Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Members will have seen that today’s Order Paper carries a memorial notice of Lieutenant Colonel Frank Heilgers, Royal Artillery, Member for Bury St Edmunds. Throughout this year, which marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, we will commemorate on the Order Paper those Members who gave their life in service of their country during world war two.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are committed to creating thriving community spaces, including community centres, youth clubs and sports facilities, that offer vital resources for communities across the country. My Department is allocating over £85 million of funding in 2025-26 to create fit-for-purpose, welcoming spaces for young people. That includes launching the better youth spaces fund.
Jim Dickson
I thank the Minister for her reply. Swanscombe pavilion in my constituency is at the heart of the Swanscombe community. It hosted dedicated lunch clubs for older people, provided a hub for local sports teams, and was a venue that local people could hire for parties. The building has fallen into disrepair, and the town council is searching desperately for the funds to rebuild or refurbish it, having been unable to obtain funding from the youth investment fund or the community ownership fund. What guidance could the Minister offer on bringing this crucial building back into community use?
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), on Monday to discuss this issue, which falls under his remit. As a local MP, I know from my constituency the important role that community spaces play in supporting local groups; they bring a huge benefit locally. The Government encourage community groups seeking funding to use the tools available on the My Community website, which suggests funding sources. I hope this information will help the council to work out its next steps, alongside the feedback that it should have received on its unsuccessful application to the community ownership fund.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Community spaces are crucial hubs for so many people, and our churches play a key role in providing such spaces. All Saints parish church in Hertford in my constituency has been in its beautiful riverside location for almost 1,000 years. Over the past six years, it has been able to reclaim £50,000 of VAT using the listed places of worship grant scheme, including for repairs to the tower, refurbishment of the bells and rebuilding the church organ. Will the Government extend the scheme beyond 2025, and if so, what will the allocation be?
Stephanie Peacock
This issue falls within the remit of the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. He will answer a question on this later, but the Government are working on it.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
We aim to get up a statutory registration system for short-term lets very soon, not least because we want to make sure that local authorities have all the data that they need to assess local accommodation needs, and so that there is a level playing field for different kinds of accommodation.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituents in Kensington and Bayswater regularly raise this issue with me, and are looking forward to the registration scheme, not least so that we can better enforce the 90-day rule in London. Does the Minister have any further information on when that scheme will come online? Has he considered giving councils licensing powers, perhaps through the devolution Bill, so that where a high concentration of short-term lets is taking properties out of the private rented sector, we can consider the numbers?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend asks two questions. The first is about the timing. We have already done the initial phase. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement fairly soon about the technical elements, which we hope to get up and running this year.
The second point is important: what is the final purpose of this registration scheme? We are in discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because we want to make sure that the scheme works and delivers what people want, which is a really strong local visitor economy, but we do not want to undermine local housing strategies.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Holiday lets play an important part in the tourism economy; 20 million people visit the lakes every year, and they need somewhere to stay. Having said that, in the last five years especially, we have seen a gobbling-up of the long-term private rented sector and local people forced out by a massive growth in short-term lets. Will the Minister speak more with the Minister for Housing and Planning about how planning law can be changed, so that councils and national parks can put a limit on the number of short-term lets in the community, and take action on second homes, too?
Chris Bryant
I agree with every single thing the hon. Member said, and I will do as he urges.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We have wasted no time in cracking on with the national youth strategy. We have almost finished recruiting to the youth advisory group and the expert advisory group, and I can tell the House that we have taken suggestions from Conservative Members and included a member of the uniformed youth groups on that youth advisory group, which will meet for the first time in late January or early February. My officials are reviewing the evidence base, which they will consider, and we are launching the strategy in the summer, with an interim report expected in the spring.
Luke Myer
My constituent Kylie is a teacher who works with excluded young people who have some excellent ideas about what we can do to address antisocial behaviour and improve youth provision. Can the Secretary of State provide an update on how the national youth strategy consultation will involve young people, so that we make sure that they are engaged in future policy decisions?
Lisa Nandy
We are absolutely determined to put young people back in charge of their destiny. They know better than we do the challenges that they face, and are often better at identifying the solutions. That is why we have put young people in charge of the strategy. We are co-producing it with them, and we will seek out a range of young people’s voices from every part of the country and every background as part of the process.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Swimming is a really important skill for young people. I learned to swim at the Sovereign centre in Eastbourne, but so many pools across the country have closed—250 since 2015. It is critical that the national youth strategy refers to swimming pools, and support for young people when it comes to swimming. Will the Secretary of State ensure that is included in the strategy, and will she meet me and Eastbourne borough council representatives to discuss how we can best protect our pool in Eastbourne?
Lisa Nandy
I would be delighted to offer the hon. Gentleman a meeting with the Department on this critical issue; I would be amazed if it did not come up in the national youth strategy. The strategy is led by young people, and it is for them to determine their priorities, but I hear this point made by young people in my constituency of Wigan and across the length and breadth of the country. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we are determined to address this issue.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. When she cancelled the national citizenship service and announced a consultation on the national youth strategy from the Dispatch Box, she started to lay out how she intended to fund the strategy. That was over two months ago. Since then, the cost of borrowing has reached its highest point since 1997, and it is quite clear that significant spending cuts are on the way. Can she tell the House in further detail what plans she has for revenue and capital spending under the national youth strategy? Can she guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the backs of our young people?
Lisa Nandy
This is getting a little bit tired. Young people should be the focus of this House. We have already announced that £100 million of dormant assets funding will be dedicated to the provision of services, facilities and opportunities to young people, and for 2025-26, we are allocating over £85 million of capital funding to creating fit-for-purpose, welcoming spaces for young people, including through the new better youth spaces fund. We are being driven by the needs of young people. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that in addition to leaving us with an incredible economic mess, the Conservatives left us with a series of commitments to young people that did not address any of their needs, and no single youth strategy. Frankly, they should be ashamed.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
We have Arts Council England’s Supporting Grassroots Music fund, and in addition, we are pushing the live events industry to introduce a voluntary levy on arena and gig events to support small music venues.
Jayne Kirkham
I have a number of crucial small venues in my constituency, including the Cornish Bank, the Chintz Bar, the Old Bakery and the Princess Pavilion, to name just a few. They are vital for the cultural ecosystem of Cornwall; they foster new talent and bring bands from outside the county down to us. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is considering a scheme in which larger venues contribute part of their takings to smaller venues. He said it would be voluntary, but if that did not work, would he consider a mandatory scheme, and what would be the timeline? Can he confirm that the business rates scheme will be formulated to support small venues from 2026?
Chris Bryant
Everybody is getting in lots of questions. If the scheme does not happen voluntarily, will we make it statutory? Yes, but I am very hopeful that we will have a voluntary scheme up and running. I have already met industry representatives, and I think we are moving in that direction. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the provisions for business rates. Obviously, we have now introduced the 40% relief, and we have said that any business that has a rateable value of less than £500,000 will get an even better deal next year. I think that Roger Taylor from Queen went to school in Truro, and I am sure you will know, Mr Speaker, that it is Sade’s birthday today. She is one of Britain’s greatest singers—and I know you are a smooth operator.
Mr Speaker
I will leave it to the Chair of the Select Committee to come back on that.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to the issue. He will know that it was the cornerstone of the Select Committee’s work on grassroots music venues, and he also knows that our music ecosystem is very finely balanced. Grassroots venues are still shutting at an alarming rate, and not one of the top 10 best-selling songs of 2024 was from a British artist. Will the Minister look again at another of our report’s recommendations: the recommendation for a fan-led review of music? Will he ensure that we include the voices of artists and managers, as well as venues and promoters, in discussions on funding for grassroots music venues from, for example, the new LIVE—Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment—Trust?
Chris Bryant
That was four questions, and the answer is yes to nearly all of them, other than the one about the fan-led review. The Secretary of State has charged me with coming up with a 10-point plan for music this year, and I have turned it into a 12-point plan. I very much hope to work with the Select Committee on delivering that plan. Music is an important part of the UK’s soft power around the world. There is nothing better than seeing a band that we first saw in a tiny venue many years ago playing in a massive arena. We want that success for all our musicians in the UK, and it starts with creative education.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are committed to reducing gambling-related harm and its impact. That is why we are introducing a range of reforms to ensure that people can gamble safely, including a stake limit for online slot games, financial vulnerability checks and tougher regulations on direct marketing. We are also aware of the concerns around the blurring of boundaries between gambling and video games, and we are paying close attention to novel and emerging gambling and gambling-like products.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the Minister for her response. We all know that 2.5% of the population are considered to be problem gamblers, and 44% of that population is at high risk of suicidal behaviour, according to the excellent charity Gambling with Lives. Of course, the loss of any life to gambling addiction is deeply saddening, and I give my condolences to all the affected families. The impact of problem gambling stretches far and wide across the UK, including in my constituency of Monmouthshire, and it should be considered a public health issue. What cross-departmental work is being done to tackle the concerning issue of suicide due to gambling?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. Of course, any life lost is an absolute tragedy. When I was the shadow gambling Minister, I visited the Gordon Moody residential treatment centre, which supports people with gambling-related harm. On that visit and at other meetings, I heard at first hand about the devastating impact that gambling can have. We are committed to working across Government on this issue, particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care, including by establishing a comprehensive support and treatment system, funded by the statutory levy, and by strengthening messages in order to raise awareness of the risks of harmful gambling.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me raise the issue of the disproportionality of affordability checks on those betting on racing, and the reform of the betting levy. I am grateful for the positive tone taken so far, and the constructive engagement from her and the Secretary of State. Talks between the gambling industry and the racing industry about the betting levy continue, but I think ultimately Ministers will be required to make a decision. We need the betting levy to be increased overall, and applied to races held overseas that people are betting on here. We think there will be not just a fiscal forecast but a mini-Budget in March. Can those industries start working with the Treasury now to make sure that there are plans to reform the betting levy in the Finance Bill?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is a huge champion for the horseracing industry. Of course, the Government and I recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British sporting culture and the rural economy in particular. We are disappointed that talks have not been successful. The Government have heard racing’s concerns about the financial checks, and about the fact that there has not been an agreement. The Minister with responsibility for gambling and the Secretary of State continue to work on this issue.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
My hon. Friend will know that the Education Secretary has launched a review of the national curriculum to put art, sport and music back at its heart, where they belong. We were appalled by the way that the previous Government ran down the creative subjects, leading to a huge drop-off in the number of young people taking those subjects at GCSE. Labelling them all as Mickey Mouse subjects is not just entirely offensive but incredibly damaging to the economy. The creative industries support one in seven jobs in this country, and we are determined to equip our young people to get those jobs, contribute to this country and write the next chapter of our national story.
Chris Vince
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Every young person deserves to experience the magic of music. Thanks to wonderful organisations in my constituency of Harlow such as Rock School and Livewire, many get that opportunity, but not all of them. What is she doing to work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that young people can discover their talent, wherever they come from?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and we are determined for that to change. I am not sure whether I have mentioned that I recently went on a visit with Ed Sheeran—[Interruption.] Thirty-eight times, says my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. In Ipswich, an entire ecosystem is being created that equips young people with those skills and that love of music at school, and goes all the way through enabling them to perform at smaller and larger live music venues, and to get the skills that they need to work in the music industry. We would like to replicate that model around the country. We are working with the newly formed Ed Sheeran Foundation and others to progress this model. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, I have asked him to come up with a 10-point plan to support the music industry. By the time we have finished, it will probably be about 100 points, but we make no apologies for wanting to grip this issue and bring the magic of music to every child in the country.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
As the Secretary of State will know, Scotland’s budget commits to a landmark £34 million uplift in cultural spending, with £20 million going to Creative Scotland to support creative education funding groups, such as Sistema Scotland and the Youth Music Initiative. Will she encourage her Scottish Labour colleagues to get behind this spending, and to vote for the budget?
Lisa Nandy
I recently met incredible groups from Scotland that are doing great work through charitable trusts to extend the power of music to every child in Scotland. They have a particular emphasis on children in care, which we really welcome, and would like to replicate. Scotland is also creating music libraries across the country to ensure that young people have access to instruments. I have discussed that with Angus Robertson, my counterpart in the Scottish Government. This Government want a much more constructive relationship with the Scottish Government. When it comes to music, party political differences should be laid aside, and we should work together to make sure that all young people can access the magic that music brings.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Grassroots sports clubs are the beating heart of communities up and down the country. The Government are acting to support grassroots sports through our ongoing investment in Sport England and the delivery of our £123 million multi-sport grassroots facilities programme.
Paul Davies
I recently met the Football Foundation, which is dedicated to transforming grassroots football in England by funding and developing community facilities. Its work includes building and refurbishing pitches, clubhouses and changing rooms, ensuring that everybody has access to quality football environments. By investing in grassroots football, it aims to improve participation, improve health and strengthen communities. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of biodiversity net gain requirements on investment in community sports facilities?
Stephanie Peacock
Biodiversity net gain is a legal requirement for all new developments and is not specific to sports facilities. The Government are working with Sport England, the Football Foundation and wider grassroots sport to help reduce the sector’s impact on the environment. That of course includes supporting these organisations in meeting their obligations regarding biodiversity net gain. I understand that the Football Foundation will meet officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which oversees the implementation of biodiversity net gain, to discuss this issue further.
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the Minister for her response. Last year, in my constituency, the Stevenage Football Club Foundation delivered more than 9,000 hours of activity in grassroots sports and engaged over 15,000 participants, generating nearly £10.7 million-worth of social value. This did not happen only in my constituency. Last year, the 72 English Football League community club organisations delivered more than £1.2 billion-worth of social value across this country. Will the Minister commit to supporting local community club organisations, such as the Stevenage FC Foundation, in engaging local people and directly supporting communities?
Stephanie Peacock
I pay tribute to the Stevenage FC Foundation and the many other community organisations up and down the country for their important work. Local community club organisations use the power of sport to change lives through charitable and community activities, often through delivery across a range of areas, from health to wellbeing and employment. I have seen it in my own area of Barnsley, with Reds in the Community, which does brilliant work across my town.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
There are growing storm clouds in rugby union. At the grassroots, clubs are up in arms about what is going on in the leadership. They called for a general meeting, which was denied. One has now been agreed and will happen in March. When asked in writing whether there will be a review of the finances or governance of the Rugby Football Union, the Government said that there are no plans for one. In the light of what I have set out, will they reconsider whether there should be a review of the governance, and do they have confidence that the RFU will be able to solve this issue?
Stephanie Peacock
Of course, Mr Speaker; we would not forget that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly important point. National governing bodies are of course independent of Government, and it is for the RFU to answer for its approach. The DCMS notes that the chair of the RFU stood down recently. The Secretary of State and I meet regularly with rugby stakeholders, and will continue to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My eldest granddaughter loves football. She is 15 years old and plays in goal. The interest in girls and ladies’ football in Northern Ireland is exceptional, as it is here on the mainland. I know that the Minister is committed to it. What has been done to ensure that girls and women’s football is promoted across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to their advantage?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A few years ago, I raised some eyebrows by having a photograph taken in this Chamber as part of the women’s parliamentary football team. That certainly gained a bit of attention for women’s football. As Minister for sport, I recently held a meeting with Karen Carney regarding the women’s football review implementation group. We are keen to promote women’s football and do everything that we can to encourage girls and women to get involved.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The previous Conservative Government invested over £400 million to support grassroots sport, recognising the vital contribution of sport to our communities across the country. The Minister will already be aware of our concerns about the impact of Labour’s national insurance hike, and the impact that the schools tax will have on community access to sporting facilities. Equally concerning is Labour’s decision to quietly cut the £57 million opening school facilities programme from March. Does she understand why grassroots sport organisations are so concerned about access to school facilities, and schools potentially having to close them to the community? Has she raised those concerns with Cabinet colleagues, and what measures are her Department taking to support access to grassroots sport for the more than 200,000 people who previously benefited from Conservative programmes?
Stephanie Peacock
I think that was six questions rather than one. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the state of the economy and the inheritance that we received. The Government are a huge champion of grassroots sport, and will continue to be one.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Sport and physical activity must play a bigger part in the debate on our nation’s collective health and the future of health services. Sport England reports that almost one in three children are classed as inactive. More than a third of adults do not meet the chief medical officer’s recommendations for physical activity. Sedentary lifestyles are associated with one in six deaths, and obesity costs the economy £58 billion per year. Those are truly shocking statistics that we should all be ashamed of. What conversations are Ministers in the Department having with colleagues in other Departments, most notably Health, to ensure an increased focus on physical activity to improve our nation’s physical and mental health?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important question. Through our health missions, and the health mission board, we work really closely across Government. This is a pivotal issue. Sport plays a huge part in getting people more active. I know that from my own area: over 30% of people in Barnsley are inactive. Just yesterday, I met with the Richmond group of charities, which works on this sort of issue, and I continue to have both Government meetings and meetings with stakeholders. We really want to make progress in this area.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Government take reliable sources of news very seriously. I have already started initial discussions with the BBC about the charter review and the future of the licence fee. We are also working closely with local media on a local media strategy. We saw the importance of local news over the summer in tackling disinformation during the riots and civil unrest. We are determined to provide a level playing field for local and regional newspapers to ensure that they can continue to thrive.
Uma Kumaran
In the past few weeks, we have seen the spread of disinformation using online platforms and the proliferation of misinformation on an industrial scale. Attempts to destabilise the Government and throw off public discourse do not have Britain’s best interests at heart. I have been contacted by multiple constituents in Stratford and Bow who, like me, are deeply concerned about the unchecked ability of foreign billionaires to impact British democracy and news. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have heard witnesses talk about the impact of this globally. What assurances can the Minister provide my constituents that the Government are taking the threat of foreign disinformation seriously?
Lisa Nandy
That is precisely one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary provided an uplift to the BBC World Service this year. My hon. Friend mentions foreign billionaires. Unlike the Conservatives, we have no intention of conducting government by social media. While they amplify the noise and conspiracy theories, we are cracking on with delivering for people in the real world where most of us spend our time.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We are moving very fast—it is almost like you have done this before, Mr Speaker.
We are wasting no time in standing up for people and fighting their corner. We are taking on the ticket touts, working with the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority to tackle harassment in the creative industries and working with Jewish leaders to tackle antisemitism in the arts. We will take every action necessary to progress the Football Governance Bill through the House of Lords and to deliver for football fans. We have launched the AI copyright consultation and convened the Creative Industries Council under its new chair Baroness Shriti Vadera. Tomorrow I will be in the great town of Gateshead to host the first creative growth summit to bring good jobs and growth to every part of the United Kingdom.
Rebecca Smith
Gables, an animal rescue charity in my constituency that I met before Christmas, and the Devon Mental Health Alliance have shared the negative impacts the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions will have on their service delivery. For Gables, it is a £22,000 increase to its costs. For DMHA, it decreases the amount of services it can provide, which are needed to ease local NHS pressures. What hope can the Secretary of State offer them for the future?
Lisa Nandy
I reassure the hon. Member that the Government work closely with the charity sector. Only a few months ago, the Prime Minister threw open the doors of Downing Street to launch a new covenant with civil society to work hand in hand with them on the shared challenges we face. We are aware of the impact of the changes on charities. That is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 to protect the smallest charities, and we published an impact assessment alongside the autumn Budget process that sets out the impact on charities. We will continue to work closely with charities to support them.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
We fully acknowledge the challenges faced by the sector and the challenging needs of young people. The strategy will help us move forward from a one-size-fits-all approach from central Government, bringing power back to young people and their communities and rebuilding a thriving and sustainable youth sector.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
January is traditionally a time when people commit to exercising more, and it is the perfect opportunity to encourage a more active nation—
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Go on then!
Stuart Andrew
Bingo! I knew he would do that.
I am proud that in government we had a sport strategy and set up the national physical activity taskforce, which brought together Departments, delivery partners and industry to work to increase activity rates. May I ask the Secretary of State when the taskforce last met, whether it discussed the impact of the jobs tax on the sector’s ability to get more people active, and what alternative measures there will be for the school holidays when facilities will no longer be open?
Lisa Nandy
The shadow Secretary of State will know that we have regular meetings with representatives from sporting bodies and industry. We are determined to roll out grassroots sport to every part of the UK, and we have already signalled our intention as a new Government on that. When I returned from the Euros, we announced a whole tranche of funding for the coming years to ensure that those incredible grassroots sports facilities that support not just young men, but young women across the country continue. I would be happy to discuss this further with him to ensure—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, this is topical questions, and we have six minutes before I have to hand over.
Stuart Andrew
The murder of Jimmy Mizen sadly sticks in the minds of many of us. An investigation by The Sun has revealed that his killer, Jake Farhi, is the masked rapper who has shockingly been promoted by the BBC despite his lyrics sickeningly boasting about killing and other crimes. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for an investigation into how the BBC allowed this to happen? I cannot imagine the pain and upset that it is causing Jimmy’s family.
Lisa Nandy
I add my voice to the support for Jimmy’s family. The shadow Secretary of State raises that matter in a particularly sensitive way, and I would be happy to consider it with him.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
Yes, I congratulate the church. I know that lots of people are interested in the future of the fund. The best way of describing how the Department is approaching that is to quote a hymn:
“God is working this purpose out,
As year succeeds to year…
Nearer and nearer draws the time,
The time that shall surely be”
when we announce.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Chris Bryant
That will definitely be part of my 12-point plan for music. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: music education is a vital part of ensuring that every child in this country has a decent chance to prosper in life.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
This week, the great fight between Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr was announced. That is the best fight in British boxing and will showcase what a fantastic sport it is in the UK. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing both fighters the best of luck and in showcasing that brilliant fight across the world?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely add my voice to that. Certain sports in the UK, including boxing, darts and snooker, have been under-represented in terms of Government attention. We are determined for that to change because we know how much joy they bring to millions of people.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had several discussions about it, that I cannot enter into the precise details of the negotiations, but they are going well, and I am hopeful that this will be absolutely transformational for the British tourism industry if we manage to pull it off. I am sure that he will urge everybody to co-operate with the Government in that process.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Members of the school council of Bromstone primary school in Broadstairs visited Parliament yesterday and wanted me to convey in the strongest terms to the Secretary of State the importance of learning art, not only because they love it but for the skills they learn from it. Is she doing all in her power to ensure that creativity will have a prominent and central place in the curriculum?
Lisa Nandy
May I reassure my hon. Friend’s young constituents that we absolutely agree with them? We know that music, sport and art not only enrich young people’s lives, but can unlock so much more. We will take their views seriously.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
I was delighted to host representatives from Grimsby in Wigan to show them our amazing OnSide youth facility. I am delighted that the Grimsby facility is now moving ahead at pace, but I share his concern about people from surrounding areas, particularly in relation to transport. Some of the youth funding that we have allocated for next year will address precisely those issues so that existing youth facilities can buy minibuses, for example, to ensure access for all young people.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The BBC has a responsibility to share content that licence fee payers can trust, yet the Asserson report found widespread evidence of bias in the BBC’s reporting of the Israel-Hamas war, which, from what I can see, continues. What representations have been made to the BBC and Ofcom to ensure that impartiality is upheld in all areas?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. When I met representatives from the Jewish community recently about antisemitism in the arts, I was shocked and horrified by some of their experiences, and we are working closely with them to tackle it. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I have raised this issue directly with the BBC director general. I am aware that the BBC gets criticism from all sides about its reporting and has a difficult balance to strike, but we are determined to work with the BBC and support it to get that right.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Tourism is very important to Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State reassure business owners in those towns and villages that her Government have no plans to introduce a tourism tax?
Chris Bryant
We have no plans to introduce additional taxes. I want to get 50 million international visitors coming to the UK, because our tourism industry is an important part of what we do well in this country. That is why I will be hosting the first visitor economy advisory council on Monday morning.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A tourism levy in York could raise £125,000 through a voluntary scheme, but if there were a comprehensive scheme, £1.7 million could go to my local community. Will the Minister not consider such a scheme so that we can raise that revenue for York?
Chris Bryant
Attacked on both sides in different ways—pushmi-pullyu, I think it was—but my hon. Friend makes a good point. There is of course provision for local mayors and local authorities to be able to introduce similar measures on a voluntary basis, as has already happened in Manchester.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
I think we in this House can all agree that the premier league is the world’s most successful league. It has grown up under self-regulation, but there are now proposals to regulate it. The premier league transmits soft power across the world and raises huge amounts of revenue for the Government. Given the damage that the Financial Services and Markets Act has done to the London stock exchange and other markets, will the Government take responsibility if football declines after they introduce football regulation?
Lisa Nandy
Football is an ecosystem, and we work very closely with the Premier League. As a crown jewel of British exports, it brings joy to millions of people all over the world, but the fact is that far too many football clubs are currently unsustainable, suffering from poor ownership and poor financial flow. The Football Governance Bill was in our manifesto and those of Opposition parties, and we will not be blocked by unelected peers from enacting what was a manifesto commitment and making good on that promise for football fans.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Kirkcaldy Community Football Partnership does an amazing job in my constituency, supporting a number of local football clubs including Kirkcaldy and Dysart football club and Templehall United. It also runs an over-35s walking football team, which is of particular interest to me. It badly needs funding for a new synthetic all-weather pitch; does the Minister agree that this is an important cause, and one that deserves support?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue she has raised is incredibly important, and I suggest that she reaches out to the Football Foundation. I would be happy to set up that meeting for her.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The listed places of worship grant scheme provides support to religious communities with listed buildings by refunding the cost of VAT on repairs. The Church Commissioners view this scheme as an effective way to deliver transformational benefits to local communities, enabling restoration, repair and improved access. I welcome the support shown for the scheme by hon. Members across the House.
