, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, helped us understand the diversity of “rural”, and it has been very good that today we have had references to Wales, Northern Ireland, Devon, Norfolk, Lancashire, Yorkshire and all different parts of our nation.
I have to say that I fear that, very often, government is rural-blind. Many of us, for many years now, have been asking for a comprehensive rural strategy and for proper rural-proofing, not because of special pleading but because we believe that this can make a huge difference to our nation.
I will not make any further comments—it is the last day of term and I suspect that we all need to go—but I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. We will be coming back with further debates as we move into 2025; we are not going to let go of this. I add my own best wishes for a very happy Christmas and new year to all Members of your Lordships’ House.
Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire Council. I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House of Lords. While I welcome the additional funding announced in the spending review, it is unfortunately not keeping pace with the increases in costs and demands seen by councils, and it is dependent on an above-inflation 5% increase in council tax. Is this not yet another tax on hard-working people?
The Government are also imposing additional costs on local government, and while they are funding the £550 million of national insurance increases for directly employed staff, they are not funding the LGA’s estimated £1.25 billion impact due to costs imposed on our suppliers. I might add that this ignores the impact on many of those local charities that do so much for our communities. This will lead to cuts in local government services and a reduction in the support that those local charities provide. Will the Minister commit the Government to look again at this matter?
I remind the House that, in the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor pledged to raise the national living wage. It is set to increase by a further 6.7% in April 2025, with minimum wage rates for younger employees and apprentices set to increase by between 16% and 18%. This is welcome for those on some of the lowest wages. However, it will have a cost impact for local councils, where many social care services are provided by suppliers that pay close to the living wage. This is another cost that local authorities will have to absorb, unless the Government agree to fully fund the increase. Will the Government fully fund the impact of increases in the living wage?
As the Minister is well aware, the rapidly increasing costs of SEND services is crippling councils, and this desperately needs to be reformed, as we have often debated in this House. Continuing the statutory override for dedicated schools grant deficits will delay a number of councils going bust, but with the deficit set to increase by a further £3.2 billion in the coming year, this is just kicking the can down the road—again, this needs to be fixed.
The Government propose to look at the funding formula and, if I have interpreted them correctly, to focus on deprivation. While this may superficially seem appropriate, in practice the major cost driver of local government is social care, including SEND services, which represents around 70% of cost. This means that the focus should be on population demographics and where there will be the greatest need. Analysis by the County Councils Network and PwC demonstrates that rural areas will see the greatest increase in demand compared to metropolitan areas. We have just finished a debate in this House on rural areas. Can the Minister commit that the Government will look at and consult on the underlying cost drivers before any changes to funding formulae are made?
Furthermore, the Government are imposing a number of additional burdens on councils, including through their children’s Bill, renters’ reform Bill and planning measures Bill. Can the Minister confirm that these additional costs will be fully funded through the new burdens doctrine?
I turn now to the Government’s changes to the funding formula, with the repurposing of the rural services delivery grant and the new recovery grant. The latter is heavily focused on metropolitan authorities, with only three county and rural unitary authorities receiving the grant. I reiterate that 70% of the cost of upper-tier authorities is for social care, which is largely driven by demography. Along with the pernicious impact of national insurance increases on social care providers and charities, this will inevitably lead to further cuts to services.
Finally, I turn to growth and fiscal incentives. There have been few fiscal incentives for growth, but the new homes bonus and the business rates retention scheme were genuine incentives for growth and gave some compensation to communities for the impact of this growth. I add that growth imposes significant additional capital costs on councils, and these incentives were helpful there. The proposals to stop the new homes bonus and to reset business rates are deeply concerning, as they will have significant deleterious impacts on the councils that have done the right thing and supported growth, while benefiting those that have not taken the tough decisions to support growth. Given that the Prime Minister has said that growth is his number one mission, milestone, step and so forth, can the Minister assure the House that the councils and communities that have supported growth will not lose out?
I thank the Minister for sharing this Statement from the other place. I wish her, and the rest of the House, a very merry Christmas and a peaceful new year.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss the provisional local government finance settlement. It is always an early Christmas present for finance departments in councils up and down the country.
Local government was brought to its knees under the last Government, with funding cuts happening at the same time as further responsibilities were given to our hard-working local government workforce. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we welcome the move set out in the Statement for multiyear settlements—something my party has long called for.
The Statement suggests that funding previously allocated to rural local authorities under the rural services delivery grant will be repurposed under a need and demand basis. This is despite the grant providing rural local authorities with £100 million for the rollout of essential public services, including emergency services and the provision of social care in the last year.
From these Benches, we are concerned that this new system of allocation will not recognise—as has just been discussed—that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in the recruitment of staff for key services, and of course requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of services such as public transport.
Deprivation in rural areas would also likely be hidden through the use of this measure because it occurs over a wider geographical area. Using deprivation as an indicator of demand for services also does not consider local authorities with a higher number of elderly or vulnerable residents and the additional demands these residents place on services, as the noble Lord just outlined in his response.
I urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement which reflects the impact of the rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve, through the application of the fair funding formula. With additional pressure on councils to deliver further scrutiny in planning decisions, deliver further housebuilding and accept additional NICs changes, it is essential that they are funded robustly to achieve these aims. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to ensure that local authorities in rural areas have the support that they need? These authorities face unique challenges and their funding settlement needs to reflect this.
We are also concerned about the funding of certain services such as special educational needs and indeed special educational needs transport. What assurances can the Minister give that the new funding settlement will allow local authorities to deliver special educational needs services at the level needed, as well as child and adult social care?
From these Benches we welcome the consultation on wider local authority funding reform, but we urge the Government to move as fast as possible with this, as 2026-27 feels a long time away and, the more time passes, the more the contents of this Statement will feel rather like a sticking plaster. Can the Minister say anything more today about the timescale of the consultation and whether genuine fiscal devolution will be considered, so we are not looking just at how the government funding is divided up but at powers to enable local authorities to raise funding to invest in services and infrastructure for their local communities, rather than always being reliant on the Government of the day?
Finally, given that we are on the final sitting day before the Christmas break, I take this opportunity to wish the entire local government workforce a very happy Christmas, and of course I extend that to all noble Lords as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their questions and comments, and I really welcome this opportunity to update the House on our plans to get local government finances on to a surer footing, both next year and beyond.
Our Labour Government were elected to deliver real change, and this must include change for local government. Local government delivers over 800 services to local people every day. Councils are the front line of public services, from waste collection to adult care provision, economic growth and housing. Yet we know that they are facing challenges as demand increases for critical services such as homelessness, social care and SEND, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. The Government cannot deliver our priorities alone. We have to reset and rebuild the relationship with an empowered local government—we spoke about that earlier today.
Yesterday, Minister McMahon set out the Government’s plans to get local Government back on track, both in 2025-26 and longer term, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to lay the foundations for long-overdue funding reform. We must move away from expensive acute crisis response and invest in the key longer-term preventive services, and the Government are committed to ensuring that taxpayers’ money goes where it is needed most.
Taken together, the additional funding made available at the settlement and the Budget delivers over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above the local council tax, and in the provisional local government finance settlement we have an additional £2 billion in grant funding—a £700-million increase from the £1.3 billion announced at the policy statement.
This £700 million increase includes over £200 million extra funding for social care. It also includes £515 million which will be made available at the final settlement to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. I will come back to that in a moment.
Financial year 2025-26 will also see a new one-off and highly targeted recovery grant, already mentioned by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. That is for those authorities with high deprivation but a low council tax base. This will be funded in part through repurposing the rural services delivery grant and the services grant and laying the groundwork for broader reform in the future. I will come back to rural authorities. We will provide funding certainty. No authority will see a reduction in core spending power after accounting for council tax flexibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke about funding not keeping pace with the demands in local government. We are very well aware of the difficulties in funding that local government has experienced. This Government have done more to help with that than any of the work that the party opposite did in the last few years; I know that from personal experience. If he wants to criticise the 5% increase in council tax, I point out that it is exactly in line with what his Government had in place before us. We know council tax is a burden for people—we properly understand that—but we have to help local government with funding, and not allowing it to increase council tax would not help at all.
In terms of national insurance charges and the Government’s funding to help with them, we have chosen to make that £515 million of additional funding not ring-fenced, so the Government are enabling councils to choose how to distribute it, including how to meet the increased cost of externally commissioned services. We hope that the additional £3.7 billion funding available in the settlement for social care authorities will help with that. It will be clear to local authorities that specific funding for national insurance contributions being provided will not meet the overall cost to local government of the change to employer NICs, particularly given the expected increase in the cost of commissioned services, but that is why we have left that money un-ring-fenced: to try and help with the issue of funding. The overall increase in funding should help local authorities to meet the cost as they go forward.
The decision around national insurance contributions is a Treasury decision; it is not made in MHCLG, so I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord on the responsibility for that. The national minimum wage increase is all part of the picture of making sure that no local authority has a reduction in cost funding, but it is really important that people who work in local government, as everywhere else, and particularly the brilliant teams that work in social care and across social care employment, have the right wages for the very valuable and important work that they do. The national minimum wage is the basic element of that. We welcome the opportunity to give them that increase, which they so much deserve.
The noble Lord mentioned kicking the can down the road on SEND. We have been in government for five months, so it is probably not us who have been doing that; it might have been somebody else. As part of the 30 October Budget, the Government announced an additional £2.3 billion for mainstream schools and young people with high needs for 2025-26, compared to 2024-25. That means that overall core school funding will total almost £63.9 billion next year, after accounting for technical adjustments.
The children with special educational needs and disabilities have been failed, with poor outcomes and parents struggling to get their children the support they need and deserve. I mentioned this morning the absolute outrage of parents having to take their own councils to court to get services that those children were legally entitled to. That happened in my own county of Hertfordshire, which is why it had such a disastrous Ofsted report on SEND. This Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND or in alternative provision receive the right support to succeed in their education as they move into adult life. Any gap in SEND provision for children leaves a lasting effect on their life opportunities. The Government will strengthen accountability on mainstream settings to be inclusive, including through Ofsted, support the mainstream workforce to increase their SEND expertise and encourage schools to set up resourced provision or SEND units to increase capacity in mainstream schools. We are getting a grip on this, but it had been left—kicked as a can down the road—for a very long time, and it is going to take a while to get it back.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness mentioned the issue of rural services. The Government really recognise the importance of our rural communities, and we want to support them. The funding reforms that we have announced are very much part of a comprehensive reform, and the Government are absolutely committed to tackling the issues that matter so much to those rural communities. Places with a significant rural population will, on average, receive around a 5% increase in their core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase, and we are proposing to continue to apply area cost adjustment to account for relative cost differences between local authorities, including differences between rural and urban areas. The Government propose continuing to assess the same factors as the 2024 area cost adjustment, which seeks, for example, to account for increased costs as a result of travel times, and we will ensure the approach is informed by the latest data and evidence. We are inviting views from local government and the public on this approach and whether we should account for any other factors which could affect cost, as well as any evidence for including those. There will be an extensive consultation for this as we go into the spending review in in the new year.
Part of the doctrine of new burdens is that they are funded. On the new homes bonus, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, there will be a new round of payments in 2025-26. In line with recent years, these will not attract legacy payments. New homes bonus allocations will continue to be made in the usual way, applying the same calculation process.
I hope I covered all the noble Baroness’s issues on rural and sparse populations. On the funding reform timescale that she mentioned, we have to do some consultation on this, but it is the intention to do that work in advance of the spending review in spring. Having waited several years now for fairer funding reform in local government, I am very pleased that we are able to bring that forward as quickly as we have. We must reform the way that councils are funded to ensure that local government can deliver for all people in the long term, including the most vulnerable. Fixing local government is a long-term challenge, and I hope that I have set out as clearly as possible the steps we have already taken to get local government back on its feet through this year’s settlement and in the future.
On the announcement issue, it used to drive me mad when I was a council leader that this announcement comes out on 18 or 19 December, and your poor officers are struggling to get the work ready. We could not do much about it this year, but I hope we will do better next year. I thank noble Lords very much.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have sat on the Local Government Association’s resources panel for at least the last dozen years—it might be more—so I am fairly well acquainted with some of these things. Local government already had a mountain to climb, but, if I may dwell for a moment on the national insurance increase, I regret to say that that has made it even worse. I am grateful to the Minister for identifying that the £515 million grant for NIC is not to be ring-fenced, but not making it ring-fenced does not make it go any further. The LGA has already calculated that the costs of the NIC will be £637 million and of contractors will be £1.13 billion. The shortfall is £1.3 billion. How does she account for that shortage, and what should be cut? The noble Baroness mentioned the new homes bonus. Does she agree that that will not say much about the incentives to build homes? Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned funding reform. Will she commit to the no-detriment principle in the previously envisaged transition methods, whereby no council will be worse off during the transition than it is today?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. One of the reasons why we have set up the English devolution programme is to get a more effective and efficient way of managing local government. We will not solve overnight the funding problems that have accumulated over 14 years. It will take a while to do that, but in this settlement we have ensured an increase for most local authorities and no local authority will get less funding than before. We will invite views on reforming the new homes bonus as part of the local authority funding reform consultation that will be published alongside the settlement. Although the Government proposed that next year will be the final year of the NHB, we will look at it so that councils can do their financial planning around it and we will consider it as part of the spending review. I cannot commit to no detriment at this stage because we have not even started the consultation on the spending review yet, but no authority received a worse settlement in this year’s settlement than it had before.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we all know that 14 years of austerity have left local government on its knees and, in many cases, reduced local government to little more than an agent of the Westminster Government. Huge percentages—almost all spending—are forced to go on statutory measures: that is, what is decided here in Westminster, not what is decided in local communities. Can the Minister tell me, either as a percentage or as a figure, how much extra money will be available in this financial settlement to local councils to spend on the non-statutory elements of their duties, such as protecting local green spaces, supporting and funding local libraries and looking after the local public realm rather than having to make expensive bids for pots of money to be able to improve it? How much non-discretionary money will be in this settlement?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I pay tribute to my colleagues in local government, who do an amazing job of continuing to deliver some non-statutory services in spite of the incredible financial pressures they have been under. For example, we still managed to keep a theatre open in my area. That happens all across the country, so all credit to local government for the work it does on this. The noble Baroness mentioned constant rounds of bidding for pots of funding. We think that is wasteful and unnecessary. It just sets authorities up against one another in competing for pots of funding. We will do our very best to get rid of that approach. As we develop the spending review proposals, we will build what local authorities need for the future into core funding.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, because the Minister is a very experienced and knowledgeable former local authority leader, she will know, in all fairness, that Covid, inflation, energy costs and demographic change were also issues that the previous Government had to face. Her Government will have to face some of them as well. On the specific pots of money to be bid for, I ask her to alight on the issue of planners. Is there any possibility that the Government might look to provide bespoke funding to enable local authorities to recruit and retain planners so that they can build the houses that are necessary, particularly for young working people, and that they can take forward very important regeneration projects in their local areas?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I do understand that a few issues arose in recent years, but an awful lot of money seemed to be wasted during Covid that might have been better spent delivering local services. On funding for planning, we announced alongside the NPPF announcement that additional funding is available to support local authorities’ capacity for planners. We recognise that, with an absolutely key mission on growth, the planning capacity in local authorities needs to be strengthened. Our colleagues in the Department for Education are working on skills and repurposing the apprenticeship levy into a skills and growth levy, and there is some direct funding support for local authorities. We hope that will attract around 300 new planners. I know you cannot go and pick them off trees, but that will help to support the planning that will need to be done to support the growth we need in our country.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I declare my interest as chair of the Living Wage Commission, which recommended, along with the Resolution Foundation, what a living wage should be in London and the rest of the country. As it was voluntary, a lot of companies in the FT 100 decided to pay it. Then one day, George Osborne called it the national living wage, but it was simply an enhancement of the minimum wage. In his first Budget, the right honourable Jeremy Hunt raised the minimum wage to a living wage, and this Government have also adopted that sort of living wage. When she was answering, the Minister called it the minimum wage. I suggest that we use the correct language. It is no longer the minimum wage because the living wage is compulsory. It is no longer voluntary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the important work he has done on this. I hope the Government have demonstrated in these early days, by bringing forward a new Employment Rights Bill, that not just what people are paid but the way they are treated at work are of primary importance to us. I apologise if I said the national minimum wage; I should have said the national living wage. In local government, we have always welcomed it, and we celebrate the work our workforce does; they do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned Covid. I want to reflect on that period and how comforting it was to residents across the country to see local government teams still going out and doing their job in spite of the very difficult circumstances they were in. They should be properly paid for what they do and have proper working conditions. I welcome the findings of the Living Wage Commission.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my interest, as set out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I have nothing but sympathy for the Minister. She is having to do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances, and to put a shine on something that we know is not worthy of being shined at the moment. I wish her good luck in her attempt to resolve the local government funding settlement battles she will face over the next couple of years. The same Treasury people who made the decisions last year will almost certainly be making the decisions next year, so the reality is that she will not have a bigger cake to cut. If she is going to choose to divide that cake slightly differently, she will have to make sure that she at least says sorry to the people who are going to lose.