Dave Robertson
The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential to renovations and improvements being made by St Michael on Greenhill church in my constituency. Can the Second Church Estates Commissioner give any assurance to me and my constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages that this grant and Government support will be available to support excellent projects such as the creation of a new community hub?
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. It is so important to ensure that our local churches are supported and that churches such as St Michael’s in his constituency can deliver the repairs they need so that they can continue to be a benefit to their communities. The National Churches Trust recently found that for every £1 of investment £16 is returned to the local community in the form of events facilities, warm spaces, food banks and so much more. He will not be surprised to learn that I have raised the issue of the listed places of worship scheme with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and I really hope that the Government are listening and will want to continue with this vital and essential scheme.
Kirsteen Sullivan
The construction of St Michael’s church in Linlithgow began in 1424, and it is a significant centre of worship in the newly formed parish of Linlithgow and Avon Valley. As a category A listed site, it has benefited greatly from the listed places of worship grant scheme over the years. Can my hon. Friend advise what engagement the commissioners have had with representatives of Churches in Scotland on the importance and effectiveness of the scheme?
Marsha De Cordova
I know that St Michael’s church in Linlithgow in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a beautiful medieval church with strong community links and engagement. Although I am accountable only for the Church of England, I reassure her that the Church is working closely with its partners in Scotland, as they too want clarity on the future of this vital scheme. I would be happy to put her in touch with the head of church buildings for the Church of Scotland if she so wishes.
Liz Twist
St Ives church in Leadgate in my constituency is known as the miners’ cathedral. The building is full of heritage, but costly maintenance issues are threatening its very survival. The church has secured grants to fund temporary fixes, but a long-term solution is desperately needed. It tells me that reclaiming tax can make all the difference, so will my hon. Friend reassure me that schemes like that will continue to help churches such as St Ives?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that St Ives church is a cornerstone of that community, and I congratulate the congregation on the funding they have raised to stabilise some of the church’s structures. Grants from the buildings for mission fund are available from the diocese and may help with some of the future work. However, we all know the importance of the listed places of worship scheme, and I will continue to raise it with the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government are listening and will come forward, as the scheme is due to end in March, and we certainly do not want that to happen.
Ruth Jones
Over the past two years alone, Newport cathedral has reclaimed over £87,000 under the listed places of worship scheme. When it soon becomes necessary to repair the tower, at an estimated cost of £1.1 million, a further £220,000 in tax will be added to that bill, and if that cannot be reclaimed the project will be delayed even further. The cathedral provides crucial support to schools, charities, refugees and the homeless. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the scheme not only in saving significant heritage treasures, but in preserving those vital services?
Marsha De Cordova
I absolutely recognise the importance of the scheme and the difference that the cathedral’s social impact projects are making in her community. I would be very happy to put my hon. Friend in touch with the director of property strategy for the Church in Wales, so that they can discuss this issue and, I hope, lobby together to ensure—to say it once again—that the scheme is renewed.
Gregory Stafford
The withdrawal of the listed places of worship scheme disproportionately affects rural churches. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, six listed churches saved nearly £43,000 in the past financial year through the scheme. Directors of St Andrew’s in Farnham and of St Bartholomew’s and St Christopher’s in Haslemere have raised concerns with me this week about the oversubscribed nature of other grant opportunities, such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which combines heritage restoration under the same scheme as, for example, coastal protection in the Humber estuary. This dilutes the vital church funds needed for their heritage. Can the hon. Lady inform me how churches can be supported to preserve heritage in my constituency if the VAT relief for repairs is not reinstated?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the hon. Member for the question. As he will have heard throughout this Question Time, we are keen to ensure that the listed places of worship grant scheme continues, because we can see not only the immense benefits it brings to our communities, but how it helps to alleviate some of the challenges of raising funds. It is important that all our heritage buildings, including our churches, are preserved and that adequate funding is available for them. I would be very happy, if the hon. Member wishes, to meet him to discuss this further.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The scheme was designed to address a perverse incentive in the VAT rules that favoured demolition and rebuild at a time when we were unable to change those rules. Post Brexit, we can now do so. Will the Church Commissioners draw that to the attention of those on the Treasury Bench?
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady therefore support my private Member’s Bill, which is coming up in March and is designed specifically to exclude repairs to listed places of worship from the VAT regime?
Marsha De Cordova
I will have a look at the hon. Member’s Bill.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I, too, want to refer to the land of Calvin, oatcakes, and sulphur—Scotland. In a village in my constituency where I used to live, there is a lovely old Church of Scotland church that has been bought by a former Member of this place. It is in bad condition and it is upsetting local people. Can best practice be shared north of the border with planning authorities and heritage organisations? I would be most grateful.
Marsha De Cordova
I will certainly share the hon. Member’s thoughts, but I am happy to write to him with further details on other spaces where he can get more information on how he can support schemes in his constituency.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The Makin report made clear the devastating abuse suffered by children and young people at the hands of John Smyth. In the meeting I had with representatives from the Archbishops’ Council, I raised the need for the Makin review to be a defining and watershed moment for the Church. The review made 27 recommendations, some of which have already been implemented. I am awaiting a full and thorough update from the Church on the detailed progress being made on each recommendation. That work is in addition to the ongoing efforts to respond to the Wilkinson and Alexis Jay inquiries into child sexual abuse. Following these reports, the Church began developing potential new safeguarding models, which will be decided at the General Synod in February.
Chi Onwurah
I pay tribute to my ecclesiastical co-worker, the Right Reverend Helen-Ann Hartley, Bishop of Newcastle, for her leadership and courage in championing the voices of victims in the wake of the Makin review. Newcastle is proud of her. Are the Church Commissioners aware of her ongoing concerns about the implementation of the review? In particular, what can they do to ensure that dioceses have the resources necessary to implement a high standard of safeguarding and to ensure that the Church is focused on the interests of the victims and the vulnerable, rather than the career interests of leading clergy?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend rightly raises the work that her own bishop has been doing in her constituency on this issue. Following the Makin review, colleagues such as my hon. Friend and many represented here today and from across the House have rightly been raising their concerns about safeguarding in the Church. This week I met representatives from the Archbishops’ Council, including the Bishop of Stepney, Joanne Grenfell, who is the lead bishop for safeguarding in the Church, to raise my concerns. The House can rest assured that I did that robustly.
The Church’s national safeguarding team is now at stage three of its four-stage process to assess and deal with the risk posed by those criticised in the Makin review, which is rightly welcomed. In addition, the Church institutions have developed the two model proposals on safeguarding, which will go to the Synod in February. Those independent safeguarding models will look at a scrutiny body and at safeguarding operations more independent of the Church. I will be at the Synod in February, and I will listen closely to that debate. Make no mistake, the Church has an enormous amount of work to do to create a cultural shift. That is what is required. It needs to rebuild trust and confidence. It is also important that everybody in the House feels as though they get the opportunity to raise their concerns. I thank my hon. Friend and others for ensuring that they have raised this issue here today.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I would very much like to pay tribute to the Bishop of Newcastle as well. What was so tragic was that so few senior voices were being heard in the Anglican Church. The Makin review named the Bishop of Lincoln and the bishop in charge of the Episcopal Church, but so few people have been held to account. Will the hon. Lady please ensure that more people are properly held to account and that some of the people who have been named are cleared out of those top jobs?
Marsha De Cordova
The right hon. Member makes a critical point. It is so important for the Church to view this as the chance to turn a corner and make it a watershed moment. We need change, and those responsible must be held to account. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the right hon. Member if that would be of help, but he should make no mistake that I strongly believe that it is important that the Church is held to account. The Bishop of Stepney—the lead bishop for safeguarding—and the director for safeguarding both welcomed the Makin review when it was first published last year. We must ensure that its recommendations are implemented.
Richard Baker
The urgent need for independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding procedures was highlighted both by the Makin report and by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. What are the current arrangements for independent scrutiny of safeguarding following the dismissal of the Church’s independent safeguarding board? What is the timescale for having a permanent system for independent scrutiny in place to safeguard against such appalling acts of abuse, as highlighted in both those reports?
Marsha De Cordova
Independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding work is extremely important. The Church commissioned a series of audits on dioceses and cathedrals by independent safeguarding experts, and several have been completed and published. The independently chaired national safeguarding panel, which includes victims and survivors among its members, currently scrutinises safeguarding, but as I have already pointed out, proposals to strengthen scrutiny in the Church will be voted on at the Synod next month, and the Church will then have to create a plan for implementation once the right model has been approved at that General Synod in February.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Marsha De Cordova
The Hyde Park estate has been managed by the Church Commissioners for over 150 years, and they are committed to its long-term stewardship. As responsible landlords, the commissioners are committed to adopting best practice and have continuous investment programmes for the management of buildings on the estate to ensure that they remain fit for purpose both now and in the future.
Rachel Blake
I have been working for months with residents of the Quadrangle, the Water Gardens and Connaught Village on the scale of their service charges. They have managed to reduce their service charges by 10%. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating them on their hard work and agree that they should not have had to work that hard? Will she join me in a meeting with the Church Commissioners to improve the transparency and monitoring of service charge levels?
Marsha De Cordova
Of course I congratulate the residents on their hard work. I know from my constituency about the challenges around increases in service charges; it is so important that they are transparent to everybody. I would be happy to join my hon. Friend in a meeting with her residents on this issue, and I would recommend including those from the Church Commissioners’ property services team. I hope that will be okay.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Hyde Park estate is an oasis of peace and tranquillity in the middle of the concrete and buildings and used daily by many. What steps will the Church take to ensure that there are sufficient waste disposal and recycling bins across the Hyde Park estate, for those with two legs, and indeed for those with four legs?
Marsha De Cordova
I am sure that those managing and maintaining the estate are looking at all those issues, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)
When establishing the political finance regime, Parliament’s explicit intention was to ban foreign donations. However, limitations of the current law mean that it is possible for money from foreign sources to enter the UK electoral system through donations from UK companies. For that reason, the Electoral Commission has called for the laws around company donations to be strengthened, to ensure that parties cannot accept money from companies that have not made enough in the UK to fund their donation or loan, to impose a duty to carry out enhanced “know your donor” checks, and to improve transparency over donations made through unincorporated associations.
Joe Powell
In recent weeks we have seen the unedifying spectacle of opposition parties trying to curry favour with one particular foreign billionaire. However, this issue is much bigger than Elon Musk. Transparency International UK estimates that £1 in every £10 in our system—£150 million since 2021—comes from questionable or unknown sources. When will these proposals come forward, so that we can debate them in the House and tackle this threat to our democracy?
Sir Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Member will understand, proposals to change the law must come from the Government—with whom, I gently suggest, he has more influence that I do—but he is right that transparency is crucial. It is important that we understand the source of the donations, so that the political parties that accept them can be properly held to account.
Mr Carmichael
Surely, even in these febrile times, it should not be difficult to build a consensus around the proposition that foreign money should not be in British politics. Can we not get the parties together now to make the strongest possible package of reforms, rather than reacting when it is too late?
Sir Jeremy Wright
As I mentioned, there is a consensus in this House that foreign donations should not play a part in British politics, but there are gaps in the law. As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission believes that those gaps can be properly closed through further legislation. It is speaking to the Government about that, and I know that it would be happy discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
In 2020 the House of Bishops created the archbishops’ anti-racism taskforce, followed by the archbishops’ commission for racial justice, to continue the work of tackling racial injustice in the Church and society. Last February, the General Synod voted unanimously to continue efforts to address racial injustice across the Church.
Patricia Ferguson
The Church’s work to recognise the importance of diversity and on proactive anti-racism is very welcome, but what steps is it taking to address its historical links to the slave trade?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church’s role in slavery is truly shameful. It is only right that it takes action to recognise its links to the transatlantic enslavement of Africans. No amount of money would ever be enough to repair the horrors of the slave trade, but the Church Commissioners’ project will set aside £100 million over nine years for a programme of impact, investment, research and engagement. It is hoped that this fund will continue to grow over time and will reinvest returns. Investments in grant funding will be directed towards communities that have been impacted by the enslavement of Africans.
Business of the House
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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 20 January includes:
Monday 20 January—General debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.
Wednesday 22 January—Motion to agree a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 23 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.
Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:
Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.
Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill.
Thursday 30 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.
For the convenience of the House, and in view of the three important statements that are taking place today, the motion on the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 will not be moved today.
Jesse Norman
I am sure that the Leader of the House and every Member will join me in welcoming the news overnight of a ceasefire in Gaza. Let us hope and pray that it is as effective, comprehensive and long-lasting as possible.
Back at home, all one can say is that it has been another extraordinary week for the Government, though possibly not in the way that they would have wanted. We have had the Government’s anti-corruption Minister herself being named for corruption by another country in the face of an international investigation into embezzlement of development and other funds. We have had the unusually unlovely sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate search for growth that has taken her to Beijing and back—though with precious little result, it seems. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said this week that stagflation—that toxic combination of recession and inflation—is now “a live risk”. Even the very, very modest GDP growth reported for November was below expectations.
At some point, the Government’s current spending splurge will doubtless start to nudge growth upwards over the coming year, but in the meantime we will have to look forward to the grim prospect of the national insurance changes in April and the horrors of the Employment Rights Bill, which even by the Government’s own estimates will cost employers an extra £5 billion a year. So dire has the Chancellor’s position become that she has been forced to ask Cabinet colleagues for ideas of growth. Given the galaxy of business talent around the Cabinet table, how can that possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been forced not only to express “full confidence” in the Chancellor—always a death knell—but to insist that she will remain in post for the full period of this Government. Let us see how that works out. It has been extraordinary, in particular, to see her attacked by her own colleagues, who have said:
“we’re going back to austerity in all but name.”
Luckily, the Government were able to announce some good news in the form of the latest results of the national wealth fund, which has apparently generated more than 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion in private investment over the last six months—except that the announcement is, I am afraid, entirely disingenuous. As Lord Livermore said in a debate in the other House in October, the national wealth fund is, in fact, the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new name and a bit more capital. I know something about the UK Infrastructure Bank, because I set it up in 2021 when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has an absolutely world-class leadership team and I am not remotely surprised to see it doing so well. But the idea that its recent success is attributable to a Labour Government who have done little more than rebrand it is an embarrassing joke. Its success has been powered by good institutional design, a top team, tonnes of talented employees and more than four years of hard work.
One recalls the Government’s attempt to claim credit for £63 billion of international cash in the October investment summit. I know the Leader of the House is a strong believer in transparency and accountability, so will she have the Treasury update the House on what form that investment has taken, how much of it has been received and where it is being spent? Frankly, it is more than doubtful that three months of post-election chaos in the Government had any such effect in boosting investment, but we will see when the Government publish the numbers, as I am sure they will. If it turns out like the so-called national wealth fund, we will know that the Labour Government are more than happy to take credit for at least some of the work of the previous Government, provided that they can put their own name on it.
Lucy Powell
I, too, am sure that the whole House will welcome the developments between Israel and Gaza over the past hours and days, with a long-overdue ceasefire and the release of hostages now looking like a real possibility, although that is still to be confirmed. This will hopefully now lead to much-needed aid getting in,usb the end of the killing, the hostages being released, and, I hope, what will be the beginning of a long-term political solution for the region. We will hear shortly from the Foreign Secretary with further details on that.
First, I will explain one of the pieces of business I have just announced, and set out why the Government will table a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill next week. In order for a Bill Committee to consider any clauses that could have spending implications, the Government must first table a money resolution. That is not the Government agreeing to fund the measures in a Bill; it is purely to enable the Bill to be debated in Committee. In the case of this Bill, this relates to one small component that is yet to be debated and agreed. Without the motion being agreed to, that debate could not happen and that component could not remain in the Bill. The Government have taken the view that that would act against our commitment to remain neutral on the Bill. The House should debate and decide on these matters for itself. I hope that, as with Second Reading, colleagues will focus on the substance and not the processes of this sensitive private Member’s Bill.
It really has been quite incredible to watch the collective display of amnesia on the Conservative Benches over recent weeks—it is like the past 14 years did not happen. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is out today in what has been briefed as her finally telling the truth about the Conservatives’ record: they did not have a plan for growth, they were not honest with the British people, and they negotiated a bad Brexit deal. However, it sounds like the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) did not quite get that memo.
It sounds like the right hon. Gentleman did not get the memo about the Conservatives needing to be honest about their record on standards either. If he wants to compare the previous Government’s record on losing Ministers, I am quite happy to do so. Boris Johnson had 36 of his own Ministers resign in 24 hours—the highest number on modern record. Even the very nice right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) lost four of his senior Ministers in his first few months, including his party chairman and Deputy Prime Minister, for breaking the ministerial code. Even when there were investigations on Ministers, they were often ignored. This Government have strengthened the ministerial code and now have an adviser who is able to initiate investigations. We have brought in new rules for Members of Parliament on outside interests, and we will go further.
The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not get the memo on the Conservatives’ record on the economy, and is instead trying to attack our plans. The Leader of the Opposition, his party leader, is now telling the country that they did not have a plan for growth. That is the truth of the situation, isn’t it? The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about the fundamental weaknesses in our economy, and they did nothing. In fact, they made those weaknesses even worse: stagnant growth, low productivity, low wages, low skills, high mortgages, high debt, poor health, poor housing, woeful transport, deep-seated inequalities, and no ambition under the previous Government to gain the jobs of the future. We are beginning to tackle those deep-rooted weaknesses, and that is the truth that he and his party leader should be telling the country.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Community organisations are the backbone of many events in towns and villages across North West Leicestershire. For the past 10 years, the Rotary Club of Ashby de la Zouch Castle has organised our annual charity Santa fun run in Ashby, which I have had the pleasure of taking part in alongside hundreds of local people. Last week, the club presented cheques to LOROS hospice, Rainbows hospice for children and young people, and Staunton Harold Sailability Trust. It was great to hear that the fun run has now raised over £100,000 for local charities that support residents in need. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the volunteers for their commitment to support our communities, and could the House be granted an opportunity to discuss what further support could be provided to volunteers to ensure that they continue to thrive?
Lucy Powell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the volunteers in her constituency for what sound like fantastic local fundraising activities. I thought she was going to ask me to go on a fun run—to which the answer was going to be no—but otherwise I welcome her question.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have been delighted by the recent groundswell of support from across the House for Liberal Democrat policies. In particular, I cite: the support for our Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill; the warm response for the sunshine Bill—the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which is coming tomorrow; and the House endorsing a fairer voting system. Will the Government answer this clear yearning by Members across the House for Liberal Democrat policies and provide parliamentary time to ensure those Bills become law?
Lucy Powell
I notice that this week there was further public support for the Liberal Democrats: I understand that 90% of respondents to a review of their general election campaign thought their party leader’s eye-catching campaign style was very effective. I concur, so here’s to even more bungee jumping and paddle boarding, but perhaps less of the tight wetsuits—I’m not sure I really want to see those! I am pleased that we are able to support a number of the measures coming forward from the hon. Lady’s colleagues. I look forward to continuing to work constructively across the House with Liberal Democrats.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
As the junction 28 parliamentary champion, I report that residents across Bolsover are really frustrated by congestion. Can we have a Government statement on what we are doing to tackle congestion across Bolsover?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of congestion in Bolsover, and I congratulate her on doing so today. She will know that this is one of a number of issues the Government are seeking to tackle through their transport and roads strategies.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come urgently to the House and give a statement on the destruction of trees and vegetation along the Liberty line, which runs from Romford to Emerson Park in my constituency? There has been an extreme lack of accountability and communication from Network Rail. It has not consulted local residents or elected representatives, despite promising to do so in 2022 when a similar incident occurred. This is devastating for the local environment and wildlife. Cutting down healthy trees is wrong and Network Rail needs to be held to account for its actions.
Lucy Powell
I am sure that many colleagues across the House recognise that the felling of healthy trees causes a great deal of local interest from constituents, wherever it occurs, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. I am not aware of the particular case he raises, but I will ensure he gets a ministerial response.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Gary, a constituent of mine who lives in Thrapston, had his driving licence suspended for six months due to a medical condition. During that time, his employer supported him getting to and from work, but shortly before his licence was due to be renewed it was, once again due to his medical condition, suspended for a further six months. In the light of that and in order to continue to work, Gary applied for support from the Access to Work grant scheme. Following his application, Gary was advised that there was a 30-week wait before his application would be dealt with. Does the Minister agree that the Government have prioritised supporting people who wish to continue to work whenever they can, and that delays in granting applications like this are totally unacceptable and could lead to people losing their jobs? Can we get Gary’s case looked into as soon as possible?
Lucy Powell
It is completely unacceptable for people to have to wait as long as that. This Government are committed to significantly reducing the waiting times for Access to Work and other programmes, and I will ensure that a Minister looks into Gary’s case and it is resolved as soon as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing protected time for this afternoon’s Backbench Business debate, and also for allowing time next week for the annual Holocaust Memorial Day debate. In addition to the business that she announced for Monday, there will be two Select Committee statements on behalf of the Treasury Committee and another on behalf of the Defence Committee. Those Committee statements are important, so I trust that the Government will try not to schedule too many Government statements that would squeeze the time available. We always like to satisfy colleagues, and on Thursday 30 January there will be a debate on proportional representation for general elections.
In Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on the provision of auditory verbal therapy, next Thursday there will be a debate on the United Nations International Day of Education followed by a debate on innovation in the field of rare retinal diseases, on Tuesday 28 January there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers, and on Thursday 30 January there will be a debate on medicinal cannabis.
In addition, may I point out that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has organised hate marches across London over many months since 7 October? The Metropolitan police have finally decided that it is unacceptable for the campaigners to form up at midday 100 yards from a synagogue where Jewish people were threatened when leaving or joining the Shabbat service, and have insisted that the route of the marches must not go near any synagogue. However, the campaigners have said that they will defy the police and form up outside the synagogue again. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary reinforcing the view that if that happens, those individuals should face the full force of the law and the cost of policing the demonstration to ensure that public order is protected?
Lucy Powell
Let me first thank the hon. Gentleman for listing a number of future debates. I was pleased that, after he had raised the matter with me in during business questions last week, I was able to protect time for this afternoon’s debate, and that we were able to find Government time for a proper debate on Holocaust Memorial Day next week. As ever, I thank him for his continued work as a very diligent and good Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
As for the other issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that decisions about the policing of protests and demonstrations are a matter for the police—they are operational matters—but he is right to say that public safety should be at the fore, along with ensuring that no one is subject to antisemitism or any other kind of hate as a result of any demonstration.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
May I pick up some comments that were made a little earlier? Many of my constituents have written to me expressing their concerns about campaign finance laws following media reports that a certain foreign billionaire will be providing very large donations. Will the Government introduce legislation to cap individual donations, close existing loopholes and enhance the powers of the Electoral Commission?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right: foreign money and foreign donations have no place in UK politics and are prohibited under current law, but the existing legislation may need to be tightened. As he will know, we have a manifesto commitment to look at donations to political parties, and we will be introducing a Bill on elections, probably in the next Session.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Yesterday, along with many other Members, I attended an oversubscribed debate in Westminster Hall led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on compensation for WASPI women. It is clear there was no consensus on the Government side in relation to the outcome of the Government’s decision. Given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman sent the report to Parliament for Parliament to decide, when will the Government provide time for a debate and a vote?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that question. As she said, a debate did take place yesterday, and there are many mechanisms for debates to be brought forward in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. I know it is of great disappointment to people that the Government have taken this decision, which was quite a specific one about that report. Many women were communicated with over that time, and an apology was issued, but we did not feel that the compensation being proposed was proportionate or would be a fair use of public funds at this time.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
We have a housing crisis across the UK, and I am pleased that the Government have announced a plan to build 1.5 million more homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that councils have an important part to play in fixing this crisis by updating their local plans and delivering the homes that are so desperately needed, including social housing and affordable homes? Without these plans, our green-belt spaces are at risk, such as Whyburn Farm in my constituency, which Ashfield Independents on the district council are failing to protect by having no plan. Does she agree that it is vital that councils use their local plans to meet the needs of communities, while also protecting our green-belt spaces?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this country faces a housing crisis. That is why this Government have an incredibly ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, and we are changing the national planning policy framework to ensure that local councils have ambitious targets for their own local areas in order to meet that target.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In the 2024 new year’s honours list, Stuart Hogg was awarded an MBE. Since then he has been charged, convicted and sentenced for domestic abuse. Does the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council agree that he should be stripped of that state honour?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter, which I know is of great concern to him and to many other Members across the House. Let us be clear that domestic abuse is abhorrent, we condemn it, and it should not be, or be seen to be, rewarded by any of us. It is completely understandable and appropriate that he and others raise questions about whether this honour should continue. He will know that I cannot comment on individual honours. However, recommendations to remove honours are considered by the Forfeiture Committee, which he might want to raise this with.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am deeply concerned about a local decision by our hospital trust to cut the bus route between Burnley general teaching hospital urgent care centre and Royal Blackburn teaching hospital, which is a huge loss to staff and patients. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on transport operators, the county council, East Lancashire hospitals NHS trust, Blackburn with Darwen borough council and others to get round the table and find a solution to save our shuttle bus and keep this vital service running?
Lucy Powell
Shuttle buses such as the one my hon. Friend describes in his constituency—especially those that go to hospitals and other local services—are vital. For too long, local areas and communities have not had a say in the bus routes they need in their area. That is why we have brought forward the Bus Services Bill, which is making its way through the other House and will ensure that his constituents have more of a say over the bus routes in their area.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, my constituency is the source of a number of globally significant chalk streams, not least and most famously the River Test. A number of Members were pressing the previous Government to bring forward a chalk stream recovery pack, to help get those rivers back to their best state of health, so you can imagine our disappointment when we learnt in the media before Christmas that this pack was being abandoned, as was subsequently confirmed in a ministerial statement. Could we have a statement urgently from the Secretary of State about what he will do to replace that pack and bring these rivers back to the state of health they should be in?
Mr Speaker
We have to help Sir Charles Walker’s fishing—come on, Leader of the House.
Lucy Powell
I pride myself on knowing lots of things about what the Government are doing, but I have to admit that this is not something I am aware of or can offer the right hon. Gentleman any particular advice on right now. However, I assure him that I will raise it today with the Minister and ensure that he gets a full response. If that is not sufficient, I will ensure that the Minister comes to the House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Back in September, I hand-delivered a letter to the Home Office regarding critical concerns about our asylum hotel and about so many vulnerable families being put in such a deprived area. I had a holding response in October, as did my council, but can the Leader of the House secure me a meeting with Home Office officials to discuss this vital issue?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend consistently raises the issue of asylum hotels in his constituency, and I am really sorry to hear that he has not yet had a response from the relevant Minister. I will ensure that he gets a response and the meeting he has asked for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My question is about a rather disturbing matter, and it regards the latest issue of The House magazine. On page 14, there is an article entitled, “State of the union”. There are depictions of the United Kingdom, and each country has its flag. The flag over Northern Ireland, contrary to what the rest of the world knows it to be, is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, as opposed to the Union flag or the Ulster banner. This is absolutely outrageous and must be corrected in a suitably clear manner.
The flag of our nation—my nation—is precious. When I look at the red of the St Patrick’s cross in the background of that flag, I think of the blood of those whose lives were given in the defence of Northern Ireland and this great nation. When I see the publication’s mistake, it grieves me to see how we are regarded by so many. I wish to make it clear that we do not live under the flag of the Republic of Ireland, despite the view of those who do not take their seats here. However, it seems that their influence is greater than that of those in this Chamber. The flag of Northern Ireland is the Ulster banner or the Union flag, and it means something to many people.
We cannot allow this disgraceful incident to pass. I ask the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that there is a correction. Perhaps the staff at The House also need to be educated about the basics of the state of the Union, including its geography; they need to understand the wee simple things, given that it purports to be a political magazine that is focused on the business of this House. Will the Leader of the House show her displeasure with the erroneous depiction? May I ask her to ensure that a correction is made immediately, and that geographic training for staff at The House magazine will take place?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s displeasure, and I thank him for raising this matter today. It is a very disturbing mistake for The House to have made. He will be aware that I am not responsible for the magazine, but I hope that the editors and the editorial board are watching this exchange and can offer the hon. Gentleman a full explanation and a full apology. They need to put this situation right with immediate effect.
Mr Speaker
Given that I have been brought into this matter, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that The House is not a publication of the House, but it does trade on the House’s name and use the House’s coat of arms. There are questions to be asked, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important question. The Leader of the House and I will look at what we can do and what should happen next.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Right across my constituency, there is plenty of support for this Government’s ambition to do far better when it comes to transitioning to clean, green renewable energy. However, there is also a lot of frustration when my constituents see new houses going up, because we are not making use of rooftops and making sure that homes have the highest energy efficiency standards. Can we have a statement from the Housing Minister about how we can make sure that we are far more ambitious than the last Government in the requirements on developers?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Solar panels on new homes will be a vital component in meeting our clean energy superpower ambitions. He will be aware that the previous Government actually pulled back from including solar panels in the new building regulations. Had they done so, we would already have a much higher level of solar energy coming into the grid. We are already putting that right.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Post offices provide vital services in our rural communities, such as banking. In my Thornbury and Yate constituency, however, there are concerns about the future of the post office in Tytherington community shop, following the announcement that its partner post office in Cromhall will close at the end of February. Will the Leader of the House agree to give us a debate in Government time on how we can support community post offices in the future?
Lucy Powell
The issue of community post offices regularly comes up in these sessions, and I know it is a matter of considerable importance to the House. It would make for a good Backbench Business debate, and I see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is still in his place. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) is right to raise these issues. I know that colleagues are concerned about plans to close all the current Crown post offices, too. She should know that no decisions have been made on that, and I would encourage colleagues to raise the matter very strongly in the House, with Ministers and, indeed, with the Post Office itself.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Sadly, many places across England have been impacted by flooding in recent days. The ground floor of Meadow Mill in my constituency was flooded on new year’s eve, which meant that residents in 213 apartments were not only stranded but left without water, electricity or heating. I thank all the emergency service workers and Stockport council staff for supporting the residents. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of flooding on insurance premiums and service charge costs for apartment block residents?
Lucy Powell
As a near constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend, I am well aware of Meadow Mill and all the trauma and difficulties suffered by residents during the recent flooding. Many other colleagues’ constituencies were affected, too.
This Government inherited really poor flood defence systems, which is why we have put in place a floods resilience taskforce. My hon. Friend is right to highlight insurance costs and other issues, and I will ensure that the House is kept constantly updated on flooding and its impacts.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Could the Leader of the House use her great influence to improve the tone and quality of ministerial responses in this place? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology responded to the question I asked on behalf of the creative industries, which are very worried about the Government’s consultation on artificial intelligence and copyright, by telling me that I do not
“understand the idea of a consultation.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 55.]
I hate to admit it, but I am long enough in the tooth to say that I genuinely do understand what a consultation is and how to recognise one that does not appear to be genuine and that has a foregone conclusion.
The point is that we need to be able to articulate questions on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of sectors that contribute so much to the UK economy, and receive a response that has dignity and respect at its heart. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that this place should be no place for mansplaining.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for all the brilliant work she does on behalf of our creative industries as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I know that AI and copyright are to the fore among the issues about which the creative industries are concerned.
I am happy to apologise on behalf of any Minister who may have inadvertently not used the appropriate tone. I know that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology respects the hon. Lady greatly, and I am sure he did not mean to cause any offence. I am sure it was meant humorously, which is obviously not how it has been taken. I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s comments are passed back.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Seemingly unending roadworks in Rossendale and Darwen are causing massive disruption to residents and businesses. Lane rental schemes, in which companies are charged for the time that their works occupy the road, can be a game changer, yet highways authorities such as Lancashire seem to be unwilling to use the powers available to them. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can get the action that we need to free up our roads?
Lucy Powell
I think we can all identify with the plight of constituents who are experiencing unnecessary and badly co-ordinated roadworks, and all the congestion and disruption they cause. The Government want to see more local authorities introduce lane rental schemes, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister supports my hon. Friend’s call for such a scheme in his constituency.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Last week, I met representatives of the Environment Agency at Knaresborough lido, which was granted bathing water status last year thanks to the hard work of local campaigners and the former MP, Andrew Jones. The Environment Agency has said that, unlike other rivers with sewage and pollution issues, which are usually due to adverse weather events and heavy rain, the issue on the River Nidd looks to be continuous, regardless of the weather. It is particularly bad during dry spells, which leads the Environment Agency to believe that it is down to housing developments that might be inadvertently, or deliberately in some cases, tapping into existing sewerage networks. Will the Leader of the House speak with her colleagues in the relevant Department to ensure that, when we look at the issue of water quality, we also consider how it is affected by housing development?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. Core to the conversations that are happening between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is that nature, including the issues of water supply, sewage and so on, is vital when we consider housing plans. None the less, I will ensure that he gets a reply on the case that he raises.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The good news is that 185 apartments around Wembley Stadium in my constituency are ready to be occupied. The bad news is that nobody can move into them, because the Building Safety Regulator has sat on its gateway 2 applications for six months and its gateway 3 applications for two months. We have a housing shortage. Can the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on the delays and dysfunctionality of the Building Safety Regulator?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend will be aware that, through the Building Safety Act 2022 brought in by the previous Government, we do now have a Building Safety Regulator. It is right, given the context in which that regulator came about following the Grenfell fire, that we ensure that buildings are signed off as safe, and are able to be signed off as safe, before they can be occupied and sold. I am happy to look into this particular case to see why it has taken so long for that to happen.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
We face an emergent healthcare crisis in towns and communities across the country as demand for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, including botox and dermal fillers, rises. This is fuelled by social media and societal pressures on young people. Such treatments often take place in unregulated high street environments and place pressure on the NHS. When will the Government bring forward legislation to introduce a mandatory licensing regime, and will they allow for a debate in Government time on the Floor of this House?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member raises an important topic, which I know affects many of our constituents. We have seen a number of very high profile cases lately where things have gone terribly wrong in a sector that is completely unregulated, as he says. I know that there have been plans in place for a while to bring forward the measures he describes. I will ensure that the House is updated when those measures are ready, and that, in the meantime, he gets a ministerial response.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
London Southend airport has taken time to bounce back from the pandemic, but I am delighted to see that, over recent months, a number of new routes have been established. EasyJet has announced its new base at the airport and, just in the past week, Eastern Airways has announced its new route to Newquay. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is positive news for the local economy and a sign of growing business confidence on the back of the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth? Will she join me on a visit to the airport to hear more about its future plans?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in commending the great efforts of London Southend airport. I commend him and other local leaders for taking this airport from strength to strength in recent years, particularly over the past year. I know that easyJet is looking at opening a base there soon. It is clear that this airport is now going from strength to strength, which is something that his constituents will strongly support.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Office for Environmental Protection published its annual report today on our progress in protecting the environment. Unfortunately, it is not good news: we are off-track on 20 out of 43 targets, and only five out of its 52 recommendations last year have been implemented. The report, which deals with the period under the previous Government, shows that progress was slowing on nature protection in that year. This Government have announced that they will review the environmental improvement plan. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that review will be published? Can a Minister come to the House to make a statement on how the Government will turn this around to protect nature?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is right: that report shows how little was done to protect nature under the previous Government, despite many announcements to the contrary. Nature protection is a core part of our clean energy mission, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is central to that mission. She will be aware that it will take a while to turn things around, but we are committed to doing so. I will ensure that she and the House are updated regularly on where things are up to, and on when the reports will be responded to.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
We are a proud cathedral city. Everyone in Peterborough has a story to tell about our cathedral, whether it is attending a carol service, going to a graduation or community event, or even remembering the Foreign Secretary singing there as a chorister when he was a schoolboy. For over 900 years, our cathedral has been there for us. Now, in the words of the Very Rev. Chris Dalliston, our dean, we need to be there for the cathedral, because it has a funding crisis. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the cathedral well with its appeal, and ensure that we have time in this House to debate these wonderful places, which are not just of local importance but national heritage assets?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituency. I strongly welcome his question, and fully support what he says about Peterborough cathedral, and all the cathedrals of this country. What a national asset they are. He will be aware that the Government have in place a range of support programmes for places of worship, such as the listed places of worship grant scheme and the Churches Conservation Trust. Next week, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on the listed places of worship grant scheme, in which he may want to participate. Finally, I join him in strongly supporting the campaign to raise the funds that Peterborough cathedral needs.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is nearly three years since the passing of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, yet the guidance that would bring it to life has not been implemented. People with Down’s syndrome really need support in areas such as healthcare, education and employment, so could we have a debate in Government time on support for people with Down’s syndrome, and ensure that this vital legislation is fully enacted?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which has not been raised with me before. The Down Syndrome Act was an important piece of legislation, recognising the amazing contribution that those with Down’s syndrome make to our society and our country, while recognising the challenges that they face, and the extra support that they need to flourish. I will find out for him where we are up to with the implementation of the Act, and ensure that he is updated.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Grimsby’s Green Futures on its very successful wassail last Saturday? When will we have time in the House to celebrate great English traditions such as Morris dancing, folk music and indeed wassailing?
Lucy Powell
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to ask me to do some wassailing; I would need to look it up and get some training. I will absolutely support her in promoting these great English traditions, and all the great work that is happening in Grimsby to keep them alive. I am sure that it would make a very good topic for a debate.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I, too, am delighted that wassailing has been mentioned, because there was a wassail in my village of Hurstpierpoint last Saturday.
Constituents across Mid Sussex really enjoy and appreciate having access to our coastline and seas, and they rightly expect our oceans to be clean and healthy. The UN global ocean treaty is the world’s only road map for protecting at least a third of the world’s oceans by 2030. The UK has committed to ratifying the treaty, but the next step is for the Government to introduce a short Bill to pass it into UK law. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when the Government plan to introduce the legislation?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member received many specially written Christmas cards urging us to consider introducing that legislation, so this is something I am very much aware of. She will know that we are committed to ratifying the agreement, and legislation will be brought forward in due course. I cannot give her a more specific timetable, but the legislation will be brought forward before we need to have ratified the treaty.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I invite the Leader of the House and all hon. Members to join me and the Samaritans on Monday for a brew. Blue Monday may have been invented by the travel industry to encourage us to book holidays in January, but the Samaritans has converted it to Brew Monday, when we can highlight the importance of talking to each other in an effort to prevent suicide. Can we have a debate in Government time on the national suicide prevention strategy and look at what else we can do to prevent suicide?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in the efforts to rebrand Blue Monday as Brew Monday. I am sure that is something we can all participate in and support. She is absolutely right to highlight the issues of suicide and mental health support. I know that they are a real personal priority of the Health Secretary, and I am sure that he will keep the House updated on any progress.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Center Parcs is planning an exciting new development in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. It will be the first Center Parcs in Scotland, and it will bring £350 million of investment and create 1,200 extra jobs for the area. However, due to under-investment by the SNP Government in Edinburgh, there are concerns about the capacity of the road network, particularly the A7 through Selkirk, to deal with the extra visitors and tourists. Would the Leader of the House allow time for a debate to consider how rural communities can attract greater investment when there are concerns about the adequacy of the transport system and road network?
Lucy Powell
Again, I thought I was being invited to Center Parcs. I am very partial to a water slide, should colleagues ever want to invite me to a Center Parcs. The hon. Member raises the serious point that when much-needed investment and great new facilities or services come into a constituency, we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure and roads to support them. The SNP Government in Scotland have just got a record settlement in the Budget, so they have no excuse not to support the road he talks about.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Despite community efforts from Hexham rotary club and the Hexham Wombles litter pick, the old bus station site in Hexham remains an eyesore, and the developer is sadly slow-walking on redevelopment. Can we have a debate in Government time on the need to make best use of disused sites on market town high streets, and on how we can improve them and boost town centres, which are crucial to our economy?
Lucy Powell
Breathing new life into our high streets and town centres is a real priority for this Government. After years of neglect and decline, that is much needed. We will bring forward an English devolution Bill later this Session, which will grant communities a new right to buy derelict buildings such as the one my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that will help him and his constituents to take back control.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Scottish Labour Members like nothing more than getting to their feet to drone on about the Scottish Government, and asking the Minister questions about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Can we have a debate about the spectacular fall in the polls of Scottish Labour, and we could perhaps determine whose fault that is? Is it the hapless Anas Sarwar, or is it because the Scottish people have seen a Labour Government in action?
Lucy Powell
It is not Labour Members droning on—in fact, none of them has today raised a point of the kind he mentions—but we would all welcome a debate in this House on the performance of the Scottish Government and whether they are delivering for the Scottish people, because they now have the powers and the funds, so they have no excuses.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House about welcoming a long-overdue ceasefire. My constituent Dr Ryann Sowden has been working tirelessly to support survivors of that crisis. I commend the Bolton Council of Mosques for its unwavering advocacy of peace. The House should reflect that determination. Will the Leader of the House work with colleagues across Government to get vital aid into Gaza before more lives are tragically lost?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which she has raised consistently in the House—it is a matter of deep concern and importance for her. We all very much welcome the developments in Israel and Gaza over recent hours and days, and we all want a long-lasting ceasefire and for the hostages to be released. Crucially, as she says, it will be important to surge much-needed aid into Gaza, so that we get people back to living there safely, with water and food.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It may be helpful to Members to know that I will run this session until 11.45 am. It would therefore be very helpful if we had short questions and answers, so that I can get in as many Members as possible.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Leicestershire was one of the areas hit by significant flooding. Fortunately, my constituency is relatively okay, bar pockets such as Shenton, Barwell, Sheepy Magna and Witherley. The problem is that they do not hit the Government’s threshold for funding because they are too small and often experience flooding only to roads and connectors, rather than houses. Will the Leader of the House write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask him to reconsider the formula, and to provide for isolated communities that are cut off but do not get breaches into houses? That problem is fundamentally difficult to solve.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The changes in global weather as a result of climate change mean that flooding incidents are more frequent and more acute, and are often hyper-localised, rather than widespread. He makes a compelling point about the impact of localised flooding not just on homes but on local infrastructure. I will certainly ensure that that is considered by the Secretary of State.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
May I invite the Leader of the House to commend the hard work of the One Love Project in my constituency? It is a community-run non-referral service that supports those most in need, including the street homeless. Its provides food, warm showers, clothing, clothes-washing facilities, sleeping bags—the list goes on. It is, above all, the welcoming and non-judgmental approach of Sharon and her fabulous team that makes the work most inspiring. I invite the Leader of the House to visit the project and see its work at first hand, and to visit sunny Southend and Rochford to experience all that we have to offer, from our coastline to our cultural heritage landmarks, such as Rochford town square and the medieval St Nicholas church in Great Wakering.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend paints a compelling picture of Southend and Rochford, and I would certainly be happy to visit one day. He also mentions the amazing work of the One Love Project on homelessness. This country relies greatly on such organisations. The Government are committed to tackling the root causes of homelessness and ensuring that funding is there to support people at the darkest time of their life.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Families of British citizens who are murdered abroad do not have not the same rights as families of homicide victims in the UK. Often, families coping with the trauma of that news must arrange to pay for their own translators, so that they can speak to local police and read legal documents—all while trying to negotiate the criminal justice system of a foreign jurisdiction. Those families deserve the same rights as those of homicide victims in the UK, but at the moment they are not even entitled to a police family liaison officer. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that, so that we can build consensus across the House on a way forward?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue, and for giving me notice that he was going to do so. The Ministry of Justice is working with the Victims’ Commissioner and others in the sector to explore how families in the situation he has described can be better supported with the information and financial assistance they need. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is updated on that work.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minton tiles in our Central Lobby, the plates in our Tea Room, and even the chandelier in the Pugin guest room are all wonderful examples of Staffordshire craftsmanship, yet at the moment in this place, we are seeing creeping numbers of foreign ceramic imports in place of British products. Can the Leader of the House, in her capacity as the Government’s representative on the House of Commons Commission and the restoration and renewal board, say what the Government’s policy is for ensuring that artisans and creators from all corners of our nation are showcased in this place?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for the craftsmanship and ceramics of Stoke, and of Staffordshire more widely—he has given us some good examples. Sometimes I do not want to have dinner alongside my hon. Friend, because he inspects all the ceramics and all the things we are using to eat our dinner, rightly so. I will absolutely raise the points he has highlighted with the House authorities and ensure we are doing more to support the great craftsmanship that we have in this country.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Yesterday, along with Members from across the House, I attended the launch of the latest report from the charity Open Doors, which highlights Christian persecution in many countries. Many of the countries on that charity’s watchlist are countries that the UK has close relations with. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on that Open Doors report and what greater influence the UK can bring to bear on those rogue nations?
Lucy Powell
The report that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted is a really important one, and he has raised some very important topics. I will ensure that if he does not get a full ministerial reply about those topics, they are considered as important issues. He might want to raise them in an Adjournment debate or elsewhere as well.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I was deeply saddened this week to see new data from the Office for National Statistics and Health Equals, which has ranked my constituency as having the lowest life expectancy anywhere in the UK. My constituency also has a higher than average poverty rate—there is undoubtedly a link between those two stats. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time to explore the factors that contribute to a lowered life expectancy, including the impact of poverty, to help my constituents live longer, happier and more financially secure lives?
Lucy Powell
The link between health inequality and poor health outcomes and poverty is absolutely clear. Eradicating those things is at the heart of our health mission, but also at the heart of what this Government are seeking to do more widely, because we recognise that only by sharing prosperity and growth around the country, tackling the roots of poverty, and seeing health as both a public health issue and an economic issue will we tackle some of these core challenges.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Many of us will remember the devastation that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 caused in rural England. I am pleased that the Government have restricted commercial imports of susceptible animals and personal imports of animal products. However, I was reminded yesterday by James, a farmer in my area, that last time, our high biosecurity standards saw the dipping of vehicles and footwear. Can we have a debate focusing on the movement of people and vehicles into the UK from affected areas—whether by road, rail, ferry or air—to prevent transmission of the virus, and particularly the installing of large notices at airports for incoming and transit passengers to declare such products?
Lucy Powell
The Government will do whatever it takes to protect farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. We have already brought in restrictions on animal products from Germany, and we will not hesitate to add additional countries to that list. I reassure the hon. Lady that there are currently no cases here in the UK. We did have an urgent question on this matter yesterday, but I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on any further developments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I encourage all Members to reduce the length of their questions by 50%, and then everyone will get in?
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last Friday, I had the privilege of meeting those at the Foyer and Doncaster Housing for Young People to discuss how we can best support 16 to 25-year-olds who are homeless or vulnerably housed. Having experienced homelessness as a child, I know how challenging that can be, so I really welcome the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating organisations such as Doncaster Housing for Young People on their vital work and in praising the measures in the Bill?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. The Renters’ Rights Bill—the Conservatives voted against it this week, shockingly—will see the end of section 21 no-fault evictions, which is an important measure, along with many others, towards ending homelessness in this country and tackling the root causes of it. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s support for the Bill.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
I think one thing we can agree on across this House is that life in our constituencies across the country is enriched by the work of volunteers. I am thinking of the volunteers in my own constituency of Nanu football club, Garforth Town football club, LS14 Trust in Seacroft, Chapel FM and CATCH—Community Action To Create Hope—in Harehills, to mention just a few. Every 5 December is International Volunteer Day, so will the Leader of the House consider guaranteeing an annual debate on international volunteers so that we can celebrate in this House the work that volunteers do in our constituencies?
Lucy Powell
This gets raised with me very often because volunteers do enrich our communities and our society. Without them, we would not have the country and the communities we have. I will very much look at the suggestion of an annual debate to celebrate their contribution to our constituencies.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Currently, there is no statutory right for time off work for fertility treatment, which causes so much stress to so many people. Many employers do offer this voluntarily, which I welcome, but does the Leader of the House agree with me and campaigners such as Fertility Matters at Work that it is really important to support people seeking fertility treatment? Can she update us on the timetable for the Employment Rights Bill, so that we have a chance to discuss reproductive health in the workplace?
Lucy Powell
As my hon. Friend will know, I am very sympathetic to the question she asked. It is one of the reasons why I ensured that Members of Parliament could get proxy votes for fertility treatments, which I know many Members will take advantage of. We have the Employment Rights Bill going through Committee at the moment. It will soon be coming back to the House on Report, and I think she should raise these matters during the passage of that Bill.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
My constituents in Barking were delighted to hear the news that the train operator c2c would be brought into public ownership later this year, a decision that will see a more reliable train service. It is currently refurbishing Barking station in my constituency, but the works have suffered delay after delay. Will the Leader of the House seek a statement from the Government about public transport infrastructure that may be affected by their decision to nationalise train operators to reassure my constituents that such refurbishment plans will get done and will be delivered soon?
Lucy Powell
The Government’s plans to take back our railways into public ownership will improve reliability, investment and the passenger experience, so I assure my hon. Friend that those plans will be of great benefit to her constituents in the way she describes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Next week, the commission for palliative care and end of life care will start taking oral and written evidence, and I really hope that Members will ask their specialists and their constituents to participate in that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the commission reports, we have a debate on its findings so that we can optimise palliative and end of life care?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on the important issue of palliative care, which so many in our country rely on at the very worst stage of their lives. I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on these matters, which I know are particularly important to the Secretary of State for Health.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Several homes in my constituency were badly flooded, with more than 500 homes flooded internally across the east midlands. I express my sympathy to all those impacted. It was especially concerning to hear about the verbal abuse directed towards flood wardens, who work exceptionally hard to protect their communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable? Will she ensure that the House considers how best to protect these fantastic volunteers?
Lucy Powell
It is completely unacceptable that volunteers acting as flood wardens in these difficult times are on the wrong end of abuse from anybody. I will ensure that these matters are raised in government and that we send a strong signal that it will not be tolerated and that action will be taken against the perpetrators.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Thirty years on from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, there are still train stations in my constituency that are not fully accessible, including Burntisland and Cowdenbeath stations. This creates unacceptable daily barriers for disabled people, families with prams and buggies and those with heavy luggage. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need support from the Access for All fund and action from Network Rail, Transport Scotland and ScotRail so that stations are made accessible? Will she make time for a debate on railway accessibility?
Lucy Powell
Accessibility on our railways is raised many times with me in these sessions and across the House. Let us be honest: the accessibility of many of our stations, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is deeply inadequate for those with buggies, in wheelchairs or whatever else. The Rail Minister is carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme, but I will ensure that the House is regularly updated.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Establishing joined-up health hubs in towns such as Saltash and Liskeard could bring routine services from across the Tamar closer to home, easing pressure on Derriford hospital. While recent debates have addressed broader rural healthcare issues, will the Leader of the House provide Government time to discuss how integrated, localised healthcare can better serve rural communities by relocating routine patient care from hospitals to community settings?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend knows that we inherited a national health service on its knees, as she describes. As part of our mission and our endeavours to turn that around, she will know that getting care back into communities, early intervention, prevention and primary services are critical, and I hope that will better serve her constituents in the future.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituent Angie has raised with me the serious issue of shortages of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication. Her son is struggling in school, and he is not the only one, as the shortages have been affecting the country since 2023. Can the Leader of the House set out the Government’s position on this issue and how we can ensure that this medication is made available?