It is quite obvious that stopping the rural services delivery grant in this settlement is £110 million of essential money for a lot of councils. On the back of it, people will almost certainly be getting “at risk” notices in the new year, until the Government come up with some sort of compensation for taking that money away, if nothing else. When you go to the new homes bonus the year after next, a lot of people will be put at risk because many small, underpaid councils rely on that payment to pay staff wages.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter. He has a great deal of experience in this area, as I know only too well. The funding reforms are part of a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government. We are working with the sector on that, and the principle of giving forward notice and certainty and allowing time for councils to plan for the future is now baked into the way we are doing this.
In 2025-26 we will begin targeting additional funding to places with the greatest need and demand for services. We have used deprivation as a proxy for that, for those areas that have less ability to raise income locally. That is the new recovery grant that I spoke of. Broader redistribution will follow from 2026-27 to provide long-term certainty and enable local government to focus on its priorities.
We are inviting views from the local government sector through the local authority funding reform objectives and principles consultation, which is open from today until 12 February. It seeks views on all aspects of local authority funding reform, including aspects of rurality, the new homes bonus and anything else that people want to send views in on. I hope people will contribute to that, because we will have a better spending review the more input we get.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this and all those who have spoken to me outside the Chamber about local government finance. It is always a pleasure to work with so many experienced noble Lords who have years of experience in local government, and local government finance in particular, so I welcome that. I extend my good wishes to all the officers and councillors across the country, as well as to all noble Peers. I wish them all a very happy Christmas. I am sure we will be back to do more arguing after a bit of rest at Christmas, but for now, a peaceful and happy Christmas to all.
Syria
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that was made fairly recently in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“My Lords, 10 days have passed since Assad’s departure. This Government welcome the fall of his cruel and barbaric regime and the opportunity that this offers for the Syrians. However, while there is some cause for celebration, fighting and violence continue across the country.
The situation in Syria has developed rapidly over the last week. In the north-east, the US-brokered ceasefire between the SDF and the pro-Turkish SNA has been temporarily extended but the situation remains highly fragile. In Damascus, HTS has appointed a Prime Minister to lead an interim Government until March 2025 but has given very little detail on the shape and focus.
This Government remain committed to the people of Syria. We support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition process based on the principles of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are hopeful that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria will demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, including for women and girls; unfettered access for humanitarian aid; the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles; and combating terrorism and extremism. The United Kingdom urges the transitional Government to adhere to these principles and build a more hopeful, secure and peaceful Syria.
On Saturday, Jordan convened an Arab Foreign Ministers discussion, followed by a meeting with EU, French, UN, US and UK representatives. All involved, including the United Kingdom, reiterated their support for an inclusive political transition process. It is critical that the international community works together in a co-ordinated and complementary manner to ensure the best outcome for the Syrian people. Along with our partners, we want to see a new political process that is comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, more importantly, determined by the Syrian people themselves. We must also ensure that chemical weapons stockpiles are secured, not used, and that the transition to new governance is peaceful.
For all these reasons, it is right that the United Kingdom seeks to use all the channels available to deal with HTS, where we have to. To this end, senior officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travelled to Damascus. They have underlined the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discussed the pathway to a more hopeful, representative and peaceful future for Syria with the new interim Syrian authorities and civil society.
During their visit, senior officials also discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process that protects the rights of all Syrians and prevents further instability. Of course, these words are important but they must be supported by actions. The humanitarian situation on the ground remains dire, with over 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria alone. That is why, on Saturday, the Government announced a new package of international aid to help the most vulnerable Syrians, including in Jordan and Lebanon, coming on top of that announced by the Prime Minister on 9 December. The United Kingdom’s £61 million in aid will help to provide emergency healthcare and nutrition, and support displaced Syrian children. We call on more of our partners to join us in committing greater humanitarian support”.
That ends the Statement. There has been a summary of developments since, but I think that is for my briefing, so I will leave it there.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I understand the Minister’s difficulty when the Statement was given so recently in the Commons. I used to have a similar problem repeating Statements during the Brexit years, particularly if the Secretary of State would ad lib on their feet. They often varied from the Written Statements we were given to read out, so he has my sympathy. I thank him for repeating the Statement to the House.
There can be no doubt that the Syrian conflict has left a tragic and enduring scar on the region, displacing millions, destabilising neighbouring countries and drawing in international actors with competing interests. While I am sure that the whole House welcomes the end of the Assad regime, this moment must not be seen as the conclusion of our responsibility. The question now becomes one of ensuring that what follows is a stable, inclusive and prosperous future for all the Syrian people.
I note with particular interest, as mentioned in the Statement, the reports that Ann Snow, the UK’s special representative for Syria, met the leader of HTS on 17 December. Given its somewhat controversial history, to say the least, and its designation as a proscribed terrorist organisation, this development raises significant questions about the scope and intent of these engagements. Can the Minister give the House a little further detail on the nature of these discussions? Specifically, what assurances, if any, were sought of or provided by HTS regarding its commitment to a peaceful and inclusive political transition in Syria? Furthermore, what safeguards have the Government put in place to ensure that this dialogue does not inadvertently confer legitimacy on an organisation whose past actions have been far from consistent with international norms and human rights?
In light of this engagement, I urge the Government to outline their overarching priorities when entering into diplomatic contact with HTS or any other non-state actors in Syria. Is the focus purely on counterterrorism and security concerns, or is there a broader strategy to integrate these groups into a framework that aligns with international law and the aspirations of the Syrian people? We also have to consider the implications of those talks on the UK’s relationships with many of our key allies, particularly those in the region. How do the Government intend to navigate the sensitivities of such engagements, especially given the differing stances of international partners on the role of HTS in Syria’s future?
Finally, I seek reassurances regarding the UK’s unwavering support for UN Security Council Resolution 2254—the noble Lord mentioned this—as the framework for a political solution in Syria. This resolution, as the House will know, provides a road map for an inclusive political process, including the drafting of a new constitution, free and fair elections and a comprehensive ceasefire. Will the Government continue to prioritise this resolution as the cornerstone of their policy in Syria, and how does engagement with HTS and other actors fit into this wider strategy? Without a co-ordinated international effort to uphold the principles of that resolution, there is a grave risk that the Syrian people will remain trapped in an endless cycle of conflict and instability. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we normally thank the Minister for advance notice and sight of a Statement. I sympathise, as I do not think he had it himself today, but I am grateful for the text. I agree with its content and the Government’s position that the future of Syria should be for the Syrian people, that there should be territorial integrity and that there should be a political process.
The reporting on the prisons and mass graves draws attention, again, to the venal barbarity of the al-Assad regime. As he sits in his multimillion-dollar apartment in Moscow, he should know, as should other facilitators of grievous crimes against humanity, that there are many—including in this House on all Benches—who believe that there should be no impunity for his horrific crimes against humanity. However, the new appointment to replace the al-Assad regime appears to be from an extremist element in Syria. I would be grateful for His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those taking positions in the potential new regime.
The terrible scenes of the mass graves reminded me of the situation that we saw in Mosul after ISIS’s occupation. Are the Government willing to provide technical assistance around data capture and evidence building for those who fell victim to the previous regime, including what the UK did so well for those victims in Iraq—using DNA sampling to identify loved ones so that there can be decent burials, as well as evidence building for the potential prosecution of crimes?
We hope that there will be a move away from the levels of corruption of the previous regime. However, the early signs are that al-Jolani’s brother, who has been appointed as Minister for Health, and his brother-in-law, who is now in charge of a major crossing with Turkey, will see these positions as a major source of personal income and from which they can siphon off potential humanitarian assistance. What measures are in place to ensure that the welcome additional humanitarian assistance will go to the people who need it most? Can the Minister indicate whether we are assessing what mechanisms there would be for the delivery of humanitarian assistance? One option that has been suggested is that aid is best provided to localities—to the municipal level directly and to NGO communities—rather than to some of the new regime factions in office.
On Syria’s territorial integrity, can the Minister restate that it is government policy that both Turkey and Israel should respect its boundaries? There is a possibility of ongoing tension between Israel and Turkey and their seeking great territorial advantage from the recent internal situation in Syria. What is the Government’s assessment of Russia’s aims for strategic economic relations? There is a concern in my mind that we, along with the United States, may offer to open up the Syrian economy but, if it is to be filled only by Russian interests, we will not be helping the Syrian people.
On our domestic situation, a couple of weeks ago I asked what the Government’s assessment of HTS was with regard to the 2017 proscription order and the 2020 Syria sanctions. Has our assessment of HTS changed? I acknowledge that, within our proscriptions, there are mechanisms for diplomatic contact. Will the Minister take on board the concern that, while contact is justified, it is important how it is done? With photographs and a degree of legitimisation to those who have not yet earned it—with regard to de facto control—and who are not progressive actors, we have to be very cautious that we are not legitimising those who will continue to be proscribed.
Finally, on the decision by the Government to pause asylum, I acknowledge that that has been done alongside our allies. But these Benches believe that asylum processes should be blind to the political situation on the ground. Those seeking refuge from persecution should find a home open in the United Kingdom. There is great uncertainty and a fear that automatic stability will not be guaranteed within Syria. We should maintain an open mind for those minorities who could still be vulnerable to persecution. While the persecution may not be on the scale of the al-Assad regime, the UK should not close all doors to those who potentially still need refuge. I hope the Minister can confirm that the pause is temporary and that there is ongoing work to ensure that we do not become closed to those who need security, safety and refuge.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are working very closely with all allies, not only the UN, US and EU but also all Arab Foreign Ministers, to ensure the stability and sovereignty of Syria. Of course, the situation remains incredibly fluid. We continue to monitor developments closely and we are co-ordinating that monitoring through our international partners. I reassure noble Lords about that. We remain, as the Statement said, committed to the people of Syria and to a Syrian-led, Syrian-owned political transition process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. I reassure the noble Lord that that is what we will continue to do.
Both noble Lords addressed how we will judge that transition and the people involved in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to, the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK engaging with it in our efforts to secure a political settlement; nor does it prevent engagement with any future transitional Government in Syria who include HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria. We will be guided by a set of core principles in any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syrian authorities, with inclusion and protection of human rights being key considerations.
As I mentioned in the Statement, the information I have is that on 16 December senior officials travelled to Damascus to underline the UK’s support for the Syrian people and discuss pathways towards a more helpful and representative peaceful future for Syria, involving Syrian authorities and civil society. They discussed the importance of an inclusive transitional political process, protecting rights, and will continue to stand for the people. One of the things we have consistently underlined is the importance of protecting all civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities. We have done this publicly and in our engagement with regional and international partners.
On sanctions, and particularly on the accountability of the Assad regime, I remind noble Lords that, since December 2024, the United Kingdom has listed 310 individuals and 74 entities, including Bashar al-Assad, his associates, those complicit in committing the atrocities and individuals who have supported or benefited from the Assad regime’s behaviour. On 9 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he will do everything in his power to ensure that no one from the Assad family finds a place in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the position particularly in the north-east of Syria and Turkey. We have been in close contact with both Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces since the start of the escalation and we urge all sides to refrain from activity that will lead to further loss of civilian life or damage civilian infrastructure, further destabilising the region. We are absolutely on top of that.
On our humanitarian support, as noble Lords reminded the House when we last discussed this, the United Kingdom—both the previous Government and this Government—has to date committed over £4.3 billion in aid, which is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. The support has reached millions of Syrians across Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt, helping them to meet the urgent needs of those suffering. On 15 December, we announced the further £50 million to support vulnerable Syrians across those countries, and this funding will enable an urgent scale-up of humanitarian assistance where needs are at their highest—in particular, support to Lebanon and Jordan—and will reduce the likelihood of Syrians having to make perilous journeys to leave Syria and the region.