Lucy Powell
The Department of Health and Social Care is working hard with industry and NHS England to help resolve the supply issues with ADHD medicines, which is a global problem. I will ensure that he and the House are updated on any progress.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
In March last year, Members discussed the need for improved personal protective equipment for women, an issue brought forward during the pandemic. Arco Professional Safety Services, which has a safety training centre in my constituency, recognised the need and told me during a recent visit that it is trialling women’s sizes as standard. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to debate legislating for the mandatory provision of women-specific and inclusive PPE?
Lucy Powell
Despite great progress in recent decades, we are all still well aware that too many products in the world are designed by men, for men, and we still need to address some of those issues. I am sure it would make a very good topic for a debate.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Conservative council that ran Barnet for 20 years left Hendon’s roads in a dreadful state with terrible potholes and pavements. Since it was elected, the Labour council that took over has been investing record amounts in tackling the large backlog that the Conservatives left. I am pleased that the Government this week announced that they would invest £1.6 billion in fixing potholes this year. That is a huge increase over the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on how we can put our foot down and drive forward the Government’s plans as quickly as possible to help motorists in Hendon?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right. We have a plan to fix the potholes of this country, with huge investment going in. We want councils, such as Hendon, to get on with using those funds to fix the problem of potholes.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Unregulated and uninsured souped-up electric scooters have been a real source of antisocial behaviour in Derby. Our police and crime commissioner Nicolle Ndiweni-Roberts has been working with Derbyshire constabulary to clamp down on illegal e-scooters, seizing and disposing of more than 200 since November. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Home Office Minister and a Transport Minister meet me and other Members who have been raising such concerns to ensure that we are pushing forward with regulation and enforcement in relation to e-scooters?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I know blights many communities. We are taking action to deal with e-scooters, making it easier for those vehicles to be seized where necessary, and other measures are coming to tackle antisocial behaviour as well.
Middle East
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, I will update the House on the deal announced between Israel and Hamas. Last night, US President Biden and Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani confirmed that negotiators had reached an agreement. While we await political approval for the text, the agreement is expected to come into force shortly after midday Israel time on Sunday 19 January.
After months of despair, there is now hope; a glimmer of light in the darkness; a darkness that had seemed all-consuming since Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. I am sure that the whole House remembers the agony as we learned the full horror of what had unfolded and the grief as we mourned those who were lost. For the hostage families, the agony has gone on and on. Members across the House will have met many of them, including the relatives of British citizen Emily Damari, and Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifschitz and Avinatan Or. I know that we have families with us in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute once again to them for their bravery, humanity and commitment to bringing the hostages home.
I invite the House to join me in remembering those murdered in captivity, including Nadav Popplewell and Yossi Sharabi. May their memories be a blessing.
I say to all those now waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them: we are with you in the days and weeks ahead. In Gaza today, civilians will be waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them. I say to them, too: we are with you as you begin to rebuild your lives.
After 15 months of conflict, the level of suffering defies belief. Gazans have truly been trapped in hell on earth—over 46,000 killed, so many children’s lives extinguished, schools, hospitals and homes destroyed, and hunger and disease. Almost 2 million have been forced to flee their homes, with northern Gaza cut off from the rest of the strip. A generation have been scarred by the savagery of war.
Among the victims was Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl killed alongside members of her family and the paramedics who came to rescue her. Among the victims were many journalists dedicated to documenting the horrors around them. Among the victims were aid workers dedicated to serving others, including British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby. I invite the House to join me in remembering them all. We mourn every innocent victim of this appalling war.
Beyond Israel and Gaza, the conflict has brought yet more tensions and conflict into the wider region, with unprecedented Iranian attacks, a renewed conflict in Lebanon and Houthi strikes in the Red sea and into Israel. At times, our own communities—and indeed this House—have been divided by this war. This is a moment of hope for us all, to unite in support of this ceasefire.
The agreement as negotiated has three stages. In the first six-week phase we expect that both parties will stop fighting. Thirty-three of the hostages will be freed: children, women, those over 50 and the wounded. Israel will start to redeploy to the edge of the strip. Palestinians will return to what is left of their homes. The Rafah crossing will reopen. Israel will allow 600 truckloads of aid into Gaza each day. On the 16th day, negotiations will begin on the detail of the second phase. In the second six-week phase, the male hostages under 50 will be released. Israel will complete its withdrawal from Gaza, and there will be a permanent ceasefire. Finally, a third phase will see the return of the bodies of any remaining hostages and the lifting of economic restrictions on Gaza.
As President Biden said, the elements of this deal were endorsed by the United Nations Security Council last May. It has taken tireless efforts to reach the agreement of both sides, with reports of final talks this week lasting an intense 96 hours. I congratulate all those who have contributed to getting to this stage: in particular, His Highness the Emir of Qatar and Prime Minister Al Thani; Egyptian President Sisi and Foreign Minister Abdelatty; and President Biden and Secretary Blinken, as well as President-elect Trump. The UK has been supporting them throughout.
From day one in office, the Government have pressed at every stage for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages, to get more aid into Gaza and to open up a path to lasting peace. I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the third time as Foreign Secretary just a few days ago, meeting Foreign Minister Sa’ar, President Abbas and hostage families, to press for an end to this war and a plan for the future.
We have also played a leading role in the humanitarian effort, restarting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, funding field hospitals that have treated more than 300,000 Gazans, and providing more than £100 million in support to the Palestinians this financial year. I pay tribute to Foreign Office Ministers in the last Government for their work to deliver aid to Gaza. Now I am in this role, I know how hard they worked. That intense effort must continue in the days and weeks ahead.
Much remains to be done. It is critical that there is final approval of the agreement. As the Israeli Cabinet meet, I urge them to back this deal. Now is not the time for any backtracking. Both sides must implement each phase of the deal in full and on time. The history of this conflict is littered with missed opportunities. It would be a tragedy to let slip the chance before us—we must grab it with both hands. It is the chance not just for a ceasefire but for a lasting peace, and to break the cycle of violence that has inflicted so much suffering on innocent people on both sides.
The Government are committed to sustaining momentum, however fragile the process at first may be. Every hostage must be released, as set out in the agreement. Every ounce of aid promised to Gaza must reach those in need. I am sending my representative for humanitarian affairs to the region, to work closely with aid agencies, the Israeli Government and our partners to deliver on these promises.
Palestinians must also be free to return to their homes and, crucially, they will need to rebuild: rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives and rebuild their communities. They cannot possibly do that on their own. They need to feel safe and they need the international community to deliver the funds they will require. The UK had already begun to convene partners on the financing and co-ordination of recovery and reconstruction. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, with the access and security to get to people all that they need.
The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play. We want donors to support its plans for recovery, and I discussed that with President Abbas on Monday. We are providing technical and financial assistance to the PA, including to support the urgent recovery of basic services. Working with the Palestinian Authority and civil society will help lay the groundwork for an inclusive Palestinian governance in Gaza. That is the best way to re-establish local order and security. It is therefore a crucial first step in achieving not only better lives for Palestinians but a future for Gaza no longer under the control of Hamas.
Ultimately, it will take time to rebuild Gaza and rebuild trust between the two sides. I must warn the House that there are risks at every turn. But we must try to use the agreement to establish a credible pathway to a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, dignity and justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike. The decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be managed; it must now be resolved.
We are not yet there and there is much negotiating still to do. As we debate in this House, fighting continues. The agreement awaits full political approval. The hostage families wait for the hostages to come home. Gazans wait for the horrors to be lifted. However, we must still recognise the significance of this moment. It has been long-awaited—frankly, it has taken far too long—and I sincerely hope it is now the basis for progress: progress on bringing the hostages home, progress on bringing relief, reconstruction and hope to long-suffering civilians, and progress towards a two-state solution with Palestinians and Israelis living in peace and security; a better future for all. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
All Members recognise the fragile and sensitive nature of the current situation. There is a long road ahead at one of the most important moments for the middle east, which we all hope will usher in a sustainable end to the dreadful conflict in Gaza. It is a conflict that we should never forget was triggered by the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October 2023—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
We have in our thoughts today the victims of that appalling massacre: those who lost their lives, including the hostages murdered in captivity, and those whose lives have been changed forever. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginable cruelty at the hands of Hamas. Even in the midst of that unimaginable pain and anxiety, the families of those held hostage have kept the torch burning for their loved ones, with publicity highlighting their plight with such resilience and tremendous bravery.
We are joined in the House today by the families of hostages who we know will not be eligible for immediate release. I recently met Emily Damari’s mother Mandy and Dani Miran, whose son Omri is also in captivity. We all pay tribute to them all for their unceasing campaign to secure the release of their loved ones and all those in captivity. This will, of course, be a time of great emotions for them—mixed emotions—and in the coming weeks, we must continue to wrap our arms around those hostage families.
Like the Foreign Secretary, I acknowledge the important role of Qatar, Egypt and the United States in getting us to where we are today in these talks. We will all follow these developments closely in the days ahead, and we will expect the UK Government to be fully engaged and involved in the heavy lifting that is required at this crucial time to make this agreement work and last.
To that end, can the Foreign Secretary to tell the House specifically what role the UK Government have played in these negotiations and about their contribution to reaching this agreement? Can he give assurances that the UK will help Israel in any way possible to support the safe return of the hostages, which will be so critical in ensuring that the agreement endures? Can he inform the House—it may yet be too early—whether any of the Palestinian prisoners being released were responsible for the death or injury of British nationals, and about the steps being put in place to manage the potential risk of dangerous individuals being set free? On the question of humanitarian aid to Gaza, what work has he undertaken to unpick the awful bottlenecks that we have seen over months and months, while we have seen innocent civilians suffer? Will civilians now receive the vital aid that we have been told will get through to bring essential relief to communities across Gaza?
On the future governance of Gaza, we have so far heard little about the “day after” plan, but this is extremely important; I know the Foreign Secretary will come back to this House in due course, but I would welcome his thoughts on the matter. Is it the Foreign Secretary’s position that Hamas must have no role in the future of Gaza? We want to see an end to the brutality with which they have conducted themselves. Does he agree that if the Palestinian Authority do indeed assume responsibility in Gaza, in order to have an enduring and lasting peace, they must undertake the most comprehensive reform in their history, with serious shifts not just in their behaviour but on education and welfare, and that they must bring the course of democracy through to the end that we would like to see? Has he this week delivered that unambiguous message to the Palestinian leadership?
The right people must be involved to ensure that solid foundations are put in place on which Gaza can rebuild and to ensure a lasting, better future so that every generation can live their lives in peace, with the opportunities that have been denied to them for too long. In the days ahead, our focus needs to be on securing the release of the hostages, getting the aid into Gaza and working for that lasting peace.
However, there are some related points that the Foreign Secretary will also need to consider. On Israel, for example, that includes whether the changes to the approach on the International Criminal Court arrest warrants will happen and what should happen from the Government’s position; it also includes the arrangements for the future reconstruction of Gaza. He has just touched on this, but what contribution does he think the United Kingdom should make? His thoughts would be welcome. There are many complexities here. Will he also commit to inserting the UK’s enthusiastic approach to fresh discussions on the Abraham accords and the role that will play in the peace, stability and prosperity in the region?
Finally, we have seen for over a year the world’s only Jewish state being ruthlessly attacked from all sides, from the Hamas terrorists in Gaza to the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, from which Iranian-linked militias in Iraq have been directing their course of action, while Iran and its proxies have used innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields without any care for their welfare or wellbeing. We need to know that this Government will step up when it comes to addressing the root causes, which rest in Tehran. The Government, the international community and all of us will want a robust strategy towards Iran if we are to build a lasting and sustainable peace in the middle east.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks and for her tone. Doing this role, one understands the effort that one’s predecessors have put in, so I want to put on the record once again that the right hon. Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and Lord Cameron, before me, made tremendous efforts on behalf of the UK Government to get us to this point. I know that they, like me, will sincerely wish that we could have reached this point sooner. This is indeed a day on which we can be grateful for the UK’s diplomacy in getting us to this point.
The right hon. Lady asks about the role that the UK has played. She will know that it was quite right that Qatar and Egypt, with their proximity to Hamas, should be central in bringing about the ceasefire; and that the United States, with its particular relationship with Israel, should also stand alongside them. But she will know, because of our complex foreign policy relationship with all those parties, the tremendous effort that UK diplomats have put in to get us to this path. Indeed, I was with them in Israel and in the occupied territories on Monday this week.
It was very important to be with British hostage families in particular, to assure them and counsel them that my judgment was that we would get to this point, as fragile as it is—I want to emphasise the fragility—at this time, but also to be in the occupied territories, the west bank and east Jerusalem, to spend time with President Abbas, to discuss with him what now needs to happen in Gaza in terms of its reconstruction and the reform that the right hon. Lady rightly emphasises is essential for the Palestinian Authority.
The right hon. Lady knows that we have Sir Michael Barber working with the Palestinian Authority to lift up that capacity in the reforms that will be necessary to play that role—alongside others, clearly—in Gaza. When I think of others, I think about the international community as well, but alongside them it is important that the UK plays its part. I will come back to the subject of reconstruction in a moment.
The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have provided £112 million in this financial year, including £41 million specifically for UNRWA. We want to see the number of trucks increase and the figure that has been set in the ceasefire agreement met. I will say this, though: the situation will require proper governance in Gaza if we are to achieve that. At the moment, we have gangs. There is a possibility, as the space opens up, that actually we will get an increase in gangs and less aid to the people who need it. This is the first phase of the deal. There will still be hostages left after the first phase and into the second phase, and potentially into the third phase. We know that able men are not part of the first phase. They need humanitarian aid at this time and hostage families press me to ensure that their loved ones are getting access to that humanitarian aid. So this is a fragile moment and the UK is pressing for a political process, because only a political process will get not just the ceasefire, but the long-term stability that means Gazans can truly rebuild their lives.
The right hon. Lady talks about a “day after” plan. The UK is ready to play a leading role in this process, with international and regional partners. It should be predicated on tangible progress, in our view, towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the west bank united under one Government. The Palestinian Authority’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security both for Gazans and for Israel, and Israel’s security will be fundamental if we are to bring this to an end. That will take intense negotiation and discussion. There clearly will be an important role for the international community in the coming days but, in this fragile moment of phase 1, if we are to complete phase 3 then we will need that intensity in terms of negotiation. My view is very clear: there cannot be a role for Hamas. The terrorism must come to an end. Trust has to be rebuilt. There cannot be a role for Hamas.
Only with that candle that we keep alight for a two-state solution can we actually reach the normalisation that is at the heart of any building on the Abraham accords and the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel that can bring a lot of prosperity for people in the middle east.
The right hon. Lady is right that Iran remains a malign force. This week, British diplomats were discussing with Iran its nuclear programme and what needs to happen if we are not to see the snapback of our sanctions as a consequence of the joint comprehensive plan of action later this year. We will do all that we can diplomatically. This is the moment when the Iranians need to step up and do the right thing, and I know that is acutely in the minds of the incoming US Administration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and support every word that he has said.
No one wants a ceasefire more than I do. I cannot describe the tears that I and others in the House have shed for all the innocent civilians who have been murdered and maimed. I cannot think what the families of the hostages are going through, and, to be honest, I do not want to think of what the hostages themselves have endured. But the ceasefire is far from certain, the peace following it is far from certain, and the two-state solution is very far from certain. What is certain is that on 28 January the Knesset’s legislation that effectively bans UNRWA comes into force, and I am unable to see how the aid, the stability, the health systems and the schools can be implemented if that happens. My Committee will publish a report on this subject tomorrow, but can the Foreign Secretary speak now about what he is doing to urge Israel to ensure that that legislation does not come into force and that aid can flood in where it is needed?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her endeavours on these issues on behalf her Committee, and on behalf of this country. She is right that colleagues in all parts of the House, in this Parliament and the last, have shed tears about this most heartbreaking of conflicts. In my 25 years in the House, I have not seen such emotion from UK parliamentarians in relation to this central challenge.
As for the position of the UK Government, in the midst of this conflict, when there are so many children out of school, so many children orphaned and so many hospitals lying in rubble, when there is disease and famine, we cannot see how there cannot be a role for the central UN agency at this time if this peace is to hold. On Monday, I made that point to the Israeli Government again. Along with my French and German colleagues, I wrote to the Israeli Foreign Minister, making that point and pressing him on the winterisation plan that we believe must be implemented. The clock is ticking down to that Knesset legislation. What we do not want is the undermining of the peace that begins on Sunday by that legislation just a few days into its passing.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
This ceasefire is welcomed by all who have watched with horror as the suffering that began on 7 October 2023 has worsened for so many, and I add my thanks to all those who have worked so hard to deliver it. I am thinking today of the Palestinians and Israelis I have met whose lives have been torn apart by this conflict, and to whom this news brings a moment of hope; of the British families of Israeli hostages who continue to live with uncertainty and fear about the fate of their loved ones; and of the Palestinians whose daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have lost their lives and homes. The priority must now be ensuring that humanitarian assistance floods into Gaza, and that all possible efforts are made to secure the release of the remaining hostages. I urge the Foreign Secretary to do everything in his power—as he has just said—to persuade Israel not to implement the Knesset’s resolution on UNRWA, which would do so much harm and would undermine the progress that is being made.
I am grateful today for the fact that a deal has been reached, but I am also angry that it has taken so long. In the months of delay, there has been no relief for the hostage families. So many more lives have been lost, and so much more destruction has been visited on people in Gaza, including further deaths even since the ceasefire deal was announced. The blocks to progress have been extremists on both sides, the terrorists in Hamas and the supporters of annexation in the Israeli Cabinet: people who do not want peace, but want to erase another population from the land. So I ask the Foreign Secretary these questions.
Will the UK Government isolate the extremists and empower the majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want peace? Will he commit the UK to working tirelessly for a lasting peace through a two-state solution with a recognised Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders? Will he redouble efforts in diplomacy and through financial measures against the backers and enablers of Hamas to cut off their funds? Will he now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will he spell out to the Governments of Israel and the United States that settler violence and illegal annexation in the west bank must stop, and will the UK Government now recognise the Palestinian state?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tone and for raising those issues. He is right about UNRWA. As I have said, this first phase is a critical period, and I believe that withdrawing UNRWA would destabilise it. I would ask Israel to think very carefully about how we can achieve a surge in humanitarian aid if that is the direction of travel.
There are extremists on both sides. The hon. Gentleman is right. This deal was substantially on the table last May, put down by President Biden. It has taken a Herculean effort. It is important that President-elect Trump was there to apply pressure to get the deal over the line, and I think that all of us in the House would applaud the bipartisan spirit of envoys from both the current and future Administrations of the United States in Qatar over the last few days to get it over the line. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Israeli Security Cabinet is meeting over the next few hours to decide whether to proceed with this deal. He knows, as a politician, that there are politicians currently in the Government of Israel who are threatening to resign and bring down that Government, so he knows how fragile this moment is—I urge our friends in the Israeli Government to do the right thing and get this deal over the line now—and he knows, too, that we applaud the work of Egypt and Qatar and their mediation with Hamas, but there have been problems between those outside Gaza associated with Hamas and those inside Gaza associated with Hamas, and that makes this first phase delicate as well.
Of course, we want to see a two-state solution. My party is committed to Palestinian recognition at the right point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the challenges on the west bank. The unravelling of UNRWA would make the west bank even more fragile than it currently is. I was there on Monday, and security issues, expansion and settler violence all got worse in 2024—it is the worst year on record for violence and expansion. There is much to do.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank everybody who has been involved in getting us to where we are now. I appreciate how fragile it is, but it is still fantastic news. I particularly want to commend the dignity and grace of the Palestinian and Israeli families who have lost loved ones or are waiting for news about them. I wonder what lessons we can learn from them, in terms of their commitment to peace, their recognition of our common humanity and their desire to live alongside each other in peace.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has been on this issue day after day; I cannot think of a colleague who has pressed me more on it. She is right to centre the families on both sides and their dignity and grace, and these historic peoples, all of whom want a home, all of whom want security and all of whom have been horribly affected by this most horrendous of wars. Our responsibility to them is to continue to press for the political process that gets us to the two-state solution that we all know is the only way to achieve lasting peace.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I think the Foreign Secretary has spoken for the whole House today with his tone. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be four-square behind the Israeli Government in their right to defend themselves and defeat Hamas and at the same time to care about the suffering of the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary use his charm or whatever influence he has on the incoming Trump Administration to persuade them to use their power to convince the Israeli Government that these illegal new settlements in the west bank must stop, and the pressure on the Palestinian people in the west bank must stop, because it is fuelling a sense of despair and future extremism?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his tremendous experience in the House to bear. He is absolutely right. He will be pleased to know that when I discussed these issues with President Abbas on Monday, he was complimentary about the conversation he had had with President-elect Trump on these matters, and of course, he has an existing relationship with President-elect Trump. That left me very hopeful indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman is right: the expansion particularly undermines the 1967 settlement, and it makes it very difficult to achieve the two-state solution. Those who try to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution are saying that their belief is either in no state at all, which is entirely unacceptable, or it is in one state, in which case they had better get on and ensure equality for all.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible bravery of the hostage families. We are joined in the House by the families of Tal Shoham, Nimrod Cohen, Ohad Yahalomi, Omri Miran and Shay Levinson. I met with them this morning. Their suffering continues—the uncertainty, the sleepless nights—while they wait for a final deal and to know whether their loved ones will be coming home. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary give to them and to the House that the UK will do everything in its power to make sure that their loved ones come home, that all UK-related hostages come home as a matter of priority and that all hostages come home as soon as possible, to end their suffering?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of hostages. I pay tribute to the 17 British nationals killed since the abhorrent attack on 7 October. Our hope is that three of the UK and UK-linked hostages will be released in the first phase, as they fall into the criteria for that release, which we anticipate will be agreed later today. Of course, it is our sincere hope that as we get to the second and third phases, all hostages will be released.
We continue to work with all UK-linked hostage families. I was with many on Monday, and our representatives and diplomats have been in touch with them overnight and in the last few days. This is the most difficult of times, as they wait to see the fate of their loved ones. My hon. Friend will recognise that there was fighting yesterday, in which nine Israel Defence Forces soldiers lost their lives, there was fighting this morning, and it is likely that there will be fighting right up to the ceasefire on Sunday. This is the most challenging of moments, as those hostage families wait and, in the coming days and weeks, pray that their loved ones are returned.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I would like to put on record my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for his kind words about the work that was done prior to his party forming a Government. I echo the praise that he has given to the US State Department and the Egyptian and Qatari Foreign Ministers for the work they have done to get this deal over the line, but as he said, it is not there yet, so I want to ask two things. To ensure that the hostages are released promptly, what can we do to make sure this deal gets over the line? Sadly, we have seen too much aid diverted away from the Palestinian people in Gaza and used to facilitate attacks against Israelis, so what will the Department do to ensure as best it can that the aid gets to the people who need it and is not used to murder Israelis?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman centres the important work of the United Kingdom in relation to humanitarian aid in particular at this time. He will know that in order for the aid to get in, we have to have security. He will also know that there is a critical role for the United Nations, which can achieve about 250 trucks. It is my sincere hope that Israel is able to restart the use of commercial organisations to increase that number even further, but he will recognise that this presents a massive challenge, as has been set out by the head of UNRWA and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
The challenge is that this is taking place against a backdrop of huge displacement of Gazans over this time and of gangs roaming the streets, so there is a worry that they could get access to the aid as the space opens up. There is a lot to do, and how we achieve that security with the Israelis withdrawing and how Gulf states get the confidence to step in and begin reconstruction—they do not want to put money in if it will all be torn down a few weeks or months later—is critical. The UK has said that we are ready to play that role on the day after and in reconstruction. We want to work alongside the region and the United States to co-ordinate and build that. He will also know that while a lot of emphasis was placed on the ceasefire, when it comes to what happens next, there is much, much more to do and negotiate.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary said, today there are the first embers of hope after what has felt like perpetual agony for the people of Israel and Palestine. He mentioned that Gazans have been trapped in hell on earth, and it has been a living nightmare for the families of the hostages. I know that the Foreign Secretary and his team will not rest until we see all the hostages released and a ceasefire taking full effect. He spoke of the uncertainty around the path ahead. What more can the UK Government do to play our role in working towards the shared goal of a two-state solution, and when will be the right time for us to recognise a sovereign state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
We hold out that a two-state solution must be the way forward. We believe that normalising relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia is key, and that there must be Palestinian component. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside President-elect Trump and his team in the coming days to hopefully bring that about.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks and applaud his expression of cautious optimism? It is cautious because the agony of the hostages continues and the urgent need for a quantum increase in humanitarian aid remains unrequited. The deal must be implemented in good faith, and I very much welcome his comment that Hamas can never again govern that space. I pay tribute to his diplomats and officials for their extraordinary hard work and effectiveness, and I underline that Britain has a very important role to play in what comes next. Will he bear in mind that abject devastation can lead to unforeseen breakthroughs? Following the Yom Kippur war, we saw Israel make peace with Egypt, and significant progress was made on the Oslo accords following the intifada.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman brings to bear his tremendous experience of these issues, which has been built up over many years and many different roles in Government and beyond. He is right to focus on the fact that Hamas cannot play a role, but he probably agrees with me. I never believed, as some in the Israeli Government did, that they could eradiate Hamas solely by military force. What eradicates extremism is diplomacy, a political solution and a political horizon that pulls the rug from under the terrorists. That is why it is hugely important that the UK now plays its full role in reaching a political solution and a political horizon that brings about peace, not another generation of militant young men with terrorism and pain in their hearts.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I have dared to feel some hope that this ceasefire could be the beginning of the end of Israel’s 15 months of pain and suffering since the appalling Hamas attacks, and the end of 15 months in which the entire population of Gaza has wondered day in, day out whether they will survive another day of bombing.