Within the £30 million of humanitarian aid, up to £24 million will be provided to the UN, including to UN OCHA-led Syria pooled funds for multisector emergency needs, and UNICEF—for education, health, nutrition, water, sanitation and child protection—as well as through UNFPA, particularly for the prevention of sexual violence. The remaining funds—up to £6 million—will be provided to UK-supported emergency health NGOs for healthcare and mobile clinics. I am trying to show that we are supporting a multiplicity of delivery vehicles and agents, which will minimise the risk of the corruption and leaking that the noble Lord was talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised refugees and asylum. We agree with the UNHCR’s recent assessment that large-scale forced returns are inappropriate at this time, due to the many challenges facing the Syrian population. Therefore, I repeat what I said last week: this is a temporary pause. The Home Office has temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation. That does not mean that claims cannot be made—they are and they are being processed—but decisions have been paused. So I repeat to the noble Lord that this is a temporary arrangement.
Can I just say, on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made, that we are ensuring that we continue financing that critical work on ensuring accountability for the crimes? We have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes this year alone, and we will continue that work, because it is important that we are able to show people that for such crimes they will not have impunity—so that will lead to more accountability work.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I endorse particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about accountability, and thank the Minister for how he has just replied to that point. He will recall that, on the day after the fall of the Assad regime, when he spoke to your Lordships’ House, I asked him specifically about the position of minorities and about the Kurds. Will he comment on the attack that was made yesterday, when several gunmen opened fire on an Orthodox church in Hama? On the situation of the Kurds themselves, as we have reached the point of maybe having negotiations and discussions and a possible settlement, will he particularly take into account that the Kurds should be fully included in any settlement? Will he comment on the role that they have played in ensuring that people who committed atrocity crimes in northern Iraq and northern Syria have been held in prisons that have been run by the Kurds? What will happen now to those prisoners? It is an issue that the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised with the previous Government and which it is returning to in this Session. I would be grateful, if the Minister cannot give a full reply to that today, if he would write to me.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his contributions. As I said in my opening responses, we are absolutely focused on protecting civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities. We have made that clear publicly but, more importantly, in all our conversations with groups. The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention particularly to the religious minorities, which have been focused on, and on which we have been keen to focus. By the way, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased that we have now appointed a Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. I have met him, and we are working together now. This is a key area that we will be particularly focused on.
The noble Lord’s other point came up in our last Statement, and I responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on it—but at the moment I cannot find it in my notes, so I shall write to noble Lords.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, in recognising and welcoming the Statement, I think that the sentiments in the Statement are reflected in what we all think—but the importance is in actions. Syria is in a very fluid situation, as the Minister acknowledged. I welcome his update on which Minister attended the Aqaba meeting, which Geir Pedersen also attended, along with US Secretary of State Blinken. What were the outcomes from that meeting on specific responsibilities on who does what, and what process will be taken forward, bearing in mind the situation with warring factions and the instability in Syria, as well as the notable challenges that neighbouring countries are facing; for example, from the drugs trade in Captagon, a major challenge for neighbouring states?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On that last point, of course Captagon is a real challenge, and the Assad regime used it to fund many of its activities. Certainly, it has regional implications, and it has spread to countries in the region. Fortunately, there is no evidence that it has spread to this country, but we are acutely aware of the dangers of it in countries in regional proximity, and we are giving what assistance we can in challenging that.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about the post process. As I said at the beginning, it is very fluid—and it is clear that we need to engage a range of partners, including specific neighbourhood countries but also international multilateral institutions, as we are doing. We are also acutely aware that there are changes ahead in the new year, and we need to ensure that we have consistency of approach. We are working closely with all our colleagues and allies and all countries in the region to ensure that stability, peace and security remain at the forefront of all our efforts.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. On sanctions, I understand the fluidity of the situation—we all recognise that—but there is a prima facie case that sanctions were imposed on a regime that has now been deposed. Syria is the third most sanctioned country in the world. Can my noble friend outline the process by which we are making decisions about when and how to ease the sanctions that we impose? Of course, another feature of Syria is the number of other countries that have not just an interest but a direct military presence, particularly Israel in the south and Turkey in the north. What representations are we making to Istanbul and Tel Aviv, and the Governments in those two countries, about limiting their military interference as Syria faces such a sensitive and febrile moment?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To answer my noble friend’s latter point—again, we addressed this in the past week—we are of course aware of the presence of Israel across the Alpha line in the Golan Heights. The UN Disengagement Observer Force agreement of 1974 is important for the stability of the wider region. The Foreign Secretary discussed developments with his counterpart on 8 December, making sure that Israel honoured all those commitments under that agreement. As I said earlier in relation to north-east Syria, we have done the same with Turkey regarding honouring those commitments and sticking to the agreements.
In terms of sanctions, as I mentioned, there are 310 individuals whom this country has sanctioned who remain accountable for their crimes. We are certainly looking at ways that we can ensure that we follow them and make sure that they cannot use any assets that they get out of Syria. In fact, my objective would be to see just how those illicit funds could be followed. The important thing is that we have given, and will continue to give, aid and support to the people of Syria. When things become more stable, we will be in a position to review sanctions.
Lord Swire (Con)
I thank the Minister for his earlier comments, which are reassuring, up to a point. I follow on from the comments of my noble friend Lord Ahmad. On Captagon, we are presented with a unique opportunity to interdict and to stop the spread of Captagon. The Minister said that it had not reached the UK, which is reassuring, but it has certainly reached mainland Europe through some Italian ports. This is a $57 billion a year industry funded by the Assad family and their wider relations, not least the Makhlouf family. Can the Minister assure us, first, that we will take a forward-leaning role in this? It has affected mainly countries in the Middle East, as he says, but the UK could play a serious part by bringing expertise to destroy this pernicious trade. Secondly, will he keep under review the sanctions list to ensure that all those involved in this trade are sanctioned?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Let me be clear that, while we are unaware of Captagon reaching the streets of the UK, shipments have been seized in Europe, as he rightly points out. As I said before, it presents a wider threat in the region, which is why we are collaborating and working with our allies to ensure that this trade can be stopped. I hope that one positive result of the situation in Syria will be that it will be stopped. That is something to be positive about. I repeat, as I said to my noble friend, that we are committed to maintaining the sanctions that we have introduced to ensure that people are held to account for their crimes, including this illicit trade.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I particularly welcome what he said about the appointment of a Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and what he said about north-east Syria. Forgive me for returning to that subject, given the reassurances he has given, but the semi-autonomous region of north-east Syria is an oasis of plurality in the region, where freedom of religion or belief is respected and women take a leading role in governance. It provides an exemplar for the whole region, yet it is under significant pressure from repressive forces supported by our NATO ally, Turkey. I believe that this is an asymmetric aggression, so can the Minister please assure the House that the UK will continue, along with other NATO allies, to bring pressure to bear on Turkey to desist from its destabilising activities in the region?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I give him that reassurance: we are urging all sides to refrain from activity that will lead to further loss of civilian life or damage, and to avoid further destabilisation and damage in the region. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has been talking to Turkey on this issue.
On the camps and detention centres in the area, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we continue to monitor conditions in those camps and will continue to promote security and stability and ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. As the present situation unfolds, we are working closely with partners to monitor the threat, including through our work with the global coalition against Daesh. As the Border Security Minister has said, the intelligence services are looking closely at the risk posed by terrorism and we will take all necessary action to protect the UK’s national security.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I pick up on that point about terrorism. I cannot profess to have the same expertise as many people around the Middle East, but in 2011 to 2013, when the Syrian civil war started, we saw two immediate impacts. One was that around 1 million people left; they walked, sailed and swam across Europe. The second was that we saw a lot of those refugees based in the countries around Syria. We also saw an extremely large number of awful terrorist attacks. We particularly remember the Bataclan theatre attack. Many were instigated by ISIS within Syria and as it expanded its remit across Iraq.
Visiting Jordan at the time, we were all struck by the generosity of Jordan in looking after about 6 million refugees. It needs our support. I was told recently that about a third of the MPs in Jordan have now declared for the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a worrying and destabilising impact. What efforts are we making directly with Jordan? The Minister mentioned UN efforts, but what can we do with our friends in Jordan to help them stabilise and make sure that the children and young people who are growing up in these refugee camps have hope? Otherwise, other people will get their hope and direct them in a way that has an impact on our streets, as well as on the rest of Europe.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have known for a very long time the huge impact that the situation in Syria was having on neighbouring countries, particularly the influx of refugees. We have been focused on giving financial and humanitarian support, not least to ensure that that support is not simply limited to the refugees but that the local population can accommodate and support them. One of the areas we were looking at previously was education and other facilities, and ensuring that people could work and contribute to the local economy. Even the recent further £50 million was also focused on giving support to those refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, and we will continue to do that. The real focus has to be on the causes of this refugee migration crisis, and one of the biggest causes has been the situation in Syria.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I return to the situation in north-east Syria, which was raised by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Purvis. Al Jazeera and many others reported today that a Turkish official has denied yesterday’s statement by the US that Turkey was talking to the SDF, the group headed by the YPG. I applaud the Minister’s call for an end to military aggression in north-east Syria from the Turkish-backed forces and Turkey directly. What steps can the Government take to push Turkey to permit the Kurdish groups and the HTS-SNA alliance to talk to each other, and ensure that Kurdish interests are fully represented in the final destination for Syria?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I would not use the word “push”. What we are doing, with all international allies, is trying to push for an inclusive process that ensures that everyone forms part of the solution that leads to a Government decided by, and supported by, the Syrian people. We will continue to do that multilaterally, but also bilaterally, with all supporting countries.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Government have done, but we seem to have forgotten that a regime that was seen to be so solidly entrenched that it was incapable of being removed was in fact removed very swiftly by groups of people who fought to ensure that there was a free Syria. It is bound to be an imperfect situation, but we ought to welcome what those people did. We have ensured that the threat of Captagon being used as a weapon, as Assad was doing, is no longer as valid as it previously was.
My plea is that we recognise that this Government are going to take a while to establish themselves. We want to ensure that the freedoms that have emerged can stay. When the prisons were opened, people who probably would have faced more torture or death were released, so my plea is that we recognise what those brave freedom fighters achieved and monitor the situation. The point was made that we ought to monitor how we apply the sanctions, and I think that is right.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. He is absolutely right that we need to judge the situation by deeds, rather than simply words, and we will continue to do so. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is in his place because he was one of the longest-serving Ministers in the last Government, as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He and I had debates on Syria in which we supported his Government’s position in not recognising Assad and not recognising that the situation was simple. We were as one in ensuring that we did not give support to Assad’s criminal actions. Some people felt that was the wrong position, but events have proved that both the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the then Opposition were absolutely right.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I feel compelled to rise to my feet in the time left to thank the noble Lord. In the same way, we want to work constructively to ensure that the group that is HTS— Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the ideological base of this—should not be forgotten. The fact is that it is an extremist organisation with terrorism roots. Yes, they say a leopard does not change its spots—the jury is out. We want to work constructively to ensure that ideological base is challenged. As the noble Lord rightly said, actions speak louder than words.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I hope I can speak for the next six or seven seconds to ensure that I do not have to respond to any further questions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It has been a very positive exchange. It is a very fluid situation, and one in which all parties in this House can work together to support the people of Syria and ensure they have a better future. With those remarks, I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
China: Human Rights and Security
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of government policy towards China especially in relation to human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea, and against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in opening this last debate of the year, which will focus on human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and the South China Sea, I begin by thanking everyone who will speak in the debate, along with the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing note and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for its critical role and for its support and assistance. I declare interests as an officer of the all-party groups on Hong Kong, the Uighurs, and Freedom of Religion or Belief, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. I also note that today has symbolic significance, because on this day 40 years ago, the Sino-British treaty was signed by Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang.
China’s human rights violations and the growing security challenges posed by Beijing’s international posture are well documented and will raise profound questions during this debate about our principles, security and strategic resilience. In this week of all weeks, we have seen more evidence of the threats to our domestic security and institutions. Commenting on the activities of the 40,000 agents of the United Front Work Department, our Intelligence and Security Committee says that the UFWD has penetrated
“every sector of the United Kingdom economy”.
MI5’s head, Ken McCallum, says infiltration is on an “epic scale”. It is extraordinary, then, in those circumstances for the Prime Minister to be pressing for closer ties with the Chinese Communist Party regime and to say that we should no longer describe it as a threat.
This may not be Maclean and Burgess, Philby and Blunt, but subversion of our state and its institutions involves manipulation and entrapment, influencing and cyberattacks, and intimidation, threats and transnational repression. Not long ago, the Foreign Secretary wanted this regime prosecuted for genocide.
In setting the scene for the debate today, let me begin in Hong Kong. In 2019, it was a privilege to be one of the international team which monitored the last fair and free election in a city that was once a bastion of freedom in Asia. Since 2020 and the enactment of the draconian national security law, it has seen every vestige of democracy dismantled.
The consequences are stark: over 1,200 political prisoners languish in jails, including prominent figures such as the British citizen, Jimmy Lai, with exiled legislators such as Nathan Law facing bounties placed on their heads simply for advocating democracy. Recent Human Rights Watch analysis has highlighted increasing transnational repression aimed at British national (overseas)—BNO—passport holders and their families and even at non-Hong Kong residents, threatening critics abroad with extradition. Recalling the attacks on protesters outside the Manchester consulate, which the Foreign Affairs Select Committee described as a
“brazen violation of diplomatic norms”,
we can see where this has taken us.
In a letter to the Security Minister, I recently requested a dedicated email address to be set up so that victims of CCP overseas intimidation could guarantee getting through to someone adequately trained in this very specialised crime. When the Minister comes to reply, can she say when a response might be forthcoming? Can she also say a word to those UK Hong Kongers still denied access to mandatory provident funds—an estimated £3 billion? What progress have the Government made in securing the release of this money, and what does she have to say about the role of HSBC and Standard Chartered? Did Minister West raise this matter when she recently visited Hong Kong, and, if so, what response did she receive?
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say a word or two more about Jimmy Lai, although I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others will do so too. Mr Lai is currently on the stand, being asked spurious questions about his involvement with British nationals, including people he never met or even heard of. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found multiple violations of his freedom. For a British national who has never held a Chinese passport to be held in solitary confinement, with no consular access, to be denied access to the sacraments and to be dragged out to court to respond to an entirely fabricated narrative is simply outrageous. It certainly makes a mockery of the Sino-British joint declaration.
Does the Minister support the request by the British nationals cited during the proceedings on the case to be heard in the Hong Kong court? Will she place on record her view of the absurdity of this show trial, as well as the spurious charade of dragging foreign legislators into it? Will she also roundly condemn the recent jailing of 45 Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders, including Joshua Wong and Benny Tai, who were sentenced to years in jail for so-called subversion? It is shocking.
I turn to the atrocities in Xinjiang and Tibet. In Tibet, the CCP continues its campaign of cultural erasure. There are systematic efforts to suppress the Tibetan language, dismantle monasteries and impose sinicisation policies. The Dalai Lama remains exiled and religious freedoms are virtually non-existent. Freedom House has ranked Tibet among the least free regions in the world, highlighting the CCP’s use of surveillance, mass arrests and propaganda to suppress Tibetan identity. Tibet’s plight and world silence are mirrored by the persecution of China’s religious believers, such as the young woman Zhang Zhan, a journalist jailed in Wuhan for seeking the truth about the origins of Covid.
Let us note the atrocities against Falun Gong practitioners and the industrial-scale repression of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Over 1 million of the latter have been detained in camps, subjected to forced labour, indoctrination and even sterilisation. The United Nations Human Rights Office has described potential crimes against humanity, while the House of Commons, with 11 other global Parliaments and the United States Government, called it by its proper name—genocide. By virtue of the CCP’s intentional aim to prevent the births of Uighurs through forced sterilisation, it certainly meets the criteria set out in the 1948 genocide convention.
Canada has just sanctioned Chen Quanguo and Tuniyaz Erkin, two key officials responsible for Xinjiang atrocities. The UK failed to do so in 2021. Will we do so now?
What about Uighur forced labour embedded in global supply chains? The House will have seen reports on this in the Financial Times and on BBC’s “Panorama”. I have been raising this during the proceedings on the energy Bill and will have more say about it in due course. I name again Canadian Solar, a huge beneficiary, and ask: how precisely do the Government intend to root out slavery in the renewables industry? Will the Minister take this opportunity to reiterate the Business Secretary’s clear statement that he absolutely expects there to be
“no slavery in any part of the supply chain”?
How will that commitment be honoured? What will we do to prioritise supply chain resilience by diversifying imports and supporting domestic industries?
In the light of breaches of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Proceeds of Crime Act, I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will make this the subject of an in-depth inquiry in the new year. To help that inquiry, will the Minister ask for an audit of dependency on authoritarian regimes across UK critical infrastructure? Can she update the House on whether Project Defend, which was supposed to build UK resilience, has been entirely dropped? With a trade deficit of over £23.7 billion with China, and British workers losing their jobs in the car industry—undercut by slave labour—this immoral trade is also a threat to our economy and security, undercutting resilience and deepening dependency, points often made by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Purvis, from whom we will hear later.
That leads me to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In May, with my noble friend Lady D’Souza and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I attended the inauguration of President Lai in the vibrant democracy of Taiwan, home to 23 million free people. Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported over 1,700 military incursions into its airspace in 2023 alone, a 40% increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, as noted in Jane’s Defence Weekly, Beijing continues to hold large-scale military drills around the island.
A conflict over Taiwan would be catastrophic, with consequences extending far beyond the region. A recent Bloomberg report estimated that a war over Taiwan could shave $10 trillion from the global economy. That is five times worse even than the impact that the horrific war in Ukraine has had. As Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and 90% of advanced chips, the disruption to supply chains would be unparalleled. Of course, without these chips, nothing works. Our critical infrastructure depends on them and the devices in our pockets cannot run without them. Have the Government assessed the UK’s economic exposure to various scenarios in the Taiwan Strait, and will that be part of the China audit?
Our headaches in the South China Sea do not end there. With China’s militarisation of artificial islands in defiance of the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, undermining international maritime law, we must recognise these changed circumstances, deepen military and economic ties with Taiwan, expand freedom of navigation operations and further bolster alliances with like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia and ASEAN nations. AUKUS is of course a promising step in this direction, but we must commit further resources and political will. We should support Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP.
We must also be far more aware of China’s military heft. Note the support that China has given to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It has provided Moscow with dual-use technology, expanded trade in sanctioned goods and offered diplomatic cover in multilateral forums. President Zelensky’s own adviser says that China provides over 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war—and that is without the supply of weaponised drones, in violation of sanctions.
A deadly quartet now led by China poses a direct challenge to the rules-based international order. As the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, the Sino-Russian alignment extends beyond Ukraine; it is aiming to reshape global norms in its favour. Russia’s war is China’s war. The CCP knows that depleted war chests make it harder to deter escalation over Taiwan. Meanwhile, China is engaged in what the former Foreign Secretary called the
“biggest military build-up in … history”.
I have sent the noble Baroness the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Sir Julian Lewis MP a disturbing report given to me alleging an illicit bio-weapons programme, along with a separate report on imagination technologies and China reform, which has deep connections to China’s military-industrial complex and national security establishment. I hope the noble Baroness will promise a full written reply in due course. What is clear enough is that this is a hostile state. It is ludicrous and worse to try to justify deepening business links, pouring public and private money into China’s coffers, while it is making possible an illegal war in Europe.
There is also of course an enemy within. Chinese companies dominate critical infrastructure sectors, from energy to technology—I know we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on this—including the millions of China-made surveillance cameras right across Britain. RUSI speculates that over 80% of foreign direct investment into the UK from China comes from Chinese state-owned enterprises: heavily subsidised companies operating under the direction of a one-party state.
Universities, too, are entangled in partnerships with Chinese institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army. Note the examples in the 2023 Civitas report, including work on artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what we are doing to assist universities to become less reliant on CCP money—and what we did to challenge UCL, an illustrious university, when Professor Michelle Shipworth was removed from teaching a course on China, with the university saying that it conflicted with its “commercial interests”. Professor Shipworth had highlighted data from the Global Slavery Index which suggested that China had the second-highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world.
Such examples, and this debate, underline what the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House said was the need for a coherent strategy, filling what was referred to as “a strategic void”. How will the China audit attempt to fill that void, and how will it connect to the strategic defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson?
To conclude, a coherent strategy would face the multifaceted challenges posed by China, strengthening our alliances, protecting national security, reducing economic dependencies and exposing authoritarian collaboration. We ought not to be persuaded by those who seek to talk down Britain by making out that we have no international clout. Capitulating now will cause greater pain later. By aligning our policies with our principles, we can safeguard our security, support those who suffer under oppression and lead by example in defending democracy on the global stage. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for all that he said in his opening remarks. His speech was a devastating analysis of the real world. If this Government and this House fail to pay attention to what he said, we are doing ourselves and our fellow countrymen a disservice. This important debate is timely, and I hope it will be influential in shaping our own Government’s thinking, even if we will have little effect on the Government of China.
It would have been a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose reputation as a campaigner for human rights is well known, but she apologises, and has asked me to apologise for her, as she has a pressing family engagement that she cannot avoid.
I have two interests relevant to this debate to declare. The first is that I am a trustee of the China Oxford Scholarship Fund, a small charity founded by my friend, the late Tim Beardson, about 25 years ago. He set up the fund to provide postgraduate scholarships at the University of Oxford to students from China, Hong Kong and Macau. Up to 15 scholarships are awarded annually. Preference is given to those who are studying in the United Kingdom for the first time. Successful candidates are those of the highest calibre, studying in any subject. They are chosen for their academic excellence, financial need, leadership qualities and commitment to contributing to the development of China.
Charlie Parton is a former diplomat who spent 22 years working in China and is now a senior associate fellow at RUSI. The Times reports that, at a recent conference, he
“said that on the face of it there was nothing wrong with collaboration and co-operation between British and Chinese universities. A roundtable on education was fine with the right safeguards”,
but he
“warned that the issue was over science and technology, where ‘the distinction between civil uses, military uses and repression uses just melts away’ … ‘That’s where British universities have to be extra careful on co-operation.’ … Ken McCallum, the director-general of MI5, has previously warned that universities are ‘magnetic targets for espionage and manipulation’ and that China and other hostile states are stealing intellectual property from them with ‘dispiriting regularity’. He said he had no issue with co-operation but said it needed to be done with safeguards and the right level of awareness”.
At the COSF, we are realists and more than aware of the dangers, but we are also not so naive as to think that wringing our hands will release Jimmy Lai.
That brings me to my second interest. I am a member of the Bar who specialises in media law cases and has advised plaintiffs and defendants in Hong Kong, both before and after 1997, on freedom of expression questions. But what is happening in Hong King now concerns me not just as a lawyer but as someone who believes in the rule of law, open justice and the right to say what one thinks and believes within the rule of law.
Those concepts, which we take for granted in this jurisdiction, are all under threat in Hong Kong, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, so powerfully pointed out. That of itself is fundamentally wrong and in breach of all the principles that this Parliament stands for and any United Kingdom Government should stand for, but it is also in breach of the joint declaration made by this country and China exactly 40 years ago today, in 1984, in preparation for the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. That treaty has a 50-year life with 20 years to run. That it will become time-expired does not permit us to let it wither, be ignored or be undermined.
It is not just the national security law, inflicted on Hong Kong in 2000, that evidences the erosion of civil liberties and human rights but the daily conduct of the authorities in Hong Kong in attacking their own citizens and expatriate Hong Kong-UK citizens, making extraterritorial arrests and locking up anyone they find inconvenient or tiresome. House of Lords Library staff—I thank them for their research—tell us that some 304 people have been arrested under the NSL for
“suspected acts or activities that endanger national security”.
As we know and have seen in the press, 45 others have been jailed for “conspiring to commit subversion”. These are all ridiculous and absurd allegations. None the less, this is the daily working of the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments’ way of doing justice.
We know from open source information, and from what we can see and hear for ourselves, that the Chinese Government pay no attention to human rights or the rule of law. They pay no attention to complaints, no matter how politely delivered, by western leaders. The recent statements issued by UK Ministers and the interventions made by the Prime Minister directly with President Xi—I applaud them for making them—must be more than mere formulaic verbiage. With interlocutors who have no regard for, and perhaps do not even understand or still less care about, the concepts we are worried about, we need to use commercial leverage with our allies and be ready to cause China actual economic harm to get our message home. If that costs us as well, it will be a price worth paying, but a China that sees no diplomatic, military or monetary disadvantage in ignoring us and our allies is a China that will continue to push outwards, crush domestic dissent and assert itself at our expense. We have a choice: to act or simply to watch.
Jimmy Lai, an elderly UK citizen incarcerated in Hong Kong for simply expressing his opinion and allowing others to do so through his newspaper, not only suffers as an individual human being but stands as a representative of all those in Hong Kong under its authoritarian and unjust regime. I urge the Government not just to issue statements but to take retaliatory action to ensure that his case is dealt with properly, justly and speedily. He should be released and permitted, if he chooses, to leave Hong Kong with his wife. He should not be in prison for his thoughts and his words. Now is the time. Let us choose to act, not just to watch.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, rather like Christmas, which seems to come around faster every year, so the opportunity to change British policy on China seems to come around rapidly. Under the coalition but particularly, one sensed, when George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a great opening up to China and a great interest in having investment. We then saw a pivot to thinking that China was perhaps a threat and a country with which we should not necessarily work closely—although we never stopped doing business with it. We are waiting for His Majesty’s Government’s China audit, but at the moment we have the Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s three Cs: competition, challenge and co-operation.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for bringing this very important debate this afternoon. It is indeed timely, not just because of the 40th anniversary of the Sino-British Hong Kong agreement, but precisely because there is an audit and we have very recently seen the Foreign Secretary meet his Chinese opposite number and the Prime Minister meet President Xi—the first time, as I understand it, that a British Minister met the president in six years.
In that time, many things have changed in the United Kingdom—Prime Ministers have changed almost as often as the calendar—but in China, very little has changed. If you have a president for life, long-term policy-making can be very different, so Chinese planning for security and Chinese actions against Tibetans and Uighurs persist. At this point I must briefly mention an interest, in that I have recently become a trustee of the Parliamentary Human Rights Trust. I do not think it directly affects this debate, but I thought I should mention it because clearly, one of the concerns that this House, the International Relations and Defence Committee and committees in the other place have long had is precisely human rights issues in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang.
What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the situation in Xinjiang? The excellent report from the House of Lords Library suggests that Ministers have been talking about possible forced labour in the supply chain. Shadow Minister Mike Wood responded:
“As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 November 2024; col. 66WH.]”
Excellent, and that is exactly what should be happening, but what mechanism is there to ensure that it does? While we absolutely should be calling on the largest companies named in various reports—companies such as Rolls-Royce, which clearly have every opportunity to ask the right questions—what about the smaller companies? Do they really have the opportunity to engage in that due diligence, which is vital but also very difficult, and yet another imposition on small and medium-sized companies?
Apart from human rights concerns, which we have already heard thoroughly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, there are significant security issues that are not necessarily talked about very frequently. What assessment are His Majesty’s Government making of Chinese interests in the Arctic and Antarctic? China sees itself as a near neighbour of the Arctic—one that clearly has business interests, in that, the more navigable the Arctic Sea region becomes, the greater the interest. President Xi suggested on meeting Prime Minister Starmer that we could co-operate and that there are areas of common interest in trade and investment. Where are those trade and investment interests coming from? Do they benefit the United Kingdom, or do they benefit only China?
There is a final question I want to ask, about higher education. I very briefly declare my other interest, as professor of European politics at Cambridge University. This is an issue that affects universities across this country and in the United States: the Chinese Students and Scholars Association. A quick internet search suggests that universities in the UK and the US have active Chinese Students and Scholars Associations. It is not entirely clear who funds them, but they appear to be intended partly to allow host communities to find out more about China and to allow Chinese students to have full feedback to China. Are His Majesty’s Government reassured that these are entirely neutral organisations simply serving the mutual benefit of the host university and the students; or are they also an opportunity for China to look for students to investigate, spy on—to use a word that is perhaps unfortunate—and feedback on fellow students, particularly students from Hong Kong, perhaps, who may feel vulnerable?
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I am very grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this vital and urgent debate. I congratulate him on his election as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There is no one better qualified to fulfil that role.
If we are to understand China from the perspective of human rights, security or trade, or indeed from any other perspective, we must see the country in its own terms and as it sees itself rather than simply through western lenses. To understand China as she understands herself, it will not do to look at her in terms of Marxism or indeed Maoism. If once it was said of the Labour Party that it was more Methodist than Marxist, it can be fairly said of the Chinese Communist Party that it is at least as Confucianist as it is communist. At the heart of China’s concept of itself lies the concept of tianxia, a word that means “all under heaven”—and that I almost certainly mispronounce. Even in those three words, you can grasp a sense of its import. It is an ancient concept, dating at least to the start of the first millennium BC, describing a system of relations across Asia, with China as the centre of the civilised world and the apex of culture, the heart of a sage empire, spreading material benefits and wisdom to all mankind—a geopolitical system with China at the centre and the Emperor at the centre of the centre.