The humanitarian situation is dire. Staff at the Al-Awda hospital, the only partially functioning hospital in the north of Gaza, report that they have been entirely cut off from aid supplies. The long-awaited and so far failed flood of aid is absolutely necessary, but the success of aid efforts must be measured not just by how many trucks get in, essential as that is, but by how many lives are ultimately protected and saved. What urgent measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that that is the case?
Mr Lammy
Half a million people in Gaza have received essential healthcare as a result of UK funding, and it was very important to support UK-Med when we came into office. Over 600,000 young people in Gaza have received food as a result of our efforts, but there is a tremendous amount to do, as my hon. Friend knows. The threat to UNRWA could thwart these efforts in the coming days. It is about how we get the number of truckloads up, how we deliver security for the Gazan people and how people can return to their homes, which is now the hope. But she will understand that many of them are returning to rubble. Actually, they are returning to camps in the surrounds of their homes, and they will need aid and support for many, many years, and probably for decades to come.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As we hope for this ceasefire deal and for the release of the hostages, we continue to mourn all of those who have been killed since the vicious terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023. In that respect, my mind is very much with the six little babies who did not see this proposal because they froze to death in Gaza just a few short weeks ago. The collective punishment of the Palestinian people will not be forgotten by history, just as all of those who sat silent, and who encouraged and armed extremists in the Israeli Government, will be judged by history. The ceasefire deal is not yet certain; it has been widely reported this morning that the Israeli Cabinet has not yet signed it off. Can the Secretary of State please elaborate on what the consequences would be if either Hamas or, indeed, the Israeli Government reneged on this deal?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour party has always stressed the seriousness of Israel’s security in the toughest of neighbourhoods, because Iran and its proxies have so much malign intent. But we have always insisted that what it does must be within international humanitarian law, and we have raised our concerns at every turn when we have felt that it is being breached. As the Israeli Cabinet meets to approve the deal at this most serious of moments, it is my sincere hope that they hear what President-elect Trump has said about his expectations of this deal, that they hear the expectations of this united House of Commons, and that they do the right thing.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary rightly says that we must use this agreement to establish a pathway to a two-state solution. Steps along that pathway were set out in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that was handed down last July, and they would provide the reassurance and security to allow for reconstruction in Gaza. When will the Government publish their response to that opinion?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work over the last few months to focus on the plight of people in Gaza. I know that he has tremendous legal expertise in these matters, and I assure him that this issue is being studied in depth by the appropriate legal minds in Government. We hope to be able to say more when that process is complete.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Every Friday since 7 October, many people have gathered in Borehamwood, in the heart of my constituency, with a simple message: “Bring them home.” May I urge the Foreign Secretary to use all the diplomatic efforts of His Majesty’s Government to bring that vision to bear? The first thing to do is to secure agreement from the Israeli Cabinet. As he says, the deal could go wrong at each stage of the process. Can we keep a focus on bringing the hostages home? If we have an enduring ceasefire, as we all hope and pray, will he update the House on the role that our friends and allies in the Gulf states can play in rebuilding Gaza? That will be crucial in ensuring that peace endures.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the experience of his constituency to bear. We have a family of constituencies in north London where a candle has been lit for the hostages every single Friday, including in the Stamford Hill area of my constituency, which he knows is one of the historical homes of the Jewish community, many having migrated to Borehamwood and Hertfordshire over the years.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right to mention the importance of the Gulf states. They can do so much for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Gaza. They can do so much to support a rehabilitated and reformed Palestinian Authority. They can do so much to support the monitoring and security arrangements that will need to be put in place if Israel is to be assured that it can withdraw and that Hamas will not attack again.
We should remember the rocket fire that Israel has experienced over many, many years, including, of course, the attack on 7 October. There is a key role for the Gulf states, but they will not take up that role unless there is renewed and continued negotiation beyond phase 1, which begins in 16 days’ time. They will need a political horizon, too.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I welcome the ceasefire, after 15 months of relentless bombing of hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and women and children. For the ceasefire to last, it is important that Israel is compelled to recognise that Palestinians have a right to freedom, justice and self-determination.
What steps are being taken to thicken the thin layer of ice on which this ceasefire agreement is skating? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what steps are being taken to negotiate a two-state solution, which goes to the heart and root cause of this problem, and to ensure that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lammy
I am conscious of how many Members are on their feet. I will attempt to go a little quicker.
The Palestinian cause is a just cause. A two-state solution is where we have to be. A political process is necessary. I will play my full part, and I reassured President Abbas that we will do that over the coming days and weeks.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We live in hope of a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. However, we cannot forget everything that has come before: the mass atrocities on 7 October were followed by 15 months of destruction waged against Gaza’s civilians by the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary mentioned how we eradicate extremism. Extremism is also eradicated by justice. Only justice can redress crime. What steps is he taking to support the International Court of Justice and the ICC to hold all perpetrators of war crimes to account? Will he publish the full record of the UK’s political and military involvement in the conflict so far?
Mr Lammy
We have always been clear about the importance of international humanitarian law, and we have always been clear about the importance of its being determined by international courts. Let me be crystal clear: many men and women from this country died in the second world war to achieve the settlement that gave us international humanitarian law and the architecture on which we all rely. It is for that reason that the Labour party will never renege on our responsibilities in relation to international humanitarian law.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the Houthis and their attacks. We must not forget that peace in the region will come about only if the Yemenis receive the same privilege as the Palestinians. There has to be a peace solution for the Yemenis.
A two-state solution has also been mentioned. My constituents and I believe that these are only warm words. I do not believe that this Government will recognise Palestine as a state in this Parliament. Can the Foreign Secretary prove me wrong?
Mr Lammy
The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is currently travelling to New York to meet the Yemeni Foreign Minister to discuss these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) is absolutely right about the Houthis. Their horrendous behaviour, sabotaging international trade and killing people in the Red sea, is entirely unacceptable.
This will be very interesting. Now that we have this ceasefire, will the Houthis hold to it in the Red sea? We will act where we need to, to deal with the problems we are seeing in the Red sea. This is a moment to have hope for those two states, and to keep that alive. With the incoming Trump Administration’s previous commitment to the Abraham accords, I ask my hon. Friend to be hopeful about achieving that full recognition and those two states.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s tone, content and, above all else, caution. There are clearly concerns that Hamas are trying to resile from the commitments they have made in this deal. In fact, overnight, their leader praised the events of 7 October, vowed to keep repeating them until Israel is eliminated and called upon all his followers to continue the fight.
Equally, the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned that part of this deal, as I understand it, will see the release of Palestinian prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist offences. The risk is that they will return and cause more problems. What can he do to ensure that Hamas are eliminated from government in Gaza, so that the Palestinian Authority can take control and ensure that peace is restored to the region? We look forward to the release of the hostages and, indeed, the cessation of hostilities.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that, over this period, we could see up to 1,500 prisoners released. It will be weighing very heavily on the hearts of many Israelis that among those prisoners will be people who have committed murder, and it will weigh heavily on their hearts that those people are returning to Gaza.
Our view is that we need a political process if we are to undermine seasoned terrorists who, by necessity, are swapped to get these hostages out. This is a delicate process. There is a process within Israel in which some of the affected families can object, but the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the balance that has been struck to achieve the hostage deal and the necessary ceasefire over the coming days.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
As a former aid worker, I was in Gaza last April and witnessed the enormity of the horror and destruction for Palestinians there. The scale of the human trauma of the last 15 months is a gaping wound on the conscience of the world—Israeli babies held hostage, some 20,000 Palestinian children killed.
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he agrees that it is desperately important that this ceasefire agreement holds and goes ahead, and that the deal is implemented in full, including the reconstruction of Gaza. He is absolutely right. Does he agree that the Palestinians of Gaza, including my friends and former colleagues Mahmoud, Mohammed, Moe, Fikr, Wasim and so many others displaced within and outside Gaza, must have free movement to return to their homes—or what is left of them—and that this must include the reopening of the Rafah crossing?
Mr Lammy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, I know, has lost friends and colleagues over the course of the past 15 months. I also pay tribute to her for her work before coming to this place and for her work now. The Rafah crossing with Egypt must open. That is part of this deal, and it will allow 2.3 million displaced civilians to return home on foot via a coastal road. My hon. Friend, I know, recognises the tremendous medical support that is still necessary across the country; there are many, many children without parents. May I say personally that, as a parent of an adopted child, I am particularly concerned about the many orphans and about how we provide for them in the coming days and months.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Let me place on record my appreciation and gratitude to all the nations—especially Qatar—that have participated in securing this deal. Last year, I, along with Members from both Houses, was in Qatar during the Doha forum. We all know that there have been many deals and ceasefires that Israel has withdrawn from, and that, as the Minister quite rightly says, this is a fragile deal. Other than urging Israel, what tangible steps will the Government take to ensure that it sticks to the deal, instead of going back to the mass killings of innocent Palestinians?
Mr Lammy
I was with the Qatari Foreign Minister on Sunday, and we were in touch overnight. I of course thanked him for his tremendous work to get this deal over the line. I think that, while working together over the past few months, we have become friends. There is much that the UK Government can and will continue to do. As I said on the radio last week, diplomacy is failing until it achieves success. The hon. Member will know from his experience and wisdom that success has many fathers and mothers.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of this long overdue ceasefire today. My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones on and since 7 October, the families of hostages anxiously awaiting news, and the tens of thousands of families in Gaza who have suffered bereavement, displacement and destitution. My thoughts are also with all those for whom the announcement is bittersweet; I think particularly of Rachel Goldberg—the mother of Hersh Goldberg-Polin—whom I met in East Jerusalem in February. She has campaigned with such dignity for the release of her son, who was tragically killed in August. I think, too, of the families in Gaza who are losing their loved ones even now as this ceasefire is being announced. But while the war has raged in Gaza, the settlers have dramatically increased their activity in the west bank, taking land that does not belong to them in a systematic attempt to undermine the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
As our thoughts now turn to the peace process ahead and the aim of a two-state solution, what action is the Foreign Secretary taking to address illegal settlement? Without a more robust approach, a two-state solution simply cannot be achieved.
Mr Lammy
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? We have worked together over many years. Her constituency, in so many ways, is not dissimilar from mine, and I know how heart-rending this has been for her constituents. I also know the grace, the manner and the fortitude with which she has represented their interests very strongly within the Labour movement.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to centre the west bank, the expansion and the violence that undermines the two-state solution. It was very important for me to be able to discuss these issues with President Abbas. One hugely important role that the UK Government play is in relation to reform and supporting the Palestinian Authority. That work must continue. We stand by the 1967 borders that we think can achieve the two-state solution that is required. We worry about the security situation in the west bank. We worry, too, about the arms and the supplies that are coming in from malign forces, particularly from Iran and some neighbouring states. But we are also in an intense dialogue with the Israeli Government about what we think are breaches of international law in relation to how the area is properly secured and policed. We certainly do not want to see the language, the rhetoric or the behaviour that undermine the possibility of the two-state solution.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The return of hostages and the end of daily massacres of civilians is profoundly to be welcomed. While the Foreign Secretary has attributed much of the work to diplomats, it is obvious that, whatever we think about him, the critical intervention, by all reports, has been that of President-elect Trump. Although he has issued public threats to Hamas, he has quite obviously—again by all reports—outlined a series of consequences and accountabilities to the Israeli Government. Therefore, as we look towards the worsening situation in the west bank, can we find a lesson here for British foreign policy. Talking, as many of us in this House have urged over the past 14 months, does not work. Unless it is followed up with sure and certain consequence and accountability—whether that is bilateral or indeed through international institutions—there will be no movement.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman follows these issues very closely, and has sometimes been a lone voice on his own side. He will know that the Labour Government have had to take very difficult bilateral decisions because of our concerns about breaches of international humanitarian law. My own reflections are that, in some ways, this has been the most challenging of political environments for this conflict, partly because there was an election campaign in the United States for much of 2024. Had we been able to achieve a more bipartisan approach sooner, we might have seen the pressure that was necessary to bring both parties to the deal that we have finally reached. None the less, I am very pleased that the President-elect’s envoy was able to work with Joe Biden’s envoy and bring this deal over the line, but it is fragile and I await the decision that will necessarily come from the Israeli Security Cabinet at this time.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Development and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for all the hard work that they have done both in public and in private to secure today’s attempt at a ceasefire, to bring the hostages home, and to get as much humanitarian aid in as possible? Tom Fletcher, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, has said today that the deal could have been done a year ago, and that the ferocity of the killing by Israel and Hamas has been “a 21st-century atrocity”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be lasting peace in the middle east only if the Israeli Government and the international community treat all lives—a Palestinian child’s life and an Israeli child’s life—as equal?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on these issues both before coming to this place and within the context of his new constituency. I thank him very much for bringing to mind the role of my dear colleagues, the Minister for Development and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). Let me thank also previous colleagues and shadow colleagues with those portfolios. Many of us have played a part to ensure that we get to this end. My hon. Friend is right, too, that there will be time for a lot of reflection on how we got here and why we got here, but the critical thing at this moment is that the ceasefire holds, that we get beyond the first phase to the second phase, and that we get to the third phase. The third phase, it seems to me, can hold only if we have a political process. That is where attention must be paid to bring about a lasting peace.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I echo those who have thanked the Foreign Secretary for the tone that he has taken, and the way in which he has reflected the relief of the whole House that there is at last some hope for the families of the hostages, members of which are here today, and for the population of Gaza. He spoke of the need for a political process to ensure that the deal succeeds, and of the hope that needs to be part of eradicating extremism in the middle east. Does he agree that this is perhaps the appropriate time that he has talked about for holding out hope of a two-state solution, and that now might be the perfect time for the Government to recognise a state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is right that a two-state solution is the only way to a stable peace. She knows, too, that recognition in itself does not achieve that. It has always been my view, and that of important international partners such as France, that this is an important issue. If we are serious, and achieve that political process, recognition might properly be part of it, to cement the two states that are necessary. This Government, and I suspect previous Governments, fully understand the importance of the UK’s role in applying that at the appropriate moment, precisely because we have the distinguished responsibility of having a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that for the next couple of days everybody in this House will hold in their hearts my constituent Sharone, whose father Oded is the oldest hostage we are awaiting news on; we hope to hear some this weekend. Oded is 85. I hold out hope for him, because we do not know what has happened to him. Oded spent his life as a peace activist, campaigning for a two-state solution and driving Gazans to hospital. In the spirit of Oded, and the work that he has done, will the Foreign Secretary work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to offer young Palestinians who urgently need medical help the support that they need here in the UK?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does, and for our friendship over many years. Oded is a retired Israeli journalist who was taken from his home. His wife, Yocheved, was also taken, but she was released in October 2023. Oded’s daughter Sharone is a British national who resides in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and she has tirelessly campaigned for his release. That is what we want to see over the next period. There is a role for our own medical services where appropriate, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary on these issues. My hon. Friend should be reassured that he raised the very same issues with me this week on how we can do more in relation to that matter.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is right that both Israel and Hamas must ensure that the deal is successful and stick to the terms that have been outlined, but as the Foreign Secretary came to this House the Israeli Prime Minister said that he wants to delay a vote in Cabinet because there have been last-minute changes to what Hamas are requiring. Has the Foreign Secretary been briefed on what those perceived changes or accusations are, and could he outline some of them to the House, bearing in mind national security implications? Can he tell the House how he will make it clear to both sides that it is this deal or no deal, and that if they do not get the deal through we will enter a further period of grave instability in the region, and more lives will be lost?
Mr Lammy
Let me be crystal clear: the UK Government’s position is that the deal is now final and needs to be implemented. I urge colleagues in the Israeli Government to do the right thing in the hours available before Sunday, and get on and sign off the deal.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Israel denied that it was holding Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of Kamal Adwan hospital, only to confirm that it had in fact detained him. There are reports that he is currently being tortured in prison. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that the history of this conflict is littered with missed opportunities. Can he take this opportunity clearly to condemn Israel’s indefinite incommunicado detention of Palestinians, en masse and without charge or trial? What action are the Government taking, in the light of the ceasefire offer on the table, regarding their close ally’s pattern of deadly attacks on healthcare, which is clearly part of an intention to destroy and degrade Palestinians as a group?
Mr Lammy
We have raised those issues with the Israeli Government, and did so through the Christmas period. We recognise that there is pain, and that there are concerns about international humanitarian law, but all of us in this House have a responsibility to do all that we can to bridge the divides if we are to ensure that the deal holds and the people of Gaza get the respite for which I know the hon. Lady has been campaigning for many months.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome this ceasefire agreement, and like colleagues across the House, I fervently hope that the Israeli Cabinet will approve it, but I think we all recognise that, while the ceasefire may bring an end to the current extremes of violence, it will not end the conflict. A number of conditions need to be met for lasting peace, so will the Foreign Secretary set out a timetable for UK recognition of the state of Palestine, and the concrete steps that he will take to end the occupation and ensure that all those who have committed war crimes are held fully accountable?
Mr Lammy
I cannot set out a timetable because the UK Government alone cannot be responsible for a timetable that will necessarily involve the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority, our friends in the United States, and Arab partners particularly. It will not be possible for me to set out a timetable on these issues, but I ask the hon. Lady to have faith. I sat down with President Abbas this week to discuss these very issues. On the question that she rightly raises of accountability, that must be a necessary matter for our international courts. I have set out from this Dispatch Box why we in this party hold dear the importance of international humanitarian law.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I applaud the Foreign Secretary for today’s very welcome statement. While bricks and mortar are crucial to rebuilding Gaza, what more can he say about investing in the democratic, judicial and security institutions to underpin the movement towards a possible two-state solution?
Mr Lammy
The United Kingdom has unique capability and experience in governance issues particularly. We have unique partnerships with not just Israel but the Palestinian Authority and Arab partners, and of course the special relationship with the United States, so we are uniquely positioned for the next phase. I look forward to discussing these issues with the incoming Secretary of State Senator Rubio in the coming months to see what more the United Kingdom can do.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and express hope that the ceasefire is agreed and implemented and that the humanitarian aid we want to see follows on from it? In that light, does he share my concern about the evidence that UNRWA has been penetrated by Hamas and that the curriculum in schools run by UNRWA has propagated hate? Does he agree that the job of reform of UNRWA has not yet been finished and needs to be looked at so that UNRWA does not act as a place where terrorists can hide and hate can be promoted?
Mr Lammy
I was horrified by the allegations against UNRWA, and it was entirely proper and appropriate that the United Nations got someone of eminence and importance to look at those issues. I know Madame Colonna, and I spoke to her following her review. In re-establishing funding to UNRWA, we gave £1 million to the UN to assist the implementation of her plan. The hon. Member is right that the process is not yet complete, but we heard again this morning from United Nations representatives that they are reassured that the process is under way and that UNRWA cannot and can never be a hiding place for those who commit terrorism.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the issue of the recognition of the state of Palestine, because I agree we have to maintain momentum of hope for all concerned? Although he cannot give us a timeline today, could he set out the criteria that the Government will use to judge that the time is right for the recognition of the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend will know that, in some ways, this is a moment of peril for that political process. On the one hand, we have the potential for Saudi normalisation and two states, for the Palestinian people. On the other hand, some in Israel will never be committed to two states and talk instead of annexation. Those two are opposites, and that is why the next few months are so important. It would be folly for me to stand at this Dispatch Box and give timetables.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Obviously, we hope that the Israeli Cabinet makes a rapid decision to support this ceasefire agreement, but that is only a ceasefire agreement, and one hopes it will be rapidly followed by the release of all the hostages and prisoners, as agreed. However, there have been some major developments over the past two years, particularly on the legal front, where the International Court of Justice has recognised that acts of a genocidal nature have taken place and has called for Israeli withdrawal from the west bank and an end to the settlement policy. Will the Foreign Secretary commit the British Government to demanding that all the ICJ recommendations are carried out and that Israel has a programme of withdrawal from the west bank and an end to the settlement policy? There cannot be any peace for the Palestinian people while they remain under occupation. They have suffered so much, lost so much and lost so many, and the mental scars of the people of Gaza will now be intergenerational. They will need a lot of support to get through this and, above all, international recognition of the state of Palestine.
Mr Lammy
Let me begin by recognising the unique way in which the right hon. Gentleman has raised these issues in the House over a lifetime of work and his commitment to justice and accountability in this era. It is right and proper that international humanitarian law is followed and that the international courts do their work. Let me also be clear that this Government do not believe in illegal occupation and are committed to two states. I repeat again: we cannot tolerate the violence; we cannot tolerate the expansion. We recommit ourselves to continuing to work with civil society on the ground in the west bank and the occupied territories that is documenting these things. Both this Government and the previous Government have continued to support such organisations over many years. Clearly, when we get to that settlement, it will essentially come down to swaps and very serious negotiation over that land, on both sides. We recognise that, and that is why expansion is so thoroughly unacceptable.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The ceasefire is good news. It has been welcomed around the world, and it will be welcomed by my constituents. It is a time of relief, but also one of great grief for the many tens of thousands of lives that have been lost. In November, I visited the west bank and met the director of UNRWA, who said he had no idea how aid would get into Gaza if and when the Israeli ban on UNRWA passes. What more can the Government do to ensure that the ban is lifted and aid gets into Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I, too, met the director of UNRWA in the occupied territories this week. He repeated that to me, and I recognise his assessment. I spoke to the Israeli Government about this issue, and they said—of course, this was prior to the ceasefire being reached—they believed that other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations on the ground and international parties could step into the breach. I reminded them about their legal responsibilities, as an occupying power, about our long-standing concerns anyway about humanitarian aid, and about the prospect of undermining an agreement that I had hoped would be reached when I was with them on Monday. For all those reasons, I do hope that they will reflect and step back from implementing this Knesset legislation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The celebrations in Gaza that welcomed the ceasefire were matched only by the relief of the hostages’ families that their loved ones were finally coming home. In the hours that followed, however, scores of Palestinian civilians were killed, and the Israeli Government declared that they will not meet today to ratify this deal in what is an unspeakably cruel blow to those seeking peace and the return of the hostages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) have both asked this question, but in the absence of a reply, I will ask it again: if Israel does not agree this deal and continues to prosecute this conflict as it has to date, what will the consequences be for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government?
Mr Lammy
This is a moment—I say this having met those hostage families, having prayed for the life of Emily Damari in particular, and having met Palestinians with family in Gaza—where I insist from this Dispatch Box that I will hold out for hope and for that deal being implemented on Sunday. I have been really clear about the responsibilities that I believe the Israeli Government need to meet. We are meeting here in this House on a Thursday, so there are days before Sunday. I believe a settlement will be reached. We will continue to work with the current Administration in America and, indeed, the President-elect’s Administration. He has made his views clear. I will not give in to the cynicism that we will not get to that deal on Sunday and that this process will not begin.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I trust the Government will do all they can to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a lasting peace—a peace based on a two-state solution that addresses the root causes of the violence and creates a future in which the rights and security of people in the region are respected. Will the Foreign Secretary redouble his efforts in urging his counterparts in Israel to grant full access to humanitarian organisations, such as the UN, that are urgently seeking to deliver aid in Gaza, as well as to ensure that journalists have unfettered access to report on the situation?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; journalists now need to be able to get in and report on what is happening on the ground. I thank him for giving me a moment to call to mind the many aid workers who have died in this conflict—more than in any other conflict in history—and to thank them for their humanitarian efforts. I repeat again that part of the settlement that came out of the second world war was that there was deconfliction for aid workers working in the most severe of circumstances. That is the expectation of the international community, and we deplore the fact that it has not been met so egregiously in this most horrendous of wars.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I also pay tribute to all those who have helped to bring about this agreement to stop the killing. I pray that Israel accepts and honours the agreement and subsequent stages.
The Foreign Secretary spoke about darkness, and 7 October was indeed a dark day for innocent Israelis and Palestinians, and for humanity. However, it would be unjust not to acknowledge that the Palestinians have been suffering dark days every day for over 75 years, with the UK and the international community turning a blind eye—and many aiding and abetting. We all welcome the announcement of this ceasefire to suspend hostilities in Gaza. Although we hope and pray that the temporary pause will free all hostages on both sides, save Palestinian and Israeli lives, and alleviate some of the unspeakable suffering that the Israeli military has inflicted on Gaza, it marks the beginning, not the end, of efforts to restore health, dignity, justice and freedom to the Palestinian people, who have suffered beyond words.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will oppose any attempt by Israel to annex or settle parts of Gaza or further parts of the west bank? Will he confirm the UK’s commitment to ending the long-standing root causes of violence and humanitarian need in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Israel’s illegal occupation, blockade and widespread violations of international law?