When Lord Macartney visited the Emperor in 1793 to discuss trade terms, the Emperor stated that China was the foremost and most divine nation on earth and had no need of foreign goods. That was a pure expression of tianxia. In subsequent decades, with the opium wars, the collapse of the empire, the disaster of the Second World War and Maoism, the concept took quite a battering, only to reassert itself now under President Xi, just as neo-tsarism has in Russia.
In contemporary China, tianxia manifests itself in the ideology of “one country, one people, one party, one leader”, and it has global implications too. In the words of Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, President Xi is undeterred by western objections because he believes in the moral righteousness and inevitability of Chinese global leadership. Of course he does because he believes in tianxia and, as we can see and as has been outlined in this debate, it manifests itself in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, in the South China Sea, in aggression towards Taiwan, in transnational repression and in malign influence such as we have seen here in recent days. The belt and road initiative is just another manifestation of it. It is seen specifically in violations of religion or belief. Religious minorities—Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Falun Gong and Christians across China—must be repressed because they do not accept that ultimate authority rests with the one at the heart of the system, as tianxia dictates.
So how do we address it? Not by assuming that China believes in the international rules-based system but by understanding, ideologically and indeed theologically, where China is coming from. China simply does not see itself as one nation state among many; tianxia will not allow for that. A religiously illiterate approach that relies on western secular assumptions simply will not do, and we cannot counter a three millennia-old concept by appeal to a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up only in 1948, deeply as I believe in it.
We must take a religiously informed approach to such a concept. In that light, I warmly welcome the announcement of the new freedom of religion or belief special envoy, the Member for North Northumberland, David Smith MP. He is very well equipped to take on this role, not only to advocate for marginalised communities but to help us understand these big-picture issues as they relate to increased authoritarianism and repression in the world today. I very much hope that, despite reports to the contrary, his office will be properly resourced, both financially and with staff, so that he can make the fullest impact possible in his role. There is no doubt that with Senator Rubio in post as Secretary of State—I note that he is currently under a Chinese travel ban—the incoming Trump Administration will foreground freedom of religion or belief in foreign policy. Mr Smith’s appointment gives us the perfect opportunity to make common cause with the United States on this issue, and we must grasp it.
Only a robust approach to China will do. It is not my place to suggest what that approach might be, though the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme seems a good place to start, but we are not powerless in this. The UK and our allies are not without influence and we must use our seat on the Security Council. Despite what the Emperor said to Lord Macartney, China needs our trade—but we cannot trade at any price and must not leave this too late.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. There was much in his reflections; he was looking at things from having a lens on a country he knows. From the various discussions we have had, I agree with him in totality.
I thank my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this debate. I must admit that I am no longer the target of his daily emails and phone calls as a Minister. That is missed, I think, in some shape or form, but I am sure that the new Government are receiving them with welcoming arms. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his perseverance on a whole raft of human rights issues—despite, let us be clear, the many personal challenges and attacks that he faces, including sanctions, in standing up for the oppressed and persecuted around the world.
I turn first, though, to governance. We hear that in early 2025, the Government will provide an audit. What exactly will be its format and the presentation to Parliament? I am sure that the Minister will cover this in her concluding remarks, but I request that, once that is done, she facilitates a meeting with Members of your Lordships’ House on this important element.
Linked to this, however, I have an equally relevant question on the material difference between the Government’s approach and that of the previous Government. Noble Lords will know that the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 built our approach to China at that time. It was cross-government and focused on three pillars. The first was “Protect”. The UK would
“strengthen our national security protections in those areas where the actions of the CCP pose a threat to our people, prosperity and security”.
We would prioritise cybersecurity and defensive capabilities, while strengthening
“protections for academic freedom and university research”.
Do the Government believe that approach is correct?
Secondly was “Align”. The UK would deepen co-operation and alignment with key allies and partners to
“shape the broader strategic environment”.
The Government said that the UK aimed to work collectively with allies and partners to encourage China to contribute transparently and proportionately to financial stability and economic development around the world but, equally, to
“push back against behaviours that undermine international law, violate human rights, or seek to coerce or create dependencies”.
Again, do the Government agree with this approach?
Finally, there was “Engage”: the UK would engage directly with China through bilateral channels and international fora, including the UN Security Council, seeking
“to preserve and create space for open, constructive … and stable relations”
that reflect China’s global significance, which is an undeniable fact. The Government also stated that they believed in the potential benefits of positive trade and investment relationships with China, while safeguarding critical supply chains and national security. Does the Minister agree with that? If the answer to all three questions is yes, we need to move forward and start motoring.
In the multilateral sphere, what engagement is taking place on co-operation and conflict resolution? On the G20 meeting between the Prime Minister and President Xi, what has happened subsequently? On the Human Rights Council—I have raised this before—and the UN Third Committee, what has happened specifically in these areas on issues such as Xinjiang and the Uighur Muslims?
I know that during my over seven years as the UK Human Rights Minister, we led on bringing together an ever-growing number of nations to highlight the plight of the community and other minorities. What steps are the Government taking to build on the work of the previous Government in strengthening this coalition of almost 50 nations? I welcome the appointment of the new FoRB envoy; indeed, I am personally invested, as I was the first envoy and helped create the role. How is the international alliance, where my dear friend Fiona Bruce played such a pivotal role, being utilised in this respect?
Issues of contention and profound disagreements remain between the UK and China, some of which have been amplified in recent days and remain at the core of this relationship. Our colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, remain under sanction by the Chinese authorities. Previous Prime Ministers had direct meetings with those sanctioned; I ask the Minister, through her good offices, to ensure that that continues.
I have already mentioned Hong Kong and the national security law, and Xinjiang, but, in the spirit of the season, if we are to move forward in turning a page in this relationship—perhaps even writing a new chapter—we need to bear in mind, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, that China itself recognises the need for collective action. President Xi is focused on a revival of the teachings and philosophy of Confucius. It is to that philosophy I turn, in the spirit of building a bridge and moving forward, to lay the foundations for addressing serious human rights concerns and related freedoms. It was Confucius who said:
“To be able under all circumstances to practice five things constitutes perfect virtue; these five things are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness”.
I therefore reach out to the Chinese authorities—I trust that the Minister will agree with me. Let us move forward in that spirit, in this season, with some immediate practical steps: remove the sanctions from our colleagues in Parliament and beyond as a first step, and let us build a new dialogue; recognise that the major challenges of the world, be they a resolution to the war in Ukraine or peace in the Middle East, require collaboration; build on the experience of recent history and the fact that, when a pandemic engulfed the world, co-operation between nations was the bedrock of a new dawn after the tragedy that impacted us all; and release those who are held in detention for calling for freedom of expression. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier expressed so powerfully, Jimmy Lai is a man who has suffered for far too long and whose health is deteriorating. China should show compassion and clemency to him and his family, reflective of the season of good will but also of the central Confucian tenets of generosity and kindness—end his trial now and return our citizen. Finally, with the Sino-British treaty, China must revive freedom of expression and end acts of suppression.
China is important to the UK but the UK is equally important to China. We have differences and profound disagreements, with different governance systems, yet the links between our two nations are deep-rooted, in business and education, and from science and corporation to culture and cuisine, underpinned and defined by our people-to-people links. We are at a crossroads at this time. I have sought to outline some simple, practical steps that can be taken and which in my view may, I hope and pray, turn the trajectory of travel towards a more positive space.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, as the grandson of former medical missionaries in south-west China, I take great interest in this debate. As others have expressed, I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his remarkable and indefatigable commitment to human rights and freedom of religion or belief all around the world. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—it is a privilege to speak after him—for his huge commitment in this area over many years.
I share with my forebears a deep respect for the Chinese people, their culture, their discipline and their character, but I have been horrified by stories of the oppression and maltreatment of religious minorities and critics of the regime over very many years. I have paid several illuminating visits to China to witness that for myself. This afternoon, like others, I wish to highlight the desperate situation of Uighur Muslims in the north-western region of Xinjiang, whom the other place has declared as being subject to genocide. Specifically, I urge His Majesty’s Government to ensure that the screening of goods made in forced labour camps—everything from solar panels to tomatoes—prevents them being imported into this country.
The challenges faced by Uighur Muslims are now well-documented. They are herded into so-called vocational skills, education and training centres, surrounded by guards who operate a shoot-to-kill policy on those who would try to escape. Subjected to mass indoctrination, forced labour and coercive sterilisation. it is hard to imagine a more egregious example of modern slavery in the world today. It was hugely encouraging that the Labour Party in opposition gave such an unwavering commitment to the call to designate these atrocities as genocide, pure and simple—or, as we might say, impure and simple.
The response of other western allies has been similarly forceful but supported by actions which His Majesty’s Government have thus far failed to match. The Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act in the USA and the EU’s forced labour investment screening mechanism already work to prevent goods from the region reaching the US and European markets. In the EU, there is a legal requirement for border officials to screen goods coming into their respective countries, while the USA has reversed the burden of proof on businesses to guarantee, so far as possible, that their supply chains are not tainted by Uighur Muslim forced labour. No such mechanism exists in the UK today, demonstrating a serious lack of alignment with our allies in an area where we should be joined at the hip.
In the last six months, two direct cargo routes have been established from Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, to airports in Bournemouth and Cardiff. Media reports state that European Cargo, a UK company registered in Hertfordshire, is ferrying goods to this country from an area declared to be the subject of an ongoing genocide. Meanwhile, Ministers have informed a colleague that UK Border Force currently has no power or legal obligation to search those flights, which creates a gaping loophole for those who would seek to profit from the current atrocities being experienced.
In an Answer to a recent Written Question asking His Majesty’s Government what plans they had, if any, to suspend cargo routes from Xinjiang to UK airports, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, replied:
“His Majesty’s Government have no plans to restrict cargo operations between Xinjiang and UK airports. The decision to operate particular routes is a commercial decision for airlines”.
His Majesty’s Government previously made commitments to tackle the scourge of modern slavery but, until this loophole is closed, the UK will effectively become the dumping ground for goods produced in such horrendous circumstances. Indeed, it may well be that already.
I therefore ask the Government to develop policies similar to those of the US and EU, to ensure that this debate leads beyond rhetoric and good intentions to the solid action which is so urgently needed.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate on government policy towards China and for highlighting these grave issues. I pay tribute to him, along with other noble Lords, for dedicating his immense knowledge, experience and wisdom to the service of people and causes which can often be buried beneath the rhetoric and power of the overbearing and tyrannical state.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have spoken about China’s conduct of affairs backed by a show of force. There have been violations of agreements, such as our own 1984 Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong, under which it was pledged to “one country, two systems” for 50 years, and the horrid violations and imprisonments that have taken place there. Taiwan has been threatened by President Xi’s refusal to rule out force for what he calls reunification, and this is to say nothing of the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet and of the Uighurs in the western Xinjiang province, to which noble Lords have drawn attention.
As we have heard, the UK Government have set out their approach: to co-operate cautiously, to trade and to challenge. But can there really be UK co-operation as equal partners on trade and economic matters with China? Trading as equals can be the only true basis on which a western democracy such as the UK can co-operate, given China’s economic power, which is now the second-largest globally. That is based on its vast wealth, its imperviousness to WTO trade rules—on state subsidies, for example—and its untrustworthy record on IP and cyberespionage, prompting action by the US, as well as its bid for regional strategic and military dominance.
Although China is not the UK’s first trading partner but our fifth largest, we do have a trade deficit with it. Given the strategic and sensitive nature of Chinese imports into the UK and its foreign direct investment—FDI—in the UK, it has already achieved great leverage on our economy. The figures vary, but Chinese investors have around £134 billion of assets in UK industries. It is no secret, and we know openly, that these range from a large share in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station—China General Nuclear Power holds a 33.5% stake in the plant, which is owned by EDF—to a 10% share in Heathrow. It has interests in breweries that Chinese individuals have, such as Greene King, and retail outlets such as Superdrug, as well as utilities such as Northumbrian Water. Around 200 companies are in the hands of Chinese individuals from China or Hong Kong, including state-run organisations and the China Investment Corporation. What precautionary measures do the Government intend to protect the UK strategically and its vital security in power plants, energy companies, IT and electronics, against dominance by Chinese investors, state or otherwise?
Rather than go ever deeper into trading arrangements with China, with all their drawbacks, my view is that Britain should concentrate on the benefits from developing trade and economic ties with other trading partners—to make common cause, for instance, with the incoming US regime, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester suggested. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will forgive me for returning to this theme, but I recommend that we develop and are alert to what can be done as a leading global partner now that we are members of the CPTPP. I recommend that we are alert to how we can not only develop our own trade with this dynamic and ever-growing alliance but help our new partners in the CPTPP against predatory or hegemonic Chinese economic moves, given the wide area of influence that China already commands not just in the Indo-Pacific but with individual CPTPP countries. Already, 20% of Chinese goods are destined for CPTPP countries, and 50% of them are intermediate products. Of those countries, Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico have the highest level of imports from China. In the UK, that figure is 13% of our imports, given the nature of our imports from China.
Will the UK Government commit to ensuring that they do everything possible to lead and strengthen the CPTPP as a free-trading bloc and an alternative to our trading partners, and indeed ourselves, being dependent on the Chinese economy? To return to a subject we have been debating in a Committee, will they ensure that no measure is taken under the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill that would undermine the UK’s ability both to exploit the opportunities of the CPTPP and to act as a beacon of global free trade with our new partners?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate, particularly in the context of the history of Hong Kong, and for his typically powerful introduction, which is only what your Lordships’ House would expect.
I begin this final debate of 2024 with a big-picture overview of the state of the world. Geopolitically, we are an unstable, dangerous mess. The climate is running out of control, overheating visibly and obviously, and nature and biodiversity are in a state of collapse. Human lives are going backwards, in terms of poverty, hunger and inequality. We are not doing well, and that is not because we have been derailed from some ongoing train of so-called development and progress. It is a product of the nature of politics around the world in recent decades, particularly in the hugely influential United States—and us, with our own UK influences. It is a legacy of colonialism and neocolonialism, extractivism and exploitation, the enriching of the few at the expense of the many.
That is not to say that there has not been real progress in the decades since World War II—progress driven by civil society, which has developed a framework of international norms, or what we generally call human rights. They were not given over to us by states but driven by campaigners who forced us forward. Civil society action has got us to that point, but it is dependent on government action really to put it into effect—and that means that Governments have to apply these frameworks of norms and human rights, applying the judgments without fear or favour, not using them as a stick with which to beat people we dislike while quietly ignoring what we see our friends and allies doing. I would love to see a debate in your Lordships’ House similar to this one but focused on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, which is every bit as bad as China.
Noble Lords have talked here, as I have in other contexts, about the situation with the horrendous genocide against the Uighurs and the situations in Tibet and Hong Kong, as well as the threats to Taiwan and in the South China Sea. I am not going to go back over that ground, because it has been covered well already. I want to take two different angles here. One is to say, as no one has yet said, that in this complex world, facing the threat of the planetary boundaries being exceeded, we have to talk to China. On the climate emergency and nature crisis, it is a crucially important actor. Of course, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, it makes many of the products that we use every day; that is the trade to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was just referring. We have to acknowledge that the responsibility for the environmental impacts of those objects that we use rests with us, as well as with China. We shall see in the coming year a real focus on a duty to prevent human rights abuses and environmental damage for our companies or supply chains. That is important to consider in this context. But it is really important to say that business interests, or indeed the need to talk about the climate and nature crisis, should not stop us from raising, at every opportunity, human rights in conversation with the Chinese regime. It should not stop us from deciding on sanctions or providing refuge to those seeking asylum from the Chinese regime.
It is important to note that this afternoon the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee referred to safe and legal routes for people to find asylum in the UK. He said that he was happy with what we had now with Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong. I have a direct question to the Minister: surely we also want to provide safe and legal routes for people from other parts of China who might be seeking asylum in the UK to be able to come here. Hong Kong is enormously important, but it should not just be Hong Kong.
My second point is that the noble Lord’s Motion refers to China’s actions and government policy towards China. That may have been what the Table Office was happy to have, but I urge all noble Lords not to regard China as a single entity. China is not the Chinese regime. It is really important that we do not make ahistorical, orientalising assumptions about China as some unchanging, monolithic entity. I note that Human Rights Watch, for example, has a whole series of reports about how there have been protests within China, with terribly brave actions by people within China at great risk to themselves. Let us not talk about China but about the Chinese regime, and acknowledge that there are Chinese people, not just within the parts of China that we have identified but in other parts as well, who are taking action. I note that there are really brave feminist LGBTIQA+ activists in China who have paid a hideous price for taking actions in those areas.
Finally, I will change tone. Given that this is the final Green speech of the year, I offer thanks particularly to the staff who keep us going through these long and strange hours in which we work. I wish them and all noble Lords a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. Unlike others, I also praise him for the propitious timing that he managed to secure for this debate. We will leave this as the last message of the year.
We have already heard important speeches on human rights, and I am sure that we will hear more. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, intimated, I want to change gear. I want to take a, let us say, secular approach, perhaps a utilitarian approach, to the issue of technology and the threat of Chinese technology to our security. I will use the specific to illustrate the general.
My first specific is lidar: light detection and ranging technology. It is used for mapping and sensing in autonomous vehicles, drones, trains and airports; and utility providers and infrastructure operators use lidar to monitor pipelines, power lines and rail networks. As your Lordships will understand, these are all important areas. In 2020, Chinese firms had a 58% share of the global automotive lidar market. I do not have later stats, but I expect that the share will now have risen due to the copious use of subsidies, market protections, procurement preference and the systematic acquisition of foreign intellectual property. Chinese lidar poses a danger because it collects sensitive data and can receive over-the-air updates enabling potentially undetectable changes to systems, which could compromise operation.
Next, we have cellular IoT—internet of things—modules. These are what connect everything to the internet. They are used in a vast array of critical infrastructure applications: energy, logistics, manufacturing, transport, health, and security, to name but some. They remotely monitor and control complex systems and collect vast amounts of data and metadata for analysis, processing and response management. Chinese pricing is often up to 25% below manufacturing cost, helping China to gain a 70% share of the world market—already. Quite apart from the leverage that can be applied via this dominant position, China has potential access to very large amounts of data and can remotely interfere with devices, switching off or degrading critical national infrastructure.
Domination of key markets is a Chinese strategy across many technologies. Photovoltaics is one example, and China’s share of all manufacturing stages for solar panels exceeds 80%. Once again, this has happened by the use of very low price levels that are supported by subsidy, with China having crushed most of its international opposition.
Lithium-ion batteries are another example. China dominates the whole battery supply chain, producing well over 80% of all key components. Graphite, copper, nickel and cobalt are the raw materials needed for batteries and their use will rise staggeringly. For example, by 2040, estimates point to a ninefold increase in lithium requirements above current use. While US and European companies play significant roles in some areas of lithium and copper asset ownership, China invested $10 billion in overseas mining in the first half of 2023 alone. China dominates nickel and cobalt production, notably in Indonesia and Congo, and it controls 93% of battery-grade graphite refining.
Rare earth minerals, vital for manufacturing not just batteries but wind turbines, phone displays and fibre-optic cables, will see a surge in demand. Again, China dominates refining and production, and is expected to increase its share above the current 80%. In AI and quantum computing, the Chinese effort is currently somewhat behind that of the US and the West, but we have already seen that if China decides to move forward, it moves forward at pace. Chips are key to this and China continues to grow its domestic chip industry: a $47.5 billion investment fund was announced this year, and the West has been slow to respond. Delays applying sanctions allowed China to buy time and stockpile, while an increase in its chip purchases now indicates that it is still stockpiling for future problems.
Meanwhile, quantum computing has the potential to completely change the way our computers and devices work, and poses significant security risks. At the moment, China and the US lead, but China is certainly further ahead in moves to try to deploy this technology, with infrastructure and two satellites with quantum communication capability.
Thanks to the tireless work of some of the people speaking in this debate, the last Government began to wake up to the dangers. In October 2022, work started on removing Huawei from UK telecoms infrastructure, but this is due to be completed only in 2027, and there have been partial moves regarding Hikvision’s surveillance cameras, but not even scratching the surface of this problem. Where is our co-ordinated approach to this? The pattern in the UK is piecemeal, slow and, I would say, largely ineffective.
To conclude, this is not paranoia: the danger is there and the Government need to be honest in their audit. China has a predatory pricing strategy based on massive subsidies, and sometimes slave labour, designed to eliminate its western rivals. It has acquired global dominance in key raw materials and their processing. It has launched programmes to gather IP from across the world by any means, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Perhaps most worryingly, it has established deep penetration of our critical infrastructure and key equipment, with the capacity for detailed covert surveillance and remote control. This is not the half of it, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is clear to all who look that China’s technology strategy is a serious threat to our security and an existential threat to our capacity to deliver manufacturing when we need it. I ask the Minister to confirm that she too recognises this threat and that the audit will take this on board.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, that was another excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and a brilliant peroration as he concluded, building on eight other excellent speeches we have heard in this debate, following its superb launch by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. How wonderful it was to hear two robust speeches from Church of England Bishops rather than the usual fence-sitting stuff. I particularly liked what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester had to say. I think he is right: it is not just this tianxia culture. Is there not a deeply ingrained racist element, in that they believe that those of the Han ethnicity are the only real people and every other ethnic race are just vermin or infidels to be destroyed? I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate is nodding: I got at least something right in my speech today.
So what is China doing—the country described by the FCDO as a “strategic partner” with which this Government are determined to have a “pragmatic” relationship? Well, it is oppressing its own people, both directly through an extensive network of black jails and indirectly with no free press. This House and 11 other countries have said that the Chinese state is committing genocide in Xinjiang province and, in Tibet, it is seeking to deny a people their culture and identity. It is running what has been described as the
“world’s largest contemporary system of state-imposed forced labor”,
with up to 2.5 million Uighurs and members of other ethnic groups at risk of coerced work.
In Hong Kong, it has reneged on an internationally registered treaty with the UK, in order to deny the city’s residents their civil and political rights. It is stealing islands, building military bases and deploying paramilitary forces to bully its neighbours in the South China Sea, despite an international ruling that its claims are unfounded. It is engaged in the largest military build-up since World War II, adding the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. Its programme of civil-military fusion subserviates its economy to military needs. It is increasing its military exercises and incursions into Taiwan’s airspace and escalating the use of grey-zone activities to undermine both Taiwan’s will to resist and that of the international community to stand firm against aggression.
It is also waging a non-military war against Taiwan, by trying to eradicate its right to exist. Taiwan cannot get into the United Nations, nor any of its agencies. China has banned it from the World Health Organization, even though it was Taiwan that raised the alarm about Covid while China covered it up, and China has banned Taiwan from Interpol. China constantly seeks to change the wording of United Nations agreements to freeze out Taiwan.
Our own Intelligence and Security Committee has said that China runs the largest state intelligence service in the world and that it is a threat to our British industry and technology. Let us be clear that when I say China, I of course mean the Communist Party of China, not the whole of the Chinese people. It lied about the origins of Covid, lied to the World Health Organization, lied about the efficacy of its vaccines and spread conspiracy theories when seeking to divert responsibility and blame. It destroyed evidence and continues to withhold information on what it knows. It also launched a trade war against Australia, Norway and Lithuania when these countries asked questions about the Covid cover-up.
That is what is happening around the world. What about the UK? There is a long list of hostile Chinese aggressive acts against our United Kingdom; against individuals, the state and companies. On a daily basis, it is mounting massive cyberattacks against the UK, including one in March of this year targeting Members of Parliament and the Electoral Commission. A former UK Foreign Secretary said that torture on an industrial scale was happening in Xinjiang province. How can we have as a strategic partner a country committing genocide?
China blatantly steals our technologies, has infiltrated all our universities—often helped by craven university chancellors more interested in Chinese cash than freedom of speech. More recently, have we not seen just how high their spies can penetrate? This was not a one-off quirk but the result of many years of assiduous penetration of all our top institutions, and many thousands more are still beavering away in our companies, universities and institutions, seeking to undermine our will to resist Chinese aggression.
These are not the actions of a strategic partner with whom we should be having a pragmatic relationship. These are the actions of a hostile state. Why will the Government—and the last Government, too—not listen to our own top security experts? The current head of MI5, Ken McCallum, has said that China is engaged in espionage on an “epic scale”. He gives us that message every few months—let us listen to him. Of course China is a massive trading entity from which we cannot cut ourselves off. Trade with China? Yes. Trust China? No.
The Henry Jackson Society published a large report in 2020 showing that the UK was strategically dependent on China for 229 categories of goods, of which 57 had applications in critical national infrastructure. This must not continue. We have let China get a stranglehold over some of our vital commodities: parts and components which could cripple us economically, and possibly militarily, as a country if China turned off the tap. So we must accelerate onshoring and taking back to the UK things we should be making here—or we should have various suppliers from other friendly countries around the world.
China is a hostile country. It is a clear and present danger to the West. It seeks to dominate us economically, militarily and politically. China is not a strategic partner; it is just a ruthless commercial competitor, and we should treat it as such. We must open our eyes and acknowledge the nature of the threat posed to us; then we can plan to combat it. Only from a position of security and strength can we then consider being “pragmatic”.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I too thank my noble friend Lord Alton for never letting up on China. All of us are very grateful, and this being the last debate of this year is very fitting.
This House is becoming louder in its warnings about the threat that the People’s Republic of China poses to the UK’s security and economy. The actual and perceived threats help to shape UK foreign policy with regard to China, yet many commentators argue that the UK, despite some welcome announcements from the Government, still does not have a viable political strategy on China and therefore remains vulnerable to events as they occur. As so many have said, what is urgently needed is a clear statement of red lines with regard to PRC suppression of minorities and a policy incorporating concerns about and action on cyber and other attacks, and the aggressive threatening of international shipping lanes and trading relations in the event of severe tariffs imposed by the USA.
The question of Chinese technology and its inroads into the UK has been very ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but I would like to underline that the PRC, as we know, is intent on achieving a world monopoly of electronic communications technology. As we have heard, cellular modules of the “internet of things” are crucial to almost all aspects of infrastructure, such as logistics, power grids, water supplies or the ability to paralyse financial payment systems.
Chinese companies currently own about 70% of the world market in cellular modules, as we have heard. Other countries struggle to compete with subsidised Chinese manufacture, which has a protected domestic market and seeks to gain a monopoly by means of supply of parts, favourable regulation, financing at competitive rates, access to key materials and products such as semiconductors at below cost. And let us not forget that the PRC is ever vigilant in taking over potentially failing companies around the world. The consequences of anything approaching a monopoly of PRC-supplied parts, and the access to data that this would facilitate, are severe, and would for example bring the UK defence forces to a standstill.
My predominant interest remains the democratic independence of Taiwan, a country of great strategic importance to China and expressly targeted by President Xi as ripe for integration with the mainland of China. This intention has been repeated too often to be ignored. Although expert opinion doubts that there is an imminent possibility of invasion, the so-called “grey attacks” are increasing in number and severity. Frequent military exercises are intended to disrupt and intimidate the Taiwanese, as are efforts to undermine Taiwan’s economy and democratic institutions.
Taiwan, as we all know, is the world’s largest producer of superior semiconductors. Despite competition from China and the USA to build semiconductor facilities, the technological skills and environment required are considerable and unlikely to surpass Taiwanese production rates. Although this is a great strength for Taiwan, it is also a liability, making integration with China all the more desirable for the PRC. Any interruption to the supply of raw materials, clean water or labour would have an immediate effect on production and compromise the global market for consumer electronics, currently valued at $1 trillion. The top 20 clients of the semiconductor manufacturing companies are worth in excess of $7 trillion.
Why does Taiwan’s continued existence as a separate entity matter? Apart from the democratic view that freedom is preferable to repression, the possibility of a China-controlled region encompassing international shipping lanes is ominous. China is intent not only on returning to an imperial grandness but on surpassing the USA as the world’s dominant political and economic force. The ability to control world shipping trade would represent a major step towards its grand plan.
The Government have committed to a thorough audit of PRC efforts to destabilise UK defence and security, which is eagerly awaited. Meanwhile, several suggestions for further protection have been put forward by China experts. These include ensuring that the FCDO maintains Mandarin-speaking specialists on China, and establishing a China-focused expert committee, preferably at Cabinet level, with a range of Ministers, particularly in the technological field, to monitor relations with the PRC. Such a committee would assess the national security risks offered by imported technology; arrive at a clear definition of national security for all government departments; set out priorities for defending critical national infrastructure; build up lists of trusted suppliers of electronic modules and chips, and other electronic manufacturers; and identify opportunities to work with international partners and allies to counter Chinese imperialism.
I suggest that our thinking and actions on China should not be dictated by the PRC. With the PRC’s largest military build-up since the end of the Second World War, deepening relations with Russia and increasing incursions into Taiwan and surrounding territories, it is clear that China is laying the ground for future domination beyond the south and south-east Asian regions. We ignore this at our peril.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, including as co-chair of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group. I thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this very important debate and for giving a remarkable speech this afternoon.