Mr Lammy
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might sometimes disagree on matters of politics, but I have always respected him in the short time that he has been in this House. I felt again today the humility and faith that he brings to the strength of his questions. Let me be absolutely clear: we stand opposed to expansion, to the violence that we see, and to any talk of annexation, which would breach international UN resolutions that successive UK Governments have supported. He is right that it was the case for some years—particularly in the period after the Abraham accords—that this House had stopped talking about a two-state solution, but I think Members across the House recognise that that is the only way out of this crisis.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, particularly his words about how we break out of the cycles of violence, which many of us worry will be replicated in future, and move towards a peaceful future. This is a bitter-sweet deal, in many ways, because the reality is that overnight we have seen Hamas putting their uniforms back on, waving their rifles and celebrating. They are still there. One of their leaders said just this morning that they would do 7 October all over again; the international community must unite to ensure that they cannot, and to free the people of Gaza from Hamas. What steps can the Government take to change the reality for Hamas by stopping weapons from Iran and funding from states such as Qatar, and to promote genuine soul-searching and reflection among international agencies on the ground, to ensure that they are doing everything they can not to repeat mistakes or turn a blind eye to collaboration with Hamas?
Mr Lammy
It is important to continue to remember the tremendous trauma in Israel as a result of 7 October—the worst atrocity for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It is important to remember, in the wake of this deal, which we want to see over the line, that, yes, Hamas fighters have been on the streets firing their rifles and saying that they would do it again, and that does not lead to a context in which the Israeli people feel safe in their own land. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Iran continues to destabilise the region through its political, financial and military support for Hamas and other partners in the region. Very sadly, if we do not do all we can to come together here in the United Kingdom, play our role internationally and get to that political process, it is my judgment that in 25 years’ time, another generation of politicians, including some younger politicians in this House, will be here again debating the same issue—more violence, more pain, more loss of life, and still no two states.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his sombre tone and for his soft but strong words—we all appreciate them. I very much welcome the fact that a ceasefire is imminent and that the hostages will soon be returned home. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what discussions have taken place with our American allies to ensure that aid gets to where it is needed in a safe and concerted effort, and what does he imagine our role to be in ongoing negotiations to support Israel and find a peaceful way forward?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is always on top of these issues, particularly terrorism, conflict and peace. I have worked very closely with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and I pay tribute to him—I suspect for the last time—for all his work. I sent him a message last night saying what a pleasure it was to see him standing behind Joe Biden. More than many, I know—as do my predecessors—how much work he put into getting this agreement over the line. I also know how important it was that President-elect Trump and his team stepped up in the last few days. There is a critical role for the UK for the reasons that I have set out, and we will play that role.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
It has been a long and painful road to get to this point, but today’s welcome news of a ceasefire deal is finally a sliver of hope. It has always been clear that the release of hostages and a ceasefire were necessary steps to pull the middle east from this abyss, which has cruelly taken so many lives. I will touch on the point that the Foreign Secretary just made about another generation of politicians, including younger politicians in this House, debating the two-state solution in 25 years’ time. I have said to him many times that the recognition of a Palestinian state is not a by-product but the route to a resolution. Will he be brave, will he be bold, and will he, so that we are not here in 25 years’ time debating the two state-solution, recognise the state of Palestine much quicker than that?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way she has championed these issues, pressing them again and again, on behalf of her constituents. There is a real dilemma on Palestinian recognition. There are some who want recognition essentially because they believe that two states is years away and will never be achieved, and they want the UK Government to say, “We will do it now”—to put a marker in the sand, despite the fact that it is years away and will never be achieved. There are others who recognise the importance of the UK’s role in relation to our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and therefore understand that we will do that, but we will do it when we know that it will happen and it is in sight. This is one of those critical moments, and believe me, I will play my part.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Yesterday on the streets of Gaza, mothers came out to celebrate the news of the impending peace deal. Today, many of those mothers were crouching over loved ones, as news came in of a further 73 Palestinians having been killed. That is 73 added on to the thousands and thousands who have already been killed, but when it comes to the number of Palestinians dead, that is all it seems to be—a number. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no justice and no meaningful peace can be achieved if we continue to allow the cries of the oppressed to go unheard? I ask this not as a political rival, but as a fellow human being. The Palestinian people and, indeed, the families of the hostages have no more time for rhetoric, platitudes and words. What are we going to do to ensure that this peace deal goes ahead and justice is given beyond words, so that no more innocent blood is shed?
Mr Lammy
The Palestinian cause is a just cause, which is why we recommit to two states. You can hold in your heart the pain of the Israeli people and the plight of those hostages and their families, and at the same time, you can hold in your heart the awful damage, pain and suffering that this has wrought on Gaza, with well over 45,000 Palestinian people having lost their lives. You can hold those two things at the same time, which of course is what the UK Government attempt to do as they try to bring about conciliation and uphold international humanitarian law. Ultimately, we want to get to a process that brings about genuine peace, where these two countries can live side by side with security and peace.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The news of a possible deal is very welcome indeed, and I associate myself with the hopes of colleagues across this House that the hostages will be released and returned, and that humanitarian aid will flood into Gaza as soon as possible. We know that the only way to ensure a lasting peace is that two-state solution, so can my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government will take to support the creation of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Mr Lammy
We absolutely support that, and we will continue to work towards it.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I join in with the sentiments of relief and hope for peace after a horrific 15-month-long ordeal. However, a ceasefire cannot take away from the fact that Israel is on trial for genocide and its leaders have arrest warrants in their names for their crimes committed against the people of Gaza. A ceasefire does not change that fact; justice and accountability must be realised in the face of some of the most horrific war crimes of our times. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will stand by their commitment to treaties under international law and uphold the requirements of the arrest warrants already issued?
Mr Lammy
We are signatories to the treaty of Rome, and we will comply with our legal obligations—not just because we should, but because we believe in them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will not lift the limited ban on arms sales to Israel until he or another Minister has come back to this House and explained why the danger of those arms being abused has receded?
Mr Lammy
As my hon. Friend knows, that is a quasi-legal process that is gone through with all sobriety, examining the facts on the ground. The ban is in place at this time; arms are not currently being sent to Israel under export licences, for reasons that have been discussed at the Dispatch Box for many months. I suspect that until we get to a secure and stable Gaza, it is unlikely. The fighting has got to stop.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the news of a ceasefire deal after 15 months of devastation, destruction and loss of life. The release of hostages is vital, ensuring their safety and swift return to their families. There has been unimaginable suffering, and the ceasefire must be a turning point. It is imperative that the UK leverages our diplomatic influence to ensure stability while urgently stepping up humanitarian aid in Gaza; food, medicine and fuel must reach those who desperately need them without delay. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what diplomatic contributions the UK will make to ensure the ceasefire’s stability when we move towards the latter and more fragile stages of a multi-stage agreement?
Mr Lammy
I pray in aid some of my statements earlier in this session.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I urge Members to make their questions short, or we will simply not get everybody in.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
We all hope that the ceasefire happens and that it holds, and we all resolve that if it does, never again—never again by anyone. For the most part, that means accountability, which is where the ICC and ICJ come in. Journalists, forensic experts and rescue teams must be guaranteed unrestricted access to investigate mass graves, locate the missing and document the atrocity crimes committed by Israel, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to supporting this? Otherwise impunity, not accountability, will reign, which will prevent us from making sure that what we have seen does not happen again.
Mr Lammy
We continue to support non-governmental organisations and to call for journalists to be allowed in. Of course, it is important that the appropriate authorities properly document what has happened and that, where necessary, people can be held accountable.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The ceasefire deal gives families in Israel and Palestine, as well as their relatives in my constituency, hope for longer-lasting peace and security. However, there can be no security without accountability, and there is no accountability without scrutiny—scrutiny, for example, to ensure that the funding the Government have pledged for UNRWA reaches its intended destination. This war has been the deadliest on record for journalists, so what can the Government do to ensure that all journalists in Palestine, including my former colleagues, can do their job without fear for their lives?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has represented the interests of those journalists very well in her question. I repeat again that I deplore the number of journalists who have lost their lives. It is important that any democracy engaged in conflict of this kind allows journalists to cover what has truly happened. As we head now to this ceasefire and the stability that is required, the time has come, I hope, for journalists from all corners of the globe to be let in.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including targeting civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war. The British public deserve clarity, so I will ask again: will the Foreign Secretary confirm that should Benjamin Netanyahu step on British soil, he would be immediately arrested—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
I say to the hon. Lady, as I think has been said before, that we have a legal process in this country were that to come to pass, and that process is important. Ultimately, it will be a decision for our courts, so it is important that, from this Dispatch Box, I leave that matter for them. However, I have said in terms that we are a signatory to the statute of Rome, not just because we are but because we believe in it. Therefore, as the hon. Lady would expect, this Government will comply with the law if that were to come to pass.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that I speak for everyone in my constituency when I say that after so much death and unthinkable horror, this ceasefire—this peace—offers hope for a long-term political solution, security for the people of Gaza and of Israel, a two-state solution and a sustainable peace. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that what we now need is a flood of aid to stop civilians suffering now in Gaza? Also, I know it is very early days, but what hope does he have for a new normalisation deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia going forward?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the question. Having spoken to the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister at length on Sunday and to the Israeli Foreign Minister at length on Sunday as well, it is my sincere hope that we do get that normalisation deal. There are many steps before we get there, but I think this is a critical moment, and I really hope we can achieve it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
After such unimaginable suffering, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I recognise the fragility of this moment—not only the fragility of making a decision around this deal, but the fragility of lives in Gaza, where the suffering continues at this moment. Will he ensure that we provide the very best medical support, given that many specialties no longer exist in Gaza, and that we use the expertise in our country to send teams into the region and indeed into Gaza to ensure that people with diseases and infections and those who need urgent surgery have the very best services?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on medical support. We will continue to support UK-Med, and we made a decision to give it more funds when we were just a few days into office. Half a million people have received essential healthcare as a result of that funding, and UK-Med has supported over 300,000 people across Gaza. It is hugely important work, and I suspect we will have more to say in the coming days about what more we can do.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very measured statement. I have met dozens of constituents in Rushcliffe who I know will wholeheartedly welcome yesterday’s news. However, I have received a lot of emails specifically about the decimation of medical facilities in the northern part of Gaza. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary what steps are likely to be taken to ensure immediate improvements to healthcare access as a result of this week’s announcement?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the reasons I have set out, security will be essential if the aid is to get in and if international partners are to be reassured, so that the reconstruction of hospitals can properly begin.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, and indeed to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who has played such an important role in working tirelessly for justice. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) about recognition of the state of Palestine, what role will the British Government play in creating the conditions that mean a two-state solution is finally in reach and we could declare that we recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. The role that we must play is the critical juncture between phase 2 and then phase 3. We will only really get to phase 3 if there is a proper political solution. I think the United Kingdom has a particular role to play because of our relationship with all the parties, and our unique role on the United Nations Security Council alongside France. She is absolutely right that there must be a process, that we must engage in that process and that recognition is a key part of the process. Ultimately, however, that must lead to a two-state solution.
Let me say, finally, that in my discussions at the weekend in Saudi Arabia, it was very clear to me that we are no longer in a place where Gulf colleagues would satisfy themselves with some promise that feels years and years away, or generations away. We are really talking about the immediate lifetime of many parliamentarians in this House at this time, and this is therefore a very critical issue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Now really is the moment when we all do need some hope, as the task of helping people to rebuild their homes and communities is truly daunting. To allow for reconstruction of hospitals, schools and homes to take place, the supply of construction materials into Gaza will need to happen on a huge scale. Can I please ask the Foreign Secretary what discussions are taking place right now to help facilitate that access for important materials?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The World Bank has been doing a lot of thinking about that, with a rapid needs assessment of the materials that are now necessary.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Foreign Secretary has said, this is a glimmer of light for the hostages, their families and civilians in Gaza—many of them children living in hell—and all our thoughts are with them. We have spoken a lot about the importance of access for humanitarian aid, but can I ask the Foreign Secretary about volumes? Can he update us on the funding for the UN humanitarian appeals, whether we are considering an uplift in our aid, and what pressure we are putting on other UN member states to make sure they play their role in not only providing that aid, but pushing for access?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record the issue of volume. At the moment, the agreement is for 600 or so trucks. That is ambitious, and the situation on the ground will need to change quite a lot if that is to be achieved. The need is absolutely there. The UN must play its part, but I think some of the decisions that may come on UNRWA would fundamentally undermine that. I think commercial trucks have to come back in, and the security has to be there. Clearly, what we want to see—and it is here in the deal—is Israel being able to draw back, which raises further issues about security. That is why I say that this deal is fragile and that negotiation continues and there is much still to do. She is absolutely right that we have to see the volumes, or I think the people of Gaza will say that there have been lots of fine words, but things have not actually changed very much on the ground.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Now that there is hope of a ceasefire, will the Secretary of State redouble his efforts to seek justice for the family of my constituent John Chapman, whom he mentioned in his statement, who was murdered by the IDF last April when working for the World Central Kitchen? Will he meet me to discuss what the UK Government can do to hold the Israeli Government to account for their actions?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I raised this issue with the Israeli Foreign Minister at the weekend. We do want to see accountability, and we do want to see a process from the Military Advocate General in Israel. The loss of life breaks our hearts. I have spent time with the families that have suffered so much as a result of the atrocity against World Central Kitchen, when there was a tremendous loss of life. There must be justice, there must be accountability and there must be a process. It is now for the Military Advocate General in Israel to do that, and we will continue to press this issue. Of course, I or the Minister for the middle east will meet him and his constituents.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
We all welcome the announcement of the possible ceasefire and hope that the Israeli Cabinet ratifies the agreement. The toll on civilians has been horrific: over 46,000 Palestinian civilians, including children, have been killed, and 1,200 Israelis were killed on 7 October and many hostage families are hoping that their family members are returned. I, too, pay tribute to British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby, who were killed delivering aid in Gaza. The EU has announced €120 million in new aid for Gaza, so will the UK announce a further package of aid soon? I agree with the Foreign Secretary that Palestinians must be able to return home safely. What role will the UK play in that?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will be making a further assessment of the humanitarian need and what more we can do in the coming weeks, given the changed circumstances. Let us get this deal over the line, and let us assess where the UK can play a particular role alongside other partners. It is important that we co-ordinate, and it was important for me to be in Saudi Arabia with Kaja Kallas, the new High Representative of the EU, because we were able to travel together and to discuss these very same issues.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
In addition to the appalling suffering of civilians due to this conflict, for far too long there has been a sense of hopelessness in the region, which is mirrored by a sense of hopelessness here about what we can all do practically to help secure peace and rebuild Gaza. Does my right hon. Friend agree that British companies, particularly those in construction, and NGOs should be at the vanguard of the Herculean task of rebuilding Gaza? As we get—we hope—towards phase 3 on the future, does he agree that making more information available about the support we can provide in this area will help the peace process, because reconstruction is vital?
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
On behalf of so many of my constituents in Ealing Southall, may I wholeheartedly welcome this news about a potential ceasefire in Gaza and the return of the hostages? I thank the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team for all their hard work to get us to this moment of hope, but this is only a beginning. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me how he will use our hard-won experience of brokering a lasting peace in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement to help achieve a two-state solution and long-term peace, security and prosperity for the people of both Palestine and Israel?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Northern Ireland and the essential role that was played in particular by the last Labour Government. She will no doubt have noticed that the new National Security Adviser is Jonathan Powell, who played such an important role in that. Our National Security Adviser always does a lot behind the scenes on these issues, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is right when he recognises that this ceasefire, although fragile, offers a real glimmer of hope. He is also right to emphasise the need to go further to ensure a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable sovereign Palestinian state. Will he set out what he sees as the next steps in getting us to the ultimate goal of a lasting peace in the region?
Mr Lammy
As has been said, there are two possibilities here. One is a situation in which Israel does not withdraw from Gaza and there is still a lot of fighting. Displaced people would vaguely be able to return to their homes, but we would not see the reconstruction or the international community able to come back in, because there would be no guarantee that the efforts they put in will not be destroyed in another 10 or 20 years’ time. The other possibility is that we get to phase 3 and we see not just a ceasefire, but a political process that brings about stability and ultimately peace, and alongside that we see Saudi normalisation with Israel and the prospect of two states.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
We all welcome the news of the ceasefire deal after 15 months of devastating conflict and suffering in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary knows how important the recognition of Palestine and the two-state solution is to my constituents in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. Does he agree that in our Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, Gaza must form part of a future Palestinian state, with no reduction in the size of its territory, no ongoing occupation of Gaza and no forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done in her constituency and the manner in which she lobbied hard on these issues when I was shadow Foreign Secretary, which she continues to do now. I can confirm that Gaza must be part of the two states and a home for the Palestinian people.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is with hope and fear that we await news of this ceasefire deal, and that will be felt particularly strongly by the families of the hostages. We have heard of the British hostages—of Emily Damari, Avinatan Or, Oded Lifschitz and Eli Sharabi—and the work of their families. For them, until they are holding their loved ones, this deal will not be real or done. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure them that at each and every stage of this deal, he will be pressing for the hostages’ release, so that we can deliver that for their families, bring this war to an end, and bring the hostages and their families together?
Mr Lammy
Emily Damari is a British national. She spent her 28th birthday in captivity. She was taken from her home in the Kfar Aza kibbutz. Emily enjoys watching football and is a Tottenham Hotspur fan. I keep her in my heart every single day. I have a plastic flower from her mother in my office reminding me of her plight. I pray and hope that I see her emerge in the coming days. Oded Lifschitz is a retired Israeli journalist and we hold out a torch for him. Eli Sharabi is a family man, and his wife Lianne, a British citizen, and his daughters Noiya and Yahel were murdered on 7 October. Yossi Sharabi was killed in captivity last year, and we pray for his family at this time. Avinatan Or is a 31-year-old man, and therefore will not be in the first phase of this activity, but we want to see him freed as we get to the second and third phases.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Human rights organisations such as Gisha, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have been working hard to get more aid into Gaza since the beginning of the conflict. What steps is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office taking to support human rights groups to help rebuild Gaza and the lives of the Palestinian people?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise human rights and human rights defenders, particularly those on the ground. She should be assured that the UK under this Government continues to fund those important organisations. They are part of the exercise of allowing very vulnerable people to have their rights advocated for and their dignity upheld in the most horrendous of circumstances. Those organisations are also part of the accountability mechanisms we have signed up to and believe in.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right that this is not a day for celebration; it is a day for prayer—prayer that this deal is seen through and prayer that hostages and ordinary Palestinians get a chance to rebuild their lives after the atrocities and horrors of the past 15 months.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that this peace deal is fragile, but it is also right to say that many in the world, including in my community, think that the world community’s grasp on humanitarian values has been fragile these past 15 months. We have failed the hostages, failed the Palestinians and failed in the quest for peace by taking so long to do that. He will know that this issue is important to the community I represent. Nearly two years ago, the Foreign Secretary had lunch with me and some of my constituents, and we talked about previous crises where we have solved the crisis but given up on the peace. What reassurance can he give us that this time it will be different and the British Government will lead the way, once we get this deal in place, to ensure that there is a two-state solution and that dignity and respect are given to Israel and Palestine?
Mr Lammy
Eighty years on from the second world war, my hon. Friend is right. He is a dear friend, and I know his constituency well, having spent seven years of my life living in the great city of Peterborough. There is no doubting that when we look back on those 80 years, there are key moments that shook the foundations of the rule of law that men and women in this country fought for. I suspect that people will look back on this war as one of those hugely challenging moments. People who believe in democracy recognise that we are here as parliamentarians in one of the great homes of democracy to fight to keep hope alive. The Palestinian cause is a just cause. The plight of the Jewish people is also a just cause, and a homeland for them I think is right. We have got to achieve that peace. Just as I have for many years campaigned for peace in countries such as Northern Ireland and South Africa, we can get peace in the middle east if we redouble our efforts and the whole of the international community stands true to international humanitarian law.
More than two hours after I started this statement, I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for a long, two-hour statement.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Act 2025.
Covid-19 Inquiry
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to module 1 of the covid inquiry. In July last year, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been for the pandemic and that more could and should have been done. In my statement to the House immediately following the publication of her report, I committed to responding in full within six months.
Before I turn to the Government’s response, I want to place on record once again my thanks to Baroness Hallett and her team for the work they have done so far in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the families and friends who lost loved ones during the pandemic, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. Earlier this week I visited the national covid memorial wall just across the river from here. I am grateful to the friends of the wall who have so lovingly cared for it and maintained it over the past few years.
As I said in my statement in July, the Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is why since we were elected, we have taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. I announced a review of national resilience. Work on that review is proceeding, and I will update the House on its conclusion in the spring.
The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet Committee for resilience, which I chair, which meets to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have adopted the 2023 biological security strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks.
In April, the new UK Resilience Academy will be launched. It will train over 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles every year and help them plan for and manage a range of crises, including pandemics. I should also acknowledge, as I did in my first statement back in July, that in some areas these improvements build on work carried out by the previous Administration.
The improvements that we have made to our resilience have been put to the test over the last six months. Those include the Prime Minister chairing a number of emergency Cobra meetings to address the violent disorder that occurred over the summer and working across our four nations to anticipate and contain clade 1 mpox cases in the UK.
Since July, we have also sent two emergency alerts to provide advice to the public in life-threatening situations. During Storm Darragh, because of a very rare red—danger to life—warning, an alert was sent to over three million people in affected regions. More recently, we issued a very localised warning over flooding danger. The Government will carry out a full national test of the emergency alert system later this year. That will ensure that the system is functioning correctly, should it need to be deployed in an emergency.
The covid module 1 inquiry found that years of under-investment meant that pandemic planning was not a sufficient priority, that our health services were already suffering and beyond capacity, and that there were high levels of illness and health inequalities. All of that meant that the state was ill-prepared to manage a crisis on this scale. Therefore, apart from the specific recommendations, delivering on the Government’s missions—particularly in this context, building a national health service fit for the future—will contribute in important ways to the UK’s resilience.
Pandemic planning and resilience are about not just specific resilience measures but ensuring the underlying fundamentals of our country are strong. I thank the devolved Governments for their co-operation in preparing our response today. We will continue to work together for the safety of the communities we serve.
I turn to specifics. There are three new commitments that I wish to highlight. First, the inquiry recommended that the UK Government and devolved Governments should together hold a regular UK-wide pandemic response exercise. We agree and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade. It will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. It will be led by senior Ministers, involve thousands of participants and run across all regions and nations of the UK. Alongside the Health Secretary, I have written to all Cabinet Ministers to ask for their commitment to full participation. The exercise will take place in the autumn over a number of days. The Government will communicate the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry.
Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities. A new national vulnerability map created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics will geographically map population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do that by sharing data including age, disability, ethnicity, and whether someone is receiving care. The map will improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises and enable targeted local support when required.
Thirdly, as the inquiry reminds us, the risks we face are changing more quickly than ever before, and we live in an increasingly volatile world. It therefore recommended a better approach to risk assessment across the board, which we accept. Today, I am publishing an updated national risk register: the public-facing version of the national security risk assessment, which provides businesses and the voluntary and community sectors with the latest information about the risks they face to support their planning, preparation and response. We will ensure that it continues to be updated regularly. A significant proportion of the risks will be subject to reassessment over the next few months, and we will publish a further updated risk register as needed once the process is complete.
I want to mention two further recommendations where the Government accept the underlying objectives and propose to take them forward in specific ways. First, the inquiry recommended Cabinet Office leadership for whole-system civil emergencies in the UK. We agree with that, as for whole-system emergencies such as a pandemic, the centre of Government needs to play a lead role. But for lower-scale emergencies, we believe that the lead Department model still has value. It remains important for Departments with the day-to-day responsibility for an issue to lead the work to identify serious risks and ensure that the right planning, response and recovery arrangements are in place. Therefore, in some circumstances we will retain the lead Government Department model, because, in those cases, responsibility and oversight should sit with the body with the best understanding, relationships and mechanisms for delivery to identify and address risks. There will be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Office to improve preparedness and resilience for larger-scale catastrophic risks.
Secondly, on the question of independent input into whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience, we agree with the need for independent strategic advice and challenge, including the use of so-called red teams. We are establishing eight expert advisory groups to combat group-think in our understanding of risks. Alongside that, through the crisis management excellence programme we will increase training in red teaming. We want to work with the local resilience forums that exist around the country who provide critical knowledge and expertise.
The Government are also committed to introducing a duty of candour on public authorities as a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector to improve transparency and accountability. We also welcome and will draw on the expertise of multidisciplinary pandemic science institutes that provide world-leading academic and scientific expertise such as the excellent Pandemic Institute in Liverpool, which I was pleased to visit yesterday. In the end, the Government must remain responsible and accountable for the policy and resource allocation decisions they take, but we believe that the external input of those bodies can add value to that decision making.
The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It caused the loss of far too many lives. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole Government, continue to be with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Many of them feel not just grief but anger that, as Baroness Hallett’s report sadly confirmed, the country was not as prepared as it should have been.
My Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the covid-19 inquiry. In all this, we must remember that the next crisis may not be the same as the last. There is a need for flexibility in our planning and learning, and we will build that into what we do. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry, and await Baroness Hallett’s findings and recommendations in subsequent module reports as she continues her important work. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report.
We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers.
Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination.
The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress.
It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance.
The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops.
The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process?
On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country.
On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that?
Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions.
On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do.
Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that, but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly.
The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
While listening to my right hon. Friend’s statement and the shadow Minister’s response, I have been reflecting on those friends who sadly died during the pandemic. I am sure everybody in the House will have their own experiences.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for a new national pandemic planning exercise. After the last one, one of the press reports suggested that a recommendation was for senior Ministers to act quickly if a pandemic hit us. Can he confirm that one of the ways in which improvements will be made in our preparation on his watch will be that senior Ministers will be ready and will make decisions in a timely fashion?