China is back in the headlines once again, and, true to form, not for good reasons. The relationship between Prince Andrew and an individual spying for China has grabbed the headlines. However, much more important is the fact that Yang Tengbo is one of tens of thousands of members of the United Front Work Department, which Chairman Mao famously described as one of the three “magic weapons” of the Chinese Communist Party. Despite its somewhat innocuous name, the UFWD is a deeply sinister organisation that specialises in clandestine activities to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s interests at home and abroad.
The UFWD is believed to have significantly expanded its activities under President Xi. This is the same President Xi whose hand our own Prime Minister was so keen to shake last month. However, it seems that Sir Keir Starmer’s charm offensive on behalf of our United Kingdom Government is only the beginning, with at least three senior Ministers set to travel to China early next year, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a consequence of these trips, it has been reported that the Government’s planned review of Sino-UK relations has been placed on ice.
In the meantime, Beijing continues to bully, harass and threaten the peace-loving people of Taiwan, in full public view. As we know, President Xi has reportedly pledged to achieve what he has described as reunification with Taiwan, despite China never having controlled it. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, hardly a day goes by without Chinese fighter jets and military vessels encroaching on Taiwanese space. In recent days, a stop-over in Hawaii by the Taiwanese President prompted Beijing to deploy its largest navy fleet in nearly three decades to waters near Taiwan. While some may put this down to mere scaremongering, there is a view among US defence experts that China is readying itself to seize Taiwan by military force in 2027. I find it baffling that the United Kingdom Government—a new United Kingdom Government—maintain their refusal to recognise Taiwan as an independent state and establish diplomatic relations.
I have been a businessman all my life, and I understand the need for economic growth to get our country back on a firm footing. I can even accept that, sometimes in business, you have to deal with people whose view of the world is a little different from your own. However, I will not accept what seems to be the Government’s view: that the only way to attract much-needed inward investment is to bow down to an authoritarian regime in Beijing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, one should not do business at any price.
Earlier this week, in another place, the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, said that the foreign influence registration scheme, or FIRS, which is designed to protect the UK from covert foreign influence, will not come into force this year as originally planned but will instead be introduced at some point next summer. In the light of what we are learning almost every day about Chinese espionage in this country, I ask the Minister what plausible reason there could be for this delay. I trust it was not a fear that it might upset Xi and those who sign the cheques. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that, when the FIRS finally comes into force, and should China not be placed in the advanced tier—which it certainly should be—she will return to this House to explain why?
I do not accept that His Majesty’s Government are being duplicitous in dealing with China—I want to make that clear. But I believe that they are being incredibly naive, with consequences that could be profoundly serious for our nation.
Lord Godson (Con)
As the last Back-Bench speaker of the year, I take pleasure in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate and on the longevity of his interest in the subject and keeping the flag flying on this during very unpropitious circumstances, as it has been for the longest period. I thank him for his part in shifting the consensus in this House and beyond on the threat of the CCP and its institutions. It must have indeed seemed a lonely thing at times when the coalition was prioritising economic relations—and a short-term interpretation of economic relations, perhaps—above all other considerations.
I am not the only one who fears that we may be seeing a revival of aspects of the coalition’s approach to these matters in the policies of the current Government, or at least the early intimations thereof, prior to the publication of the audit and other reviews. One fears also a certain strategic incoherence in those early intimations. As I say, this partly is connected with its prioritisation of economic growth over all else. The danger is that we are trading tomorrow’s resilience and straining our alliances for short-term trade with the Chinese currency today—a kind of Back to the Future approach that many of us had hoped we had seen the back of.
Our allies seem to understand much more clearly than us that it is a fool’s game to separate economic and security relationships with Beijing. President Xi has collapsed the distinction between those two matters, viewing trade relations as entirely integral to the Chinese grand strategy. Pandering to Beijing is not necessary for maintaining economic relations. On the contrary, UK-China trade in the post-golden era has increased by 20% each year, even as successive Conservative Governments openly criticised Beijing for its transgressions in Xinjiang and Hong Kong—not often enough, perhaps, but, none the less, it has not sunk our trade with China.
Can this Government therefore be certain that kowtowing to Beijing will result in the flow of inward investment which they so crave? The Prime Minister, rightly, must engage with President Xi, as he did at the G20 summit, but should a growing list of Secretaries of State rush to Beijing now before the publication of the forthcoming China audit? Too often it appears that No. 10’s rationale is to front-load the cosmetic quick wins above everything else.
This confusion is compounded by the Government’s flurry of reviews: there are seven by my count, all of which should have a considerable China component. We have the China audit, of course; the FCDO’s three reviews, of the UK’s global impact, of development diplomacy and of economic diplomacy; the strategic defence review, to which noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already referred; the AUKUS review; and the Treasury’s own spending review. Are these linked together by a core strategic diagnosis of China? Who is now responsible for this? We seem in some ways to have disintegrated our national security approach, with multiple reviews reflecting different departmental agendas, absent a guiding hand to ensure coherence.
Before July, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the UK pursued a China policy of align, protect and engage. It also pursued a policy of aligning with the China policies of our allies; protecting ourselves from espionage, economic malpractice and coercion; and engaging where prudent. This hierarchy of priorities was in keeping with the 2023 refresh of the integrated review, which assessed that China was
“an epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.
The current Government, now, at least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others have noted—apparently favour a three-Cs approach: co-operate where possible, compete where important and challenge where necessary. However, this is not a strategy but a statement, absent the necessary prioritisation vis-à-vis Beijing.
Most worryingly, the Government’s three Cs no longer refer to alignment with partners. We are thus at risk of becoming out of kilter with the Chinese policies of our allies. This was one of the major gaps that the last Government rightly sought to correct. Whatever the reason for this shift, it is causing concern among our key allies in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions.
Perhaps the shift to ambiguity is not entirely accidental, but rather represents a conscious decision. For example, are the Government now fast-tracking engagement with Beijing to hedge against the incoming Trump Administration’s apparently more hawkish approach? The policy of hedging while the new US Administration seeks to remain engaged in European security could risk undermining the special relationship with the Administration, which is otherwise very favourably disposed to us. Our friends in places such as Australia urge us to consider their experience, where they withstood similar bullying from China and in fact ended up stronger in the long term, including under the present Australian Labor Government.
Even the EU now looks set to pursue a tougher line on China than us. The Commission’s new foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, former Prime Minister of Estonia, recently dropped the definition of Beijing as a
“partner, competitor and systemic rival”,
electing instead to refer to it only by the latter point, as a systemic rival. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, has stated that we have no plans to allow the EU’s tariffs on Chinese vehicles. The Government have dropped even the notion of systemic competition, something shared by every single British ally.
We should be in no doubt that the China challenge demands a co-ordinated approach across Whitehall and our alliances. Previously, we articulated what we needed to do in an explicitly integrated approach. Now, our approach appears to be departmentally balkanised to the extent of literally being disintegrated. Who will bring those disparate reviews together?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been a debate of fitting quality at the end of this calendar year. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing it to us. In some respects, I hope this final debate of 2024 might frame some of the early debates we have in 2025, when we look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s visit to Beijing and other Ministers’ visits to China. I hope they will be able to take the contributions from this debate into consideration when they form their views, because we have served a challenge function and reflected on some of the subjects we need to debate.
As my noble friend Lady Smith said, tis the season of another government approach to China. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, outlined the previous Administration’s approach, so we can see the word salad of “protect”, “co-operate”, “prioritise”, “challenge”, “align”, “compete” and “engage”. The word that is missing is “strategy”, and you could add “published” in front of that. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Fox, because he outlined in such clear terms why we need to have one.
I say this with great respect, because I both understood and agreed with much of the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, but I felt there was a contradiction, to some extent, in seeking to move away from trade dependency on China towards other trading partners in the CPTPP who also predominantly have seen growth as a result of trade with China and are now basically a vehicle for us to have enhanced trade with China. This seems to be the Government’s adopted approach for trade. It seems that “European Union” are the two words that dared not speak their name in the debate. If we seek to diversify away from trade dependency on China, it might be that we should have stronger trade links with our European neighbours.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Just to clarify, my proposal, which was not clear at all, was that we should help and encourage those countries that have a trade dependency with China—that is, those CPTPP partners—to move away from that trade dependency and use our role to do that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I can understand that as a theoretical approach, but of all the current CPTPP members, it is the United Kingdom—the newest country —that has the largest trade deficit of them all with China. Those members would look to us to diversify away from China, so the whole ambition is the other way around. We hope, if the Government are doing a strategic audit, that their analysis will come to the fore, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, indicated, there are worrying signs that the audit may not be published or that it may be delayed until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in Beijing. We may not even have it presented for debate in Parliament, so I am starting to be quite concerned.
As my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we need this because of the industrial-scale economic surveillance, and the scraping and capture of data from the UK economy, as a tool for industrial espionage, for state advantage, and for state enterprises to strategically undercut and underprice in certain key sectors of our economy. As my noble friend Lord Fox’s work on other elements of our key technology and infrastructure says, we need to enhance our resilience, especially now when we see what China is doing globally in seeking software and hardware for global ports of entry systems, for shipping and for telecommunications.
China is not a passive global actor. I acknowledge that neither are we, and nor is it a criticism that it is not, but the strategic aim for China is to have a sphere of influence in a multipolar world. That is distinct from how we see the world, which we feel should be based on a liberal, international order of rules. There are differences in how we see global diplomatic and development interactions. The UK—working with partners, of course—should be clear that our perspective of the world is distinct.
In previous Questions and Statements, the Minister has been honest with us and said that she did not know whether the new Government’s approach to this will work. She has said that in this Chamber. However, she said that it was worth trying. It is worth trying if we are seeking to grow our economy, but the cost of the growth of our economy, while being a supplicant at a trade deficit in key sectors, means that we are unlikely to see a level of sustainable growth, or the protection of human rights and national security. Of course we should be partnering in certain areas, but we should not do it blind.
That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others have said, as I did in my question to the Minister just this week with regard to the National Security Act—on which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I worked very hard—that the approach should be evidence-based, taking into account national security considerations and threats. It should not be subservient to economic development or to one perception of economic development. That is why we need to look at elements of our relationship with Taiwan, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said; we have a strategic economic partnership with Taiwan, which is a liberal, open democracy that does represent our thinking.
With regard to China, there are further actions that this Government can take, which the previous Government did not take, when they look at auditing UK-based assets owned by the CCP and at the potential use of Magnitsky sanctions against those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms. We can pursue further areas of human rights, and I hope that the Government will not set them aside as a result of the Treasury’s approach.
Last weekend, on a fascinating visit to the Doha Forum, I saw the approach that many developing nations and economies are taking to China. I sat in a session with President Kagame of Rwanda, Prime Minister Mottley of Barbados and a Chinese operative. What was fascinating was that President Kagame said that, when he speaks to potential western investors, “We get tons of lectures, not goods”, but Prime Minister Motley said that all her interactions and developing nations’ interactions should be based on “global principles”. There was a contradiction that I heard from them. I pointed out that when it comes to China and Africa, for example, the UK is a bigger investor in Africa than China at the moment. We can assert ourselves with the values of Barbados on global principles and not accept the narrative that there are lectures, but we should be an active participant in this area.
I close by coming back to what my noble friend Lady Smith indicated when it comes to the need for there to be a coherent approach, and perhaps this is referencing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It seems that the new Government’s approach is to
“find a way of engaging with China in a more meaningful and deeper relationship that recognised the threat, but also sought to try to co-opt China into the international order”;
an approach that understands
“that many of the world’s biggest challenges like climate change or biodiversity loss were not going to be solved without engagement with China”.
That is a direct quote from George Osborne’s evidence to our International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which my noble friend and I had the pleasure of serving on, when we concluded our report in September 2021.
That report’s title was The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship: A Strategic Void. It called for the Government to
“produce a single, coherent China strategy, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee in April 2019, and a plan for how it will execute that strategy”.
We still need that. If the Government believe that they will have a 10-year period in office rather than five years, the need for a single, coherent, published China strategy is vital, and I hope the Minister may agree to it.
As I sit down, I wish all Members a happy Christmas and a merry New Year. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but this will be the last occasion when Mr Cameron-Wood, the Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, will carry the Mace out as the House rises, after 13 years of sterling service to this House. I wish him and all the staff a very happy Christmas and New Year.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it in the first place, for his excellent sense of timing and for his tireless and—to quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford —“indefatigable” campaigning against the Chinese Communist Party, with all the troubles that it has caused him. He should have all our support and respect in the work that he does.
As Members will know, I do not often agree with the Lords spiritual, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra about the outstanding contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, with his explanation of the, frankly, truly evil nature of the current Chinese leadership. That was a particularly good contribution in a sea of very good speeches that we have heard this evening.
I completely agree with the concerns—I would put it no more highly than that—of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords about the current Government’s policy towards China, particularly in light of some of the grave human rights abuses and security challenges that emanate from Beijing’s increasingly assertive actions. The news this week that dominated the headlines that Yang Tenbo had access to public officials while being an alleged spy is deeply worrying—though I cast no aspersions on the Members who were in contact with him; it could all have been done deeply innocently. Can the Minister explain how she squares the Foreign Secretary’s increasing friendliness with his Chinese counterparts with the threat that they are proven to pose to our national security?
Let me start with Hong Kong. Many Members have mentioned that the Sino-British joint declaration—an international treaty, I remind noble Lords, that was lodged with the United Nations—has been, and there is no other way of putting this, flagrantly violated by China. The complete destruction of the “one country, two systems” principle has been swift and brutal. The imposition of the national security law has led to the silencing of dissent, the imprisonment of pro-democracy activists and, frankly, the suppression of free speech and the free press.
As many noble Lords have observed, this month marks four years since 77 year-old Jimmy Lai was placed behind bars in Hong Kong. He is a British citizen who founded Apple Daily, the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong. We cannot allow Beijing to continue to trample on its international commitments with impunity. I hope—and I am sure they are—the Government are using every opportunity to continue to raise his case and to help him in being freed to join his family.
I turn to Taiwan, where the spectre of military aggression looms large. The People’s Republic of China continues to engage in provocative military manoeuvres, with economic coercion and with the attempted diplomatic isolation of Taiwan. I was delighted to join the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and a number of other noble Lords in proudly celebrating Taiwan’s national day in October; it is important that we do that. The people of Taiwan have proudly built a thriving democracy and a dynamic economy in the face of these constant threats, and it is imperative that we all stand with them, not only because it is right but because the security of the Indo-Pacific is inextricably linked to our own.
On Tibet, the Chinese Communist Party’s decades-long campaign to erase Tibetan culture, religion and identity is a stain on the conscience of the international community. Let us not forget that, not that long ago, Tibet was an independent country, but nobody now refers to it as that; it has in effect been absorbed into China, and the Tibetan people have been slowly eradicated. I had the honour a few years ago of meeting the Dalai Lama in his exile home in Dharamsala. I do not share his religion, but he is an inspirational character, continuing to preach non-violence in the face of all the threats and indeed genocides that the Tibetan people have faced.
In Xinjiang, as mentioned by a number of other noble Lords, the situation is nothing short of a human rights disaster. The evidence of atrocities against the Uighurs is overwhelming, with reports of mass detentions, forced labour, systematic surveillance and a form of cultural genocide. These paint a harrowing picture.
In the South China Sea, China’s aggressive militarisation and territorial expansion violates international law. They threaten the free passage of goods that underpins global trade. The UK has a vested interest in upholding freedom of navigation; the Royal Navy’s presence in the Indo-Pacific is a vital demonstration of that commitment to a free and open maritime order. I hope that the Government will continue to do that.
Of course, I recognise that our relationship with China is complex. There are areas where engagement is, unfortunately, necessary but engagement must not come at the expense of our values or of our security. We cannot allow ourselves to become overly dependent on a regime that routinely undermines the principles that we hold dear, and I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on that.
In conclusion, I ask the Government the following questions. On Hong Kong, what further steps will the Government take to hold China accountable for its breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration and how will we continue to support those brave souls fighting for democracy in Hong Kong? On Taiwan, what is the Government’s strategy to support it in the face of the aggression that I just mentioned, and how are we working with allies to safeguard stability in the Indo-Pacific? On Xinjiang, will the Government expand the Magnitsky sanctions to target more Chinese officials involved in the persecution of Uighurs, and what efforts are being made to ensure that UK supply chains are free of forced labour from Xinjiang?
On trade and investment, how do the Government intend to balance economic engagement with China with helping to reduce our strategic vulnerabilities in many of the key sectors that noble Lords have mentioned, such as energy, technology and infrastructure? Finally, on security, what measures are being taken to counter Chinese espionage and interference in the UK, particularly in our university sector, research institutions and telecommunications networks?
These are all pressing questions that demand clear and decisive answers. I hope that the Government will bear them in mind when pursuing their new reset of China policies. The stakes are too high for ambiguity, and I urge the Government to lead with the resolve and moral clarity that the people of this nation expect and deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I convey my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on China, as vice-chair of the Hong Kong APPG and as a member of the APPG on Uighurs. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions to this, the last debate of 2024. The quality of the contributions has been first class, as might be expected.
Across the board, the Government are clear that the UK’s approach to China means co-operating, where we can, on issues such as net zero, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and, as some said, on health and trade. It means that we compete where our interests differ—I will say a little more about that later—and that we challenge, as we have to, where that is what we must do to protect our national security, as many noble Lords have asked us to say, but also our values, as has rightly been said.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, indicated, we need to reset and recalibrate our relationship with China, as we do with the EU, and to be a full and active participant in the CPTPP. All these things are closely interconnected, but we also need a relationship with China that is consistent and long term—and, yes, one that is pragmatic and rooted in UK and global interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we need to be clear-eyed about this at all times. Whether it is on stopping Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine or tackling the causes of climate change, there will be times when we have to speak candidly and robustly not just on areas of co-operation in the UK’s national interest but on areas of contention as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the important point that our concerns about Chinese state activity should not be interpreted as extending to the Chinese people themselves, and I thank her for that. As the world’s second-largest economy, our fourth-largest trading partner and a major economic power that is the largest driver of global growth this decade, we are not going to—and should not try to—ignore China. We must recognise that China, including Hong Kong, presents significant opportunities for growth that can benefit Britain and help other countries grow their economies right around the world.
In pursuit of these opportunities and a renewed partnership, we must be clear-sighted and honest—not shying away from difficult discussions over practices that harm the sort of secure and resilient growth we want to see, and, where our wider values do not align, making that absolutely clear. In doing so, we must build a platform for a relationship that works squarely in our national interest, helps grow our economy sustainably and makes working people in every corner of Britain better off, while rightly putting our national security and resilience first, recognising that the UK-China relationship exists in an increasingly challenging and unstable geopolitical context.
We recognise the importance of the UK’s robust export control system. We will continue to make sure that it has an impact. We continue to use the powers that we have through the National Security and Investment Act to scrutinise investments and other acquisitions, no matter where they come from, and to intervene where that is what is needed to protect our national security.
Of course, the UK and China share many interests—including helping the world achieve a just transition to green energy, as well as our economic links—yet we have significant differences, including on democratic values and freedoms, on Hong Kong and on Russia’s war in Ukraine, where Chinese companies continue to supply significant quantities of dual-use goods and components to Russia. So we must recognise that the UK and China by no means always agree. As a responsible global player, we must engage frankly where we have different perspectives and co-operate where that is possible.
That is why it was important for the Prime Minister to meet President Xi at the G20—the first leader-to-leader meeting in six years—and why it was right both for the Foreign Secretary to visit China in October and for my colleague, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, to visit Hong Kong last month. As noble Lords know, we are examining the UK’s interests with respect to China through the Government’s China audit, in order to improve our understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by China and to meet them more effectively.
I was asked about FIRS. I can say today that we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign-power and foreign power-controlled entities will be subject to the enhanced tier. The foreign influence registration scheme will further strengthen our national security while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made in due course; I knew I would have to say that at some point today.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked about the China audit, including whether I might undertake to facilitate the engagement of the House. I would be happy to do that at the appropriate time. I join the noble Lord and others in their call for the removal of sanctions on parliamentarians. These measures are wrong and should end immediately.
We have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and, like others, I have family links. My grandfather and father lived there while the first airport was being built. We have strong links between people and strong links on trade. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others over many years. We are now, as many have said, 40 years on from the signing of the joint declaration. We will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong and we remain committed to Hong Kong’s future as an open, dynamic and vibrant city.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others correctly highlighted the situation in Hong Kong. Like him, we are deeply concerned to see the erosion of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers following China’s imposition of the national security law in 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me about the activists. The recent sentencing of the 45 pro-democracy activists is another demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities’ use of the national security law to criminalise political dissent. Those sentenced were exercising their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. These rights are guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of basic law.
The Jimmy Lai case remains of deepest concern. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and many others spoke movingly on his behalf and I thank them for that. He should be released. He is a British national. He stood up for freedom and it is vital that he is released. It is a priority for the Government and we raise it at every opportunity that we can. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I say that the UK will of course continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution. We will continue to seek consular access for Jimmy Lai, including to enable us to verify his health and welfare. I assure noble Lords that UK diplomats in Hong Kong continue to attend Jimmy Lai’s court proceedings—as they should.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about British nationals named in the trial and he is right to highlight this. All I can say is that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce or intimidate through the mechanism of this trial and to harm critics overseas are completely unacceptable and, just like the trial itself, they should stop.
I share the concerns that many speakers have raised on human rights in China. Across China, people face restrictions and violations of human rights and other fundamental freedoms. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford explained powerfully, in Xinjiang China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uighurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities.
We raise these concerns with the Chinese Government when we can. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with their counterparts, President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang. I am glad that they have been able to have those meetings in order to raise those concerns. I know that Members opposite will say, “But you haven’t got a solution to this yet; nothing has changed”. I do not think that one single engagement gets you that. It is about consistency, continuing to raise issues and being firm in our beliefs and articulating those beliefs at every opportunity we get.
The Government conduct independent visits to areas of major concern whenever possible, and we are supporting NGOs in exposing and reacting to human rights violations. We will continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners, which is why we joined Australia’s statement on Xinjiang and Tibet on 22 October at the UN General Assembly. We also joined the US’s statement on Xinjiang at the human rights court on 24 September.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about sanctions. He will know what I am about to say. We do not comment on designations ahead of time for reasons that he will understand, but I thank him for raising that none the less.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right to raise our eradication of the use of forced labour in global supply chains. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a really thoughtful and well-informed speech about this. No company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain; it just should not.
The approach we are taking is that the Government will work with businesses and international partners, so that they properly understand what they need to do to combat forced labour so that they have an impact in tackling this. We understand that it is all very well making statements but we want to see the impact. We have been working closely with business to make sure that we achieve that.
I commit to discussing Chinese student associations with the Security Minister at the earliest opportunity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, China’s repression of the people of Tibet is utterly unacceptable, as it restricts freedom of religion or belief and the right to assemble and associate freely. The Government stand firm on human rights, and we champion freedom of religion or belief for all. We recently appointed our FoRB envoy, and we wish him well in his work. We champion this both in our bilateral relations with China and through the UN, the G7 and other multilateral groups.
Members of this House are familiar with recent tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Our long-standing position, and that of the previous Government, remains that this issue should and must be resolved peacefully by people on both sides of the strait, without the threat or the use of force or coercion. Peace and stability in the strait matter immensely, for not just the UK but the wider world. As we outlined in a statement in October, recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan increase tensions and risk dangerous escalation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for the helpful suggestions in her speech, particularly on language training for officials, which she was right to raise. I assure her that that is happening.
A conflict across the strait would be a tragedy for the people there, and it would be devastating for the wider global economy. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded the House of a study by Bloomberg Economics at the start of 2024, which estimated that it could cost the global economy some $10 trillion—roughly 10% of global GDP. That is why the UK does not support any unilateral attempt to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, and we have made our views on this clear to China. We are working with our partners to make sure that they are doing the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised an interesting point about polar regions. China has an interest in natural resource exploitation. Increasingly, China is attempting to undermine existing protections and multilateral co-operation, such as through the Antarctic Treaty, to further its own interests. Its increasing use of the Northern Sea Route as a transportation link poses threats to this pristine environment. We think that there is a risk here if this is mishandled.
The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s concerns over China’s aggressive activity in the South China Sea in conversations with the Chinese Government during his visit to China in October. The UK is committed to international law, to the primacy of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to freedom of navigation in and overflight of the South China Sea. We take no sides in sovereignty disputes, but we oppose any action that raises tensions or the risk of miscalculation.
The speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, focused on technology—they were both interesting and sobering. We will continue to work on improving this country’s cyber protections.
Critical minerals are a really important point. We will shortly publish a UK critical minerals strategy, because our energy security depends on it, frankly, and it is the responsible thing to do. But I take the important point of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about how we must not be seen to lecture partner nations on whom they should and should not do business with. We are a good partner when it comes to extractive industries: we work responsibly, environmentally and with the local workforce in country. We would like to be more strategic in our thinking about this—so, when that strategy is published, I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in particular.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Indeed—I think that was an invitation that I did not need to make.
Lastly, I underline that this Government’s re-engagement with China aims to enable a consistent, long-term and pragmatic relationship through which we can pursue the UK’s interests on security and growth. We will challenge and compete where that is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, and we will be ambitious on areas of co-operation. That is our duty to the British people and as a responsible global actor, and that is at the heart of our commitment to re-engage, including through the long-overdue leader-level meeting, the Foreign Secretary’s successful visit to China and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific’s visit to Hong Kong. Indeed, in the new year my right honourable friend the Chancellor plans to visit China as well.
In all our engagement, from the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, where any escalation, or deterioration in stability, would have a significant impact on UK and global growth, to Hong Kong, to the completely unwarranted and unacceptable sanctions against UK parliamentarians and others, the Prime Minister has set us all a clear direction: to co-operate with China wherever we can, to take action to protect our interests and at all times to stand up for our values.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both the content and tone of the response to what has been, as she said, an outstanding debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated today. In parentheses, I also add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who has sat patiently throughout the whole debate. We know that because of other ministerial duties he is unable to speak and has taken Trappist vows—but on other occasions he has spoken powerfully and eloquently on behalf of people in Hong Kong. At the time when sanctions were imposed on the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and myself, he gave me enormous encouragement, and I have always been grateful to him for that.
Many speakers have made the distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China. Nobody suffers more at the hands of the CCP than the Chinese people themselves. I often think about “Tank Man”, the solitary figure who in 1989 stood in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks as they rolled in. I think of Rahima Mahmut, who will be known to some noble Lords here, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is a Uighur activist who speaks eloquently and powerfully and whose family have been intimidated and suffered through transnational repression as a result of the things that she has done. I think of Zhang Zhan, whom I mentioned in my opening remarks, who was put in a prison in Wuhan because as a citizen journalist she went to try to find the origins of the Covid pandemic.
And I think, of course, of my friend Jimmy Lai, mentioned by several noble Lords, who is standing trial in Hong Kong. One piece of evidence placed before the trial was that he once came to your Lordships’ House to have tea, which I gave him and his wife—as though this was some terrible, subversive act. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning people whom he has never even met, as well as people has met, including Luke de Pulford from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, who were named in these proceedings as co-conspirators. Bill Browder, known to many noble Lords here, has never met Jimmy Lai but has also been mentioned in those proceedings. This is a sham and a charade and it is right that this House has called it out.
I know and understand the points about the importance of engaging with China on things such as zero emissions, but one-third of all emissions come out of the People’s Republic of China, which has never kept to any of the targets—just as it did not keep to the promises made 40 years ago today in the Sino-British accord. I was struck in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher negotiated with Deng Xiaoping about Hong Kong’s future, that she was told by him, “We could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”. In a characteristic reply, she said, “Yes, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”. That was true then and it is true now—and that is the point of a place such as this and the point of our democracy: for us to give voice to people who do not have a voice and show that our eyes continue to remain on what is happening in China.
Let me give the last word to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which said last year that China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy in a “whole-of-state” assault, to which the government response has been “completely inadequate”. Without swift, decisive actions, we face “the nightmare scenario” where China could pose “an existential threat”. Britain has a proud tradition of standing up to tyranny. I hope that we will continue to do that.
I know that all who have been present on this last day for this last session before Christmas have probably given up time with their families and friends to be here for this debate. I am particularly indebted to everyone who has participated, but I also know that the eyes of the world are on this British Parliament, that we speak out when others are silent and that notice will be taken of the eloquent speeches that have been made here today.
All that remains now is for me to join others in wishing everyone present a very happy Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous new year, and to wait as the Mace is carried out, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, earlier on, by Mr Cameron-Wood in his last act before he now goes to what we hope will be a well-merited and wonderful retirement.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my Government Whip colleagues, I wish all noble Lords, the clerks and doorkeepers a very merry Christmas, a restful recess and a fabulous new year. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)
That the House do now adjourn—with thanks and best wishes to our Mace carrier tonight, Mr Cameron-Wood.