Pat McFadden
That will all be tested in the exercise we have planned. Past planning exercises have sometimes planned for the wrong thing—that is the danger. That is why I say all the time that we have to make sure that we learn from what happened throughout the pandemic of a few years ago, but not make the assumption that the next pandemic or the next crisis will be exactly the same. That is what we have to do.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The findings of the inquiry are a harsh confirmation of what we already knew. They are that the UK was woefully unprepared for the pandemic: the focus was wrong, the leadership was lacking and the lessons from past crises were not learned. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that our hearts remain with those who lost loved ones during that tragic time, and I thank the family members who are in the Public Gallery today.
To do right by them, crucially, we must ensure that this is a turning point. It is essential that the new Government take swift and decisive action to prepare for next time. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement of a pandemic response exercise this autumn; however, will that be a one-off or are further exercises planned and, if they are, how frequently?
As well as the different, more proactive approach to disease outbreak preparedness that Baroness Hallett cites in her report, we must invest in public health, rather than simply throwing money at crises when they materialise. One of the key findings is that health inequalities and a less healthy population has left the nation less resilient. Does the Minister agree that public health should be a priority and that the public health grant, with a proportion set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities to co-produce plans for their communities, would be a step in the right direction?
We need to help more people live more years of their life in good health. When I think back to those covid years, I think of the appalling loneliness and isolation of those in hospital or in care homes. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain family contact in all health and care settings?
Finally, on resilience forums, will the Minister confirm what funding plans there are in future for resilience forums? I was aware before Christmas that there was some lack of certainty about that—certainly, that is what I was hearing from my own Sussex resilience forum. We cannot risk our country not being ready for the future, and those are important questions.
Pat McFadden
The most fundamental thing, apart from specific recommendations or specific changes, is the underlying strength of the country and its services. That is true nowhere more than in the national health service. That is why the Budget, which has been attacked a lot, put in the resources to begin to turn the health service around. We can have the forums, the structures and the processes, but the underlying strength of the country is the most important thing.
The hon. Lady asked about the exercise this autumn. I very much hope it will not be the last; the inquiry recommended that they happen on a regular basis. It will be the first for many years and we want to make sure we learn as much from it as possible. In terms of funding for local resilience forums, they play an important role and we were able to put some increased resources into local government in the next financial year. That area, like others, will have to be considered in the round in the spending review that will be published later this year.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I am less sanguine about the report than my right hon. Friend. The report, or what is part of a report—it is difficult to assess when we do not know what the rest will say—has been too expensive and has taken too long to produce. From reading it, it does not seem to me to include some of the fundamental questions that I and my constituents would like answered. What was the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions taken during lockdown, for instance? What about lockdown itself? Was that a benefit or a disbenefit? What was the cost of effectively closing down the NHS, apart from for covid patients? Where did the virus come from? Did it come from China, which most of the evidence seems to indicate? Those questions are not being answered. Furthermore, I do not believe that setting up a new quango in conjunction with the Cabinet Office, which has no experience of service delivery, will be the answer to any future epidemic. The report does not answer the questions I would like answered.
Pat McFadden
I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am sanguine; I am not sanguine at all. Anyone who reads the national risk register should not be sanguine because, as I said in my statement, we live in a world of risk and vulnerability. As for the inquiry’s work, the inquiry is independent and is not instructed by the Government on the specific areas it goes into. It has 10 modules, as decided by the inquiry because it is independent.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by expressing concerns about the inquiry? The Minister has been clear that he wishes it was not taking quite so long. It is taking far too long.
What can we learn from other countries about how they have conducted their lessons-learned exercise, in order to make sure that the people watching the proceedings, who lost their loved ones, feel that something has been done, and done in good time? This is by no means the first public inquiry that has taken too long. The right hon. Gentleman is in the great position of not being responsible for setting up the inquiry. Will he set out what he thinks we should learn from failed and lengthy inquiries to make sure we do these urgent lessons-learned exercises much more quickly? The next emergency could strike tomorrow. We do not have time to hang around and have these long, blame-fest inquiries with criminal lawyers asking “gotcha” questions to get headlines.
Pat McFadden
The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation?
Pat McFadden
This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). The fact is that we have an absolutely urgent imperative to address the dysfunctions of the British state that were exposed by the covid inquiry. I agree with everything that has been said about how bad things were in early 2020. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the importance of a stronger centre and a more accountable Cabinet Office— I think that is the right direction to be going in. However, does he also recognise that the parts of our society that did not fail in 2020 were the parts very far from Whitehall—local government, the private sector and our communities themselves? Does he agree that while the focus needs to be on improving Whitehall’s response, we also need to think about the resilience of local communities and ensuring that they can play their part in the next crisis?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My experience in Wolverhampton, which I represent, was that the local authority did a great job of looking out for vulnerable people. An inquiry, perhaps by definition, places the emphasis on things that went wrong, but there was a great deal of experience during the pandemic that showed the best of society, with people looking out for one another and helping those who were vulnerable. We should draw on the things that went well, as well as those that went wrong.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
In my previous role in health scrutiny in Lancashire, I got a bit fed up of hearing from Conservative politicians that no one could have seen covid coming, as if a global viral pandemic had not been top of the NHS risk register for years, and as if epidemiologists had not warned authorities that it was a matter of when, not if. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the former Government to plead ignorance to the well-known risk of a global viral pandemic?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There is always a risk of planning for the wrong thing, which is a risk I am very aware of as we try to do this forward-looking exercise. I was encouraged by what I saw yesterday in Liverpool at the Pandemic Institute, where the scientific expertise that we have in this country is trying to take the learning from that in the past and ensure that we do not assume that the next situation will be the same as the one we went through several years ago. It might be something similar, but it might also be something very different, which is transmitted differently and creates a whole different series of questions and requirements for the Government of the day.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that relations with the devolved Administrations are now on a collegiate basis. I have to say that my experience as a lowly special adviser with the Scotland Office at the tail end of the pandemic was nothing like that at all; it was very, very difficult. We faced constant battles with the Scottish Government, who wanted to put their oar into areas that really were nothing to do with them and constantly wanted change for the sake of change. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Cabinet Office seems to be taking a lead in this. Heaven forfend we face another situation like the covid pandemic, but we probably will. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will have a chain of command that makes it clear who is in charge, which must be this sovereign Parliament?
Pat McFadden
I said that co-operation was good on this issue. Of course, we live in a world where that might not always be the case on everything. However, I do think that, when it comes to public protection, people should leave their politics at the door and ask themselves just one question: how do we protect the public and get the country through this?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. One of the most striking conclusions of the covid inquiry was that it was the most vulnerable people in our society who were hardest hit, whether that was because they had pre-existing health conditions or because they were on some of the lowest wages in this country. Will he tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that, in the event of another incident of this nature, support reaches the most vulnerable people in our communities much more quickly than during the covid pandemic?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. Cracks in our society were exposed; this did not affect all parts of society equally. We have to learn from that and respond to it. The very concept of having a society should mean that in an emergency we pull together and try to overcome it together. The map we are producing will help us somewhat in identifying where those risks are. However, as I said in my statement, the most important thing is the underlying strength of the country and its institutions, and, in this context, specifically that of the national health service itself.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
In Cheltenham, in Sandford Park, we have an avenue of trees that were planted in honour of the covid heroes and the many victims that our town lost during the pandemic. Not far from there, there is a playground, and that playground was shut. There is nothing more dystopian for children than seeing the playground that they cherish shut. Children do not often have a voice in these kinds of discussions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next time there is a pandemic, we will take a much more reasonable approach to risk, as raised in the module, and that children will have a bigger voice, so that they will not suffer the mental health problems that we know so many have suffered as a result of the pandemic?
Pat McFadden
This is something the inquiry intends to look at in the future, but let us state the obvious: parents of young children in a flat with no outside space had a very different experience of the covid pandemic compared with someone with a nice big garden. That is true. I totally understand the public health decisions that were taken, but they did not affect everybody equally. That is something to ponder for the future.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. To be honest, as a former public health consultant, I looked on in amazement at what happened during the pandemic. I therefore welcome the fact that the report acknowledges and recognises that Exercises Alice and Cygnus were ignored, that that contributed to our lack of preparedness, and that we had a declining national health and exacerbating health inequalities.
Another point that was raised in the report, and in the film “The Unequal Pandemic”, was the fact that there was such low awareness around the functions of public health, which were being reinvented at the centre. None of the legislation and regulations on public health protection were known. I have heard that reported back from directors of public health, who went into Cobra meetings where there was a total absence of understanding of basic legislation in this regard. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on the relationship between the centre and local public health teams, which were decimated because there was such a lack of understanding of public health as a whole, but particularly about their health protection role, and that this issue of reinventing the wheel will not happen again?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I specifically mentioned local resilience forums in my opening statement for good reason. As I said a moment ago, I think it is really important that we recognise that, in an emergency, the centre, local government and the devolved Governments have to work together in the best interests of the public. I endorse what she said, as I have said a few times today, about the importance of the underlying strength of our health system in such an emergency.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I want to begin by saying that although the loss of every single life is of course tragic—and I saw that at first hand when volunteering—it is important to note that, despite repeated political attacks at the time suggesting that we had the worst death rate in Europe, now when we look at the figures properly we see that we actually had a lower death rate than Spain and Italy, and that we were broadly in line with Europe. I caution against diminishing the results of a national effort, which was actually broadly in line with other countries, in a desire to make political attacks on the Conservative party.
As exhaustive as the inquiry’s proposals for things to look at is, to my mind I see a big gap which relates to the decision making of MPs. The inquiry does not seem to cover that. Those of us on the Government Benches—equally, it could be said of those on the Opposition Benches—were often faced with very difficult votes that were expected to go down to the wire and were asked to make very difficult decisions. MPs’ access to independent advice and scientific briefings was nowhere near like it should have been. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not part of the current inquiry, can he at least accept that it is a task for the Cabinet Office to think how we can better equip MPs with the information they need to make decisions on important votes of that nature?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I pass the national covid memorial wall every day on my way to this place. It and the inquiry are a reminder of what happens when Governments get things wrong. I absolutely welcome the announcement of a national pandemic response exercise later this year, but the inquiry found that a similar exercise took place in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Government before the pandemic, and that they failed to implement its conclusions. First, can the Minister reassure us that any outcomes from such an exercise will be reported to this House and that we will have oversight of the implementation of any recommendations? Secondly, I know it is outside the remit of the Minister’s statement, but can he give us an update on the recovery of any money lost through dodgy contracts to the mates of the previous Government?
Pat McFadden
Let me repeat the praise I gave to the volunteers who maintain the national covid memorial wall. Hon. Members may not be aware of it when they look at the red hearts, but over time they fade—they fade to pink. The reason they are kept red is that there is a group of volunteers down there overpainting the hearts to make sure that the wall does not fade away and that the memory of the names recorded does not fade away. The conclusions of the national pandemic exercise will be reported. Predictions are a dangerous game, but let me make one: there will be things that go wrong. Shortfalls will be exposed and not everything will go right, but that is part of the purpose of doing an exercise like this. I am happy to assure him in terms of learning from it and the conclusions.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member will know that we have appointed a covid fraud commissioner to try to recover as much as possible of the money that went wrong. I have sought not to be partisan today, but I do believe that the systems in place were wrong, and that there were some abuses and a significant loss of money. When we are in a situation where we want value for money for the public, we want to recover as much of that as possible. I repeat that relations with the devolved Governments on this kind of issue have been good so far. I hope it is the case that that is maintained through the national pandemic exercise that we are planning.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
We all lived through the pandemic, and we all came to see the immense value of our key workers: the bus drivers who had to continue to make essential journeys; the carers who had no choice but to continue to provide close-quarters care; and the posties, some of whom I met recently in Welwyn Garden City at their delivery depot on Bessemer Road. They told me that when they had socially distanced conversations on the doorstep with lonely residents, it was often the only human interaction they had all day. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm how important the Government believe the role of key workers is, and that, critically, for the next pandemic we have measures in place to make sure they are protected and supported?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Let me echo his praise for all the key workers he mentioned. When the chips were down, we found out who was keeping the country going. Let me, from this Dispatch Box, thank each and every one of them for what they did to keep the country going during those very difficult times.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister, quite rightly, expresses sympathy for the victims of covid-19, which is something we all share, but he has not mentioned anything about the victims of covid-19 vaccines, of whom there are thousands. We know that those people did the right thing and took the vaccines, but they were not warned of the risks. The Minister has been talking about risk assessments. There was a lack of risk engagement, and now we find that the compensation scheme, the vaccine damage payment scheme, is in place but not operating effectively or fairly. The Health Minister keeps talking about possibly amending it, but every time he mentions that it causes immense harm to all those who are still suffering as a consequence of having done the right thing and taken the covid-19 vaccines, when many of them now wish they had not.
Pat McFadden
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the production and distribution of the vaccines was one of the things that went well and which this country contributed to, and that the availability of vaccines helped us to overcome the pandemic. In those cases where there were adverse reactions, there is a scheme in place, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met people affected. Of course, we want to help people affected through the kind of scheme that exists.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for commenting on the importance of multidisciplinary research. From my own previous research, I know that that is very important, particularly in the development of AI algorithmic risk prediction models. I also had the pleasure yesterday of speaking to Professor Tom Solomon, the director of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute, which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had the pleasure of visiting recently. He impressed on me the value of physician researchers in conducting groundbreaking research. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we provide the time and funds to researchers such as Professor Solomon to help build our national resilience to future pandemics?
Pat McFadden
Let me echo my hon. Friend’s praise for Professor Solomon and the work that he and the Pandemic Institute are doing. He is right to underline the value of research, as is my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out throughout these exchanges, the next crisis that the country faces may be very different from the last, so it is important that we use one of this country’s great assets, its tremendous research institutes and research capability, to scan the horizon as well as we can and to be as well prepared as we possibly can.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Having served on the frontline during covid, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by clinicians, patients and staff. However, when it comes to preparing for any future pandemics, part of the solution is ensuring that we have robust epidemiological research. Could the Minister tell us, in rather more granular detail, what assessment he has made of the current projects commissioned by the Government?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for robust research. I do not analyse the research projects one by one, but I thank him for his service, and underline what I have said a few times today: the best insurance that we can have in responding to another crisis like the one that we went through some years ago is the underlying strength of the country and the NHS. That is why we have made the decisions to put resources into the NHS to help to turn it around and make it stronger in the future than it is today.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I spent the pandemic as a trade unionist at the TUC, supporting Frances, now Baroness, O’Grady in her fight for the rights to safety of working people. The covid inquiry heard time and again about the impact of the pandemic on those with low wages and insecure work—people who had to go into work even when it was not safe because otherwise they could not feed their families, and who were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Will the Minister ensure that the new national vulnerability map treats insecure workers as vulnerable for the purpose of crisis planning and resilience, and will he ensure that the unions are key stakeholders in building that resilience in the UK?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to underline the need to thank the key workers, many of whom were low paid and many of whom did come from ethnic minority backgrounds. They kept the country going, and sometimes had to put themselves at risk to help and protect the rest of us. I thank my hon. Friend and those who represent working people for the work that they did during the pandemic.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
May I ask about the specifics of the Government’s response to module 1? I was interested to hear about the national vulnerability map, which could help with a range of matters including digital exclusion as well as public health, but let me ask the Minister two questions. First, has he taken into consideration the findings of Chris Whitty’s 2021 report on coastal communities and their specific vulnerabilities? Secondly, while this is obviously a hugely valuable undertaking, I do not want us to create a one-trick pony, so could the Minister try to seize the big opportunity to build a better system for storing and using citizen data that could benefit everyone and give all sorts of people the support that they need when they need it?
Pat McFadden
As I said a while ago, data has been described as the new oil, and there are good reasons for using it. The Government and the state have a duty to try to use data to secure the best outcomes for the public, and one example is using it to map our vulnerabilities. I have been praising people for what they did during the pandemic, so let me now praise Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, for what he did then and what he continues to do today. The country is very lucky to have him, and I thank him for everything that he does.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a source of national shame that our country was so underprepared for the covid pandemic, and the Conservatives need to take their fair share of the responsibility for that. We all worry about where the next pandemic will come from, and I am particularly concerned about the risk posed by dengue fever. For those who are not aware of it, let me explain that it is a disease spread by mosquitoes. It has been travelling closer and closer to the UK in recent years owing to rising temperatures and climate change, and has most recently been found in Paris. As one who represents a constituency on the south coast, I am especially worried about the warning that it could be within the UK within years. There is currently no cure, but there is a vaccine going through trials thanks to international collaboration, of which our country is a part. May I ask what steps the Government are taking to improve our preparedness for the next pandemic, wherever it may come from and however it may be transmitted?
Pat McFadden
One of the risks that we face is posed by mosquito-borne diseases—viruses of various kinds. The UK Health Security Agency monitors such diseases so that we have the most up-to-date information possible. This is a good example of scanning the horizon and understanding that the next crisis we face may not be the same as the last.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I agree with other Members who have said that this inquiry is taking too long, costing too much and, in many cases, not asking the right questions. The results of the previous pandemic response exercise some nine years ago, Operation Cygnus, were so shocking that they were kept from this House and the British people. Will the Minister commit that the results of the pandemic exercise later this year will be transmitted totally openly, with full transparency, to this House and the British people?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for his two questions. I have said what I said on the speed of the state’s admission when things go wrong. We do need to think about that and look at it. As for the results, the findings of the exercise will be made public, and let me repeat my prediction: they will probably show things that have gone wrong and areas where we need to improve. Anyone who carries out such an exercise and does not expect that will face a nasty surprise.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
One of the positives we saw during the covid pandemic was an outpouring of neighbourliness. Churches and faith communities played a key role in mobilising support for those most in need, delivering meals, shopping and prescription medications to those who were advised to stay at home. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all those volunteers and assure the House that faith communities and other community organisations will be involved in the local resilience forums, so that they are integral to both the resilience planning and incident response?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many of these efforts showed the best of us and how much people were prepared to look out for one another. I was really touched by the efforts of the Sikh gurdwaras in Wolverhampton in distributing food to people of all faiths and none, and of other faith groups and community groups who did similar things to help the most vulnerable people during the pandemic.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I want to pay my respect to all those we have lost, and I give my heart to those who have lost loved ones and have to live their lives without them. In Bassetlaw, I have met many families who have needlessly lost loved ones. My good friend Pete Armitage died on 6 April 2020 in hospital, unable to breathe, without his wife by his side, and with only six of us at his funeral.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers who stepped up and went out, without any fear for their own health or their lives, to deliver food, to stand on vaccination lines and to help at local food banks. I want to ensure that we in Parliament never forget those names. I pay tribute to them, and I ask the Minister to do the same.
Pat McFadden
In my final answer of the afternoon, let me warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said on both counts. Let us remember all those who lost their lives and give thanks to the many relatives and friends who are keeping those names alive and trying to make sure that we learn the lessons from what happened in the past. Let us praise all the volunteers who helped people in any way. It was a very tough time in this country and others, but those efforts—that reaching out—showed the best of us, and we should not forget it.
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice any cases relating to vulnerable children that are currently before the courts or might come before the courts at a later date.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Last Monday, I set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including mandatory reporting, a new victims and survivors panel, an overhaul of data and police performance requirements, tougher sentences for perpetrators, and support for local inquiries, including in Oldham.
The Safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), met this morning with survivors from Oldham. Earlier this week, she and I met Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired both the seven-year national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the first local independent inquiry into grooming gangs in Rotherham. Professor Jay’s strongest message to us was that the survivors, who bravely testified to the terrible crimes committed against them, must not be left to feel that their efforts were in vain because, despite all the inquiries, no one listened and nothing was done. Following those discussions, I want to update the House on our next steps to take forward the inquiry’s recommendations, and to go further in tackling sexual exploitation and grooming on the streets and online, in order to keep children safe.
The independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse completed its final report in 2022. It took seven years, heard 7,000 personal testimonies and considered 2 million pages of evidence. There were devastating accounts of brutal rapes, sexual violence, humiliation, trauma and the betrayal of vulnerable children by those charged with protecting them, and accounts of people in positions of power who shamefully put the reputation of institutions before the protection of children. The inquiry included separate detailed reports on organised child abuse in residential homes and schools, and on abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic and Anglican Churches.
A two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation by organised networks and grooming gangs, published in February 2022, examined over 400 recommendations made by previous inquiries and serious case reviews, as well as taking further evidence of its own. There have been further reports since then, including on Telford and on police performance. However, despite all the national inquiries, reports and hundreds of recommendations, far too little action has been taken and, shamefully, little progress has been made. That has to change.
Before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report. Four of those are specifically for the Home Office. I can confirm that we have accepted them in full, including on disclosure and barring, and work is already under way. A cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by our new victims and survivors panel. In addition, I can confirm today that the Government will implement all the remaining recommendations in the child abuse inquiry’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, including updating key Department for Education guidance.
Let me turn to the areas where we need to go further. As I said last week, the most important task should be to increase police investigations into these horrific crimes and get abusers behind bars. We will introduce stronger sentences for child grooming by making organising abuse and exploitation an aggravating factor, and today I can announce new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions under way. I am extending the remit of the independent child sexual abuse review panel to cover not just historical cases before 2013 but all cases since, so that any victim of abuse will have the right to seek an independent review without having to go back to the local institutions that decided not to proceed with their case.
Today, I am writing to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ask all chief constables to look again at historical gang exploitation cases where no further action was taken, and to work with the child sexual exploitation police taskforce to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate. These new measures will be backed by £2 million of additional funding for the taskforce and the panel, and all police forces will be expected to implement the 2023 recommendations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, including producing “problem profiles” on the nature of grooming gangs in their area. I have asked the inspectorate to review progress this year.
As well as reviewing past cases, we need much stronger action to uncover the full scale and nature of these awful crimes. The child sexual exploitation police taskforce, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, has estimated that of the 115,000 child sexual abuse offences recorded by the police in 2023, around 4,000 involved more than one perpetrator. Of those, around 1,100 involved abuse within the family and over 300 involved abuse in institutions, and the taskforce identified 717 reported cases of group or gang-related child sexual exploitation. However, we know that the vast majority of abuse goes unreported, so we expect all those figures to be significant underestimates.
The taskforce reports that 127 major police investigations across 29 police forces are currently under way into child sexual exploitation and gang grooming. Many major investigations have involved Pakistani-heritage gangs. The police taskforce evidence also shows exploitation and abuse taking place across many different communities and ethnicities, but the data on the ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims is still inadequate.
As I said last week, we will overhaul the data that we expect local areas to collect as part of a new performance management framework. I have also asked the child sexual exploitation taskforce to immediately expand the ethnicity data it collects and publishes, so that data is gathered from the end of an investigation when a fuller picture is available, not just from the beginning when suspects may not yet have been identified.
To go much further, I have asked Baroness Louise Casey to oversee a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country, and to make recommendations on the further work that is needed. The specific 2022 IICSA report on gang exploitation concluded:
“An accurate picture of the prevalence of child sexual exploitation could not be gleaned”
from the data and evidence it had available. This audit will seek to fill that gap.
The audit will look at further evidence that was not previously available, including evidence collected by the police taskforce and the new problem profiles compiled by police forces. It will also include an equivalent audit of child protection referrals; it will properly examine ethnicity data and the demographics of the gangs and their victims; it will look at the cultural and societal drivers for this type of offending, including among different ethnic groups; and it will make recommendations about further analyses, investigations and actions that are needed to address current and historical failures. Baroness Louise Casey was the author of the no-holds-barred 2015 report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, and I have therefore asked her to oversee this rapid three-month audit ahead of the launch of the independent commission into adult social care.
In many areas across the country, the focus must now be on further police investigations and implementing recommendations to improve services, but we will also provide stronger national backing for local inquiries where they are needed, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors. Last week, the Prime Minister and I met survivors from Telford, who had enormous praise for the way that local inquiry was conducted after there had been failings over many years. That inquiry led to tangible change, including piloting the introduction of CCTV in taxis and appointing child sexual exploitation experts in local secondary schools. As we have seen, effective local inquiries can delve into far more local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy nationwide inquiry can provide.
Tom Crowther KC, the chair of the Telford inquiry, has agreed to work with the Government to develop a new framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries where they are needed. As a first step, he will work with Oldham council and up to four other pilot areas. This will include support for local authorities that want to explore other ways to support victims, including local panels or drawing on the experience of the independent inquiry’s truth project. The Government are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law.
We will also work with mayors and local councils to bolster the accountability mechanisms that can support and follow up local inquiries, to ensure that those who are complicit in cover-ups, or who try to resist scrutiny, are always robustly held to account so that truth and justice are never denied. This new package of national support for local inquiries will be backed by £5 million of additional funding to get further local work off the ground because, at every level, getting justice for victims and protecting children is a responsibility we all share.
Finally, we cannot ignore the way in which child exploitation is changing as offenders exploit new technology to target and groom children. We should all be deeply worried about the pace and growth of exploitation that begins online. We are therefore bolstering the work of the Home Office-funded undercover online network of police officers to target online offenders, and developing cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate livestreams and chatrooms where children are being groomed. Further measures will be announced in the crime and policing Bill to tackle those organising online child sex abuse.
Nothing matters more than the safety of our children, yet for too long, this horrific abuse was allowed to continue. Victims were ignored, perpetrators were left unpunished, and too many people looked the other way. Even when these shocking crimes were brought to light and national inquiries were commissioned to get to the truth, the resulting reports were too often left on the shelf as their recommendations gathered dust. Under this Government, that has changed. We are taking action not just on those recommendations, but on the additional work that we need to do to protect victims, put perpetrators behind bars and uncover the truth wherever things have gone wrong. This is about the protection of children, the protection of young girls, and the radical and ambitious mission that we have set for this Government to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I hope all Members will support that mission and support the measures that we have outlined today to help achieve that aim. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let us start by remembering the victims of this scandal. Thousands of young girls, often in their early teens, were systematically raped by gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage. Those in positions of authority—the police, local councils and the Crown Prosecution Service—ignored them and, in some cases, even covered up these horrendous crimes because of absurd concerns about so-called cultural sensitivity.
Ten days ago, the Prime Minister compounded this by saying that it was a “far-right bandwagon” to raise these issues and call for a proper inquiry. Let me say this: it is not far right to stand up for rape victims, and smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims—[Interruption.]
Chris Philp
Smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims being ignored and the crimes covered up in the first place. Therefore, will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his language last week?
It is not true to say that the previous Government did nothing following the IICSA report. They set up the grooming gangs taskforce following the IICSA report, which led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year alone, and I am glad that the new Government are continuing that work.
In April 2023, the data collection on the ethnicity of perpetrators was initiated, but the initial publication of that—I think last November—showed that the collection is incomplete. Will the Home Secretary ensure both that the police follow through on the work initiated in April 2023 and that the data is collected more comprehensively?
The mandatory reporting recommendation was introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the early general election. I am glad that the Government say that they will now pick that up and take it forward.
Previous reports and reviews did not go far enough. The IICSA report itself was mainly not about these rape gangs. In fact, it barely touched on the issue and looked at only six towns. We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected, so the IICSA barely scratched the surface.
The Home Secretary just announced Government support for only five local inquiries. That is wholly inadequate when we know that up to 50 towns are affected. I have some serious questions for the Home Secretary. First, how are the other 40-plus towns supposed to get answers to the questions that they have, and how will these initial five towns be chosen?
Secondly, the Home Secretary said nothing in her statement about the powers that these local inquiries will have. It seems that they will not be statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. That means that these local inquiries will not have the power to compel witnesses to attend, to take evidence under oath or to requisition written evidence. If that is the case, how can they possibly get to the truth when faced with cover-ups? It was precisely that problem—the lack of powers—that reportedly led the chairs of the Manchester local inquiry to resign last year. They were not given the information that they needed by public authorities, and did not have the powers required to force its release, so they resigned.
Legal powers are needed, because these crimes were deliberately covered up in some cases. We heard just a week or two ago from the former Labour MP for Rochdale Simon Danczuk, who said that the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party told him not to raise these issues for fear of losing Muslim votes—truly appalling. Not a single person has been convicted for covering up or ignoring these crimes. In my view, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office might apply. Moreover, those vile perpetrators who can be deported should be deported, every single one of them—changing the law if that is needed to do it, and using visa sanctions on countries such as Pakistan to ensure that they accept eligible perpetrators.
What the Home Secretary has announced today is totally inadequate. It will cover only a fraction of the towns affected, and it appears that the inquiries will not have the legal powers they need. That is why we need a proper, full national public inquiry, covering the whole country and with the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 that are needed to obtain the evidence required. It is not just me who thinks that; in the last week or two, the Labour Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) have called for a full national inquiry, as has Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. I commend those Members and Andy Burnham for their courage in speaking out.
Recent polling shows that the vast majority of the public want a full national public inquiry, including 73% of Labour voters. Most importantly, so do victims. Jane was groomed and abused at the age of just 12. She was gang raped repeatedly. She told the police and she told her social worker. At one point, the police even found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting him, they arrested her. Jane still does not know if any of her abusers have been jailed, or if any of the public officials who let her down so badly have been held to account. Jane now wants a proper national public inquiry—Home Secretary, why don’t you?
Yvette Cooper
These are the most vile crimes, against teenagers, children and young girls. Very often they involve sadistic abuse, rape and the most appalling trauma that can last for many years. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse ran for seven years and took evidence from 7,000 victims and survivors across the country. Too many of those voices, and the bravery that those victims showed, have just being ignored. The right hon. Gentleman says that he took action, but I am afraid the Conservative party had 10 years to introduce a duty to report child abuse, make it a responsibility of professionals to report it, and make it an offence to cover up child abuse. I was calling for that 10 years ago. The Prime Minister was calling for it 12 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do it, and we have lost a decade as a result.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse also ran a two-year investigation of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. One of the shocking things that it found was that less is now known and understood about the prevalence of this appalling crime than prior to 2015. In the period 2015 to 2022, even after we knew about what had happened in Rotherham, and Baroness Louise Casey had identified its impact and the failure to address issues of race and ethnicity, the previous Government went backwards on gathering data and information, and the need for proper evidence. That is why this Government have commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to instigate a rapid review to uncover the prevalence of this appalling crime across the country, with no holds barred, in the way that we know she will conduct this inquiry, to fill the gaps in the evidence, rather than rerun the same questions without the evidence and data that we badly need.
I also point out to the shadow Minister that his party weakened the disclosure and barring rules in 2012, again making changes that I and the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), opposed at the time, and that the independent inquiry rightly recommended reversing in order to keep children safe. Again, his party failed to act.
I hope the action we have announced will be supported right across the country. It includes the duty to report child abuse; proper penalties for covering it up; stronger sentences for grooming gangs; new rights for victims to get an independent review on reopening their case; new action to reopen historical police investigations; new standards for the police to meet; a new victims and survivors panel; a new audit of the scale and nature of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, led by someone who uncovered a lot of the problems in Rotherham, including the failure to confront Pakistani-heritage gangs; the gathering and publishing of new ethnicity data, which the shadow Minister failed to do; new national support for local inquiries, including the Telford model; victims panels; new work on accountability linked to the Hillsborough law to hold failures to account, because we will strengthen the law to do so; and a proper timetable for taking forward the independent inquiry, because this has to be about action and protecting children and keeping them safe.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I think I heard the Home Secretary adopting my five-point plan, so I thank her for that and thank everybody across the House who has been campaigning on the issue. If I could ask for some clarity: did the Home Secretary say she will adopt all 20 of the IICSA recommendations or just those in the grooming gang strand? Do local authorities as well as police forces have to do a review into their cases of CSE? She cites Telford, which was victim-focused—that was why it was so important, because we must have those victims’ and survivors’ voices—but what Telford and Greater Manchester said they lacked was the ability to compel witnesses. A big strand of what we need to do is ensure that there have been no cover-ups, and we can only do that if requirements are on a statutory footing.
With respect, Telford cost £8 million and the Home Secretary said she was providing £5 million for the whole inquiry across the country. Why do we need another inquiry in Telford when we know this is happening nationally? Can she assure us that there will be transparency of the findings of all the inquiries, reviews and audits? Is it possible that the inquiry could be UK-wide, because I do not believe this is only happening in England and Wales? It needs to be across the whole of the UK.
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. To go through them in turn, we will set out before Easter the timetable for taking forward the work around all the recommendations from the main independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. She will know that some of the recommendations raise complex issues, and considerable work will need to be done on some of them. We recognise that and have discussed that with Professor Alexis Jay. There are other recommendations we can take forward swiftly, and those covered and led by the Home Office are being taken forward swiftly. The work is already under way, including on disclosure and barring and on the duty to report, which will be included as part of the legislation.
On the local inquiries, we are not redoing the Telford inquiry. My hon. Friend is right that in Telford the extensive inquiry that was conducted involved, crucially, victims and survivors throughout. They were involved from the very beginning, designing the inquiry in the first place. The inquiry has led to substantial change, and there continues to be further follow-up work on it. That is the effective model. We need local councils, police and crime commissioners, Mayors and the Government to work together on them, so we are providing the additional £5 million. Tom Crowther will work specifically with the first five local authorities that want to do such work, drawing up an effective model that can be used in other areas.
On the ability to gather evidence and ensure that there is proper accountability, there has to be clear accountability. This process cannot be a way in which areas or institutions can avoid scrutiny. Obviously, the work in Telford and the original work in Rotherham by Baroness Casey managed to uncover truths in different areas, but there also needs to be other new arrangements on accountability. We are working with the Cabinet Office, Mayors and councils to draw up new accountability arrangements. That will ensure either proper follow-up or, as part of those initial inquiries, that a proper accountability framework is in place. We will link that to the duty of candour part of the Hillsborough law. Unlike the previous Government, who frankly never took seriously issues of candour, responsibility and accountability in the 14 years that they were in power, and refused to bring in a Hillsborough law, we will bring in such a law because we are clear that there must be proper accountability for the failure to tackle this abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Survivors are tough, as I know from my own experiences of abuse as a child, about which I have spoken in the Chamber. Survivors have been subject to intense impacts and blistering climates, but like a blade in the blacksmith’s forge, each strike has strengthened many survivors’ character, mettle and spirit, even though those are experiences that should never be undergone in the first place. Each shock has emboldened our resolve to be the very sword carried by Lady Justice herself, or at least to see it wielded with strength—to see action taken and justice done.
However, too many survivors’ stories have been characterised by being ignored, hidden or gaslit. Recently, too many survivors’ stories have been shamefully used as a political football in some corners of this House and beyond. Survivors’ experiences are littered with gut-wrenching instances of power-holders missing glaring opportunities to take action against child sexual abuse and exploitation. History must stop repeating itself. We cannot afford for Professor Jay’s findings, or those of the inquiries announced today, to gather dust atop power-holders’ bookshelves, to get lost at the bottom of in-trays, or to be banished to the depths of filing cabinets. In line with the courage that it has taken so many survivors to speak out on this issue, we Liberal Democrats—and many others, I know—implore those in positions of power at all levels to step up, too. That means that those weaponising this issue for party political gain must stop now; it means that Professor Jay’s 20 recommendations must be implemented from now; and it means that the work to get the local inquiries set up must start now.
Survivors need assurance that—beyond the areas that have been announced today—they will be able to get justice in their cases as well. Will the Home Secretary share the plan for the areas beyond those she has announced today? What legal powers will the inquiries have to ensure that they have teeth and justice can be delivered? We must all dignify survivors’ experiences with action. We must honour all survivors’ stories with reform. Lady Justice demands it, and so does the tempered sword that she wields.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s points on this extremely serious issue. He is right that many victims and survivors need a proper police investigation to go after the perpetrators, prosecute and hold them to account, and get justice and put them behind bars. That will help to protect other young people as well. One of the most important changes is that we are making it easier to get investigations reopened where they have been closed down for the wrong reasons and justice still needs to be done. We will give victims a stronger right to review. They will be able to go to an independent panel with their case and have it independently reviewed so that it can be reopened. We are also asking police forces across the country to review the closed cases and pursue new lines of inquiry, with the taskforce’s support to ensure that they can do so.
Tom Crowther, who did the Telford inquiry, will work with five areas on the kinds of inquiry that they may want to take forward, involving victims and survivors—it is crucial to involve victims and survivors in the design. One Telford survivor gave evidence to both the national inquiry and the local inquiry, and she found that the local inquiry was far more effective at getting changes in that area, and it was easier for her to give evidence to it. That is why we need areas to be able to learn from what Telford did effectively, but also to be backed up by a stronger arrangement for accountability—stronger mechanisms for holding local organisations to account if they are not complying. However, we also expect local organisations to comply and to be part of finding truth and justice for survivors.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the measures she has included in it, and I thank her for her promptness in doing that. I also thank her team, especially the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for listening to and providing support to constituents who have gone through such horrific abuse. How will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that the individuals responsible for this awful abuse will be caught and convicted, but that those who failed to protect and support these vulnerable young people—it is not just young women who have been affected in Oldham, but also young men—will be held to account?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise those important points, and I know that she has worked on this issue for many years. One of the things we need to do is strengthen the law in this area. We need to have a much stronger legal framework to ensure that there is proper accountability; not just holding to account and properly punishing the perpetrators of appalling abuse, but holding to account institutions and individuals who fail to take the action needed to protect our children. That means the duty to report, making it an offence to cover up child abuse; a duty of candour, to comply and provide the information and transparency in these cases; and looking at the other local mechanisms that need to be in place in areas such as my hon. Friend’s and across the country, enabling us to ensure that there is proper accountability when things go really badly wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome the statement, which my Committee will look at carefully. Professor Alexis Jay will be in front of us next Tuesday and I am sure that we will come back with further points, but I have two points today. The first is about the duty to report. In many cases, reports were made but the victims were simply not listened to and not believed, so what can the Home Secretary do to ensure that changes? Secondly, since I am not clear from her answers so far, will the local inquiries have statutory powers to compel witnesses—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
On the right hon. Lady’s first point, she is right that reports were often not listened to and not followed up. In some areas, what that means is that although recommendations were made, there was never any follow-up—there was never the proper implementation of standards to be able to do so. For example, in policing we have never had a proper performance management framework to ensure that standards are being met and that there is proper follow-up. We need that stronger performance management framework in place.
Those who conducted the Telford inquiry were able to make progress and get to the truth using an existing local inquiry framework. That was able to be extremely effective. In other areas, we have needed to have other action—including, for example, action by inspectorates to follow up—so there are different approaches that we can take. We believe that the current system is not strong enough; that is why we have set out work that is under way, involving the Cabinet Office and local mayors and local councils, to make sure we can strengthen the accountability arrangements to be able both to follow up and support local inquiries where they are relevant, and to use existing powers that are in place.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
As a barrister and a former Crown prosecutor for 14 years who dealt with sexual abuse and rape cases, I can tell this House that sexual abuse and assault occur throughout the United Kingdom and are not specific to any gender, race or religion—we just have to look at the Pelicot case in France. However, there is one group of victims who are often not spoken about, which is young boys and young men. The level of sexual abuse that relates to them is completely under-reported. I think it is a cultural thing: the idea that boys must man up and must not show their feelings. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary that, when she is looking at these things, she ensures that those undertaking such inquiries look into facts about the abuse of young boys?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. In fact, it was one of the issues raised as part of the independent inquiry’s two-year review of child exploitation. The review identified that teenage or young boys are being exploited and that there are often patterns of that starting with online exploitation. What started as online abuse and grooming then led to contact abuse and rape, and the most appalling violations. She is right to highlight this issue, and it is extremely important that this is taken into account and is part of the way in which local councils and police forces need to respond.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The House will be well aware that I have been consistently campaigning for a rape gangs inquiry into child sexual expectation across Keighley and the wider Bradford district for far too long. So I welcome some of the points that the Home Secretary has made, particularly on the implementation of the 20 recommendations from the IICSA report. Unfortunately, I do not feel that she is going far enough, and I would like to make a few points.
In particular, I have serious concerns about the ability of inquiries at a local level to compel witnesses to give evidence and about the amount of funding that will be made available. Will the local inquiries that the Home Secretary is advocating be truly independent, not just local authorities marking their own homework, and will they lead to convictions? Local authority leaders in Bradford district have consistently refused to back my calls for a public inquiry, as has the Mayor of West Yorkshire and the deputy Mayor for policing, Alison Lowe. How on earth are we meant to get across this barrier of local leaders refusing to have an inquiry on this issue without the Government stepping in and giving the statutory authority that we on this side of the House are demanding?
Yvette Cooper
It is obviously really important to ensure that there is independent scrutiny. The hon. Member will be aware that the inquiry in Rotherham led by Baroness Louise Casey used inspectorate powers, but it was clearly independent and it managed to uncover serious problems that had gone wrong in Rotherham at that time, so there are different ways of doing this. The Telford inquiry was funded locally, but it managed to involve victims and survivors, and it also managed to shape the inquiry in the way that victims and survivors wanted, which is also important. For all areas right across the country, the most important thing is still to get police investigations going after the perpetrators, getting them before the courts and getting them behind bars. Whatever else happens, getting stronger police investigations in order to pursue perpetrators must remain at the heart of what happens.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Child sexual expectation and abuse are the most sickening, appalling crimes perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our communities. So I strongly welcome this comprehensive new national plan of action to put victims first, and I welcome the appointment of Baroness Casey to conduct a rapid review of the scale and nature of these grooming gangs. Can I also urge a cross-party consensus on this issue, rather than the game playing and misinformation we have seen over the past week? The Home Secretary, the Safeguarding Minister and I have all been consistent in saying that we should put the victims at the heart of everything we do. My constituents in Rochdale know that this issue is too important for political point scoring, and we should put victims at the heart of everything we do. That is not just for the victims of the past, but for the victims of the present.
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know this is an area on which he does a lot of work. He is right that the purpose of a national audit by Baroness Casey is to identify the scale and look properly at the characteristics of these appalling crimes right across the country, and then to make further recommendations about further work and further investigations that may be needed. Anyone who has worked with Baroness Casey will know how independent and determined she will always be. My hon. Friend is also right that this must still be about victims and survivors and, crucially, protecting them for the future, because we still do not have strong enough standards and strong enough protection in place. Unless those changes are made, we will continue to let children and young people down.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the steps the Government are taking to address this serious issue. I appreciate that the timetable for the implementation of the IICSA recommendations cannot be immediately shared, but waiting until Easter means there is a big period when we need to take some action. Will she explain what immediate steps the Government are taking to ensure that all alleged victims who come forward are treated, taken seriously and listened to, and that immediate action is taken to address their allegations, so as to serve justice and protect these children?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure the hon. Member that we are already taking forward some of the recommendations. Some will be in legislation and will take time to pass through Parliament, because legislation also needs to change. We are also taking immediate action to change the victims’ right to review so that if victims have been to the police or to a local authority—this includes parents who have been worried about their children—and they feel that nothing is being done, they will have a right to review. That will be an independent right to review—not just to go back to the same police force or the same Crown Prosecution Service, but to go to an independent panel on child sexual abuse to get that independent look, so that we can get more cases reopened and get urgent action taken, which is what we need to keep children safe.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I welcome this action from a Government who see violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is, with a Prime Minister, Home Secretary and a Safeguarding Minister with records of taking action to deliver for victims like me and many in my constituency. Giving birth as a result of grooming is a story that far too many of us share. There are so many reasons why children and the women that they grow into do not speak out. I want to share one particular story today. It is about the victim who told me that the perpetrator has threatened that if she speaks out, he will have access to her child, which is something he has not done so far. That means she has to work so hard to hide his crime in order to protect herself and her baby. Will the Home Secretary meet me and other victims to discuss changing the law in order to protect children born of rape?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point, and also for the shocking and disturbing story she has told of victims continuing to be silenced, having already been through the most traumatic experiences. They are then continuing to be silenced to protect the children, even though what actually needs to happen is for perpetrators to be held to account and to face the full force of the law. She is right that we need to ensure that family courts cannot be used by abusers and rapists to persecute victims. I will happily meet my hon. Friend, and I know that the Safeguarding Minister will too. This issue is also being taken forward by the Ministry of Justice.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The House should be generous towards the Home Secretary, as she has travelled a long way since last week by recognising that there is a requirement for far more inquiries into the towns affected, and we should thank her for that. However, one crucial thing still lacking from her statement today is whether these new inquiries will have the power to summon witnesses and require the production of papers.
Only the Home Secretary—or a Secretary of State or Minister—can set up a statutory inquiry. In fact, the Minister specifying an inquiry could set the terms of reference, decide whether it should concentrate on certain towns, set the timeframe and set the budget. She could appoint as many people as she wants to the panel so that different parts of the inquiry could run in different parts of the country concurrently. Is she really ruling out that any of these inquiries should be statutory inquiries? Victims have the real freedom to speak out only in this Parliament, as we have just movingly heard, or in a statutory inquiry, where they are legally immune from consequences for anything they say. Why cannot she provide the victims with those protections?
Yvette Cooper
The strongest protection for victims continues to be through police investigations, and of course the police have full powers to pursue investigations wheresoever they may be found. A series of local inquiries have been held in different ways. The inspector investigation into Rotherham, where Baroness Casey was the lead inspector, did have powers to get to the truth, whereas the Telford inquiry did not have those powers but still managed to uncover serious problems and make serious recommendations.
There are different ways in which to do this. We have made it clear that we want to strengthen accountability powers and the ability to ensure that answers are given to local areas, and that is alongside the work we already have under way as part of the Hillsborough law on the duty of candour that we need to implement across the board.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the really important steps that she has announced today. Nothing must come in the way of victims getting justice or being listened to, or of us learning all that we can about how we protect future victims. If lessons come out of the individual local inquiries repeated across the country that would enable us to better protect victims in the future, how will we co-ordinate that? Turning to the previous question, will she explain why she believes that the statutory footing is not the right way to go and that the localised way will ensure that we get to the truth?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure proper follow-up where there are recommendations. There have been over 500 different recommendations, predominantly around child sexual exploitation, with many more around child sexual abuse much more widely. There is currently not a proper process to be able to follow them up. That is one of the reasons why the independent inquiry talked about strengthening child protection arrangements through, for example, a child protection authority and having stronger arrangements in that way. It is also one of the reasons why we have said that we need a new performance framework for policing to be able to have proper follow-up.
Obviously, we have already had a statutory seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse and a statutory two-year investigation into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. Those reports came out with really important recommendations, but one of the things that they identified was that there simply was not enough evidence or data on the gangs in particular to be able to do further work and further investigations. That is why the next step must be to have the rapid national audit that we have asked Baroness Casey to undertake to get a much more extensive assessment of the prevalence and nature of child sexual exploitation across the country.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The right hon. Lady will know that I would not for one moment question her integrity, and certainly not her intent. However, I am perplexed by the methodology. Baroness Casey has one or two other things on her plate at the moment, but if she is able to deliver this audit in three months, that can only be a good thing. In her statement, she said that Tom Crowther has agreed to work with the Government to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries where they are needed—five pilot schemes. That in itself will take time, and it is kicking the can down the road.
We all know that the Select Committees of this House can take evidence, generate a report and publish it in short order. It does not have to take seven years—it can take less than seven months. Having heard everything that the right hon. Lady has said, I cannot for the life of me understand why she is so resistant, first, to a broad-based national inquiry rather than a narrow five-town inquiry and, secondly, to statutory measures that will allow that inquiry to compel witnesses and evidence.
Yvette Cooper
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the importance of any independent inquiry is the independence of the decisions made by the chair about how it should be pursued. The inquiry led by Baroness Jay into child sexual abuse took seven years—that was a decision made independently by Baroness Jay and the panel. They took evidence from 7,000 victims right across the country. They pursued detailed investigations in different areas, including into churches, religious organisations, residential homes and schools. The inquiry into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs on our streets took two years.
First, we want a rapid audit that fills the gaps that were left by the independent inquiry, such as on the scale and characteristics of child sexual exploitation across the country. That work will rightly be done by Baroness Casey. Secondly, we want more police investigations under way, including the victims’ right to review. Thirdly, we want Tom Crowther to be able to work with other areas where there are local failings and problems, to pursue successful local inquiries such as Telford, to get to the heart of local failures and make sure that there is accountability.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I remain shocked that only two MPs stepped up and attended and participated in the Alexis Jay five-year inquiry into child sex abuse—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and Lord Mann, when he was the Bassetlaw MP. As its new MP, it is my duty and responsibility to carry on that fight for justice.
Where grooming gangs have been operating, whether they are white, Pakistani-origin or church gangs, or taking place behind the closed doors of private homes, the bright light of an inquiry will expose who they are, where the cover-ups are and who is responsible. Every single perpetrator should be hunted down and jailed. I have no time for the grandstanders or the people who turn a blind eye. This is the biggest challenge of our Parliament. I find it stunning that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is not in his place for this critical statement.
Inquiries in areas where the gangs operate will give sick and evil perpetrators no place to hide. National oversight for Government is essential, ensuring swift legal action and the mapping of gangs, their links and their co-ordination—when and where they are ferrying girls across county lines. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to end this tyranny of child abuse and put words into action?
Yvette Cooper
I agree. These terrible crimes have been ignored for too long. There are currently 127 major police operations under way on child sexual exploitation and gang grooming, across 29 different police forces. The independent inquiry identified that child sexual exploitation happens across all police force areas and all communities. All areas should ensure that they have the proper systems in place to follow up on what is happening to missing children, such as the vulnerable kids who stay out overnight, or those who go missing from residential care homes. Too often, that is still not happening and too often, we still get reports, even though those are basic things that all police forces and local authorities should be doing.
That is why we have strengthened the powers for victims to get a review, and that is why we are requiring police forces to look back at historical cases, because we know that cases are not being reported and not being investigated. That is where the fastest action needs to be, to go after the perpetrators who are still on our streets and still getting away with it. They will continue to do so unless police forces and local councils work together to put perpetrators behind bars.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation.
May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny.
One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC—
Yvette Cooper
I am happy to follow up with the hon. Lady about the very serious issues she raised. She is right that this cannot be about institutions just marking their own homework. That is one of the reasons why we have made the right to review an independent one. For child sexual abuse cases, where victims feel that they have been let down by a police force or the Crown Prosecution Service, they should be able to take that right to review not back to the same police force, but to an independent child sexual abuse panel to get a right to review in order to see whether they can get their cases reopened and properly investigated and see perpetrators pursued.
The hon. Lady will also know that there are other routes to hold police forces to account, including the police inspectorate. Although it can currently make recommendations—for example, it has just found serious failings in Cleveland police’s response to child sexual exploitation—too often, those recommendations are not followed up because there are no powers to do so. That is why we will also be changing the police performance management framework to strengthen the ability of the inspectorate and the Home Office to ensure that action is taken to improve performance and implement recommendations for improvement where serious problems are found. I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about the wider policing reform needed to make sure there is accountability.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who is not in her place, for sharing her story—I know it is very difficult to do—and for her continued work to support victims. It is really important that we finally act for victims and survivors, and I welcome that the Home Secretary will be acting on the inquiry’s recommendations. I urge her to make public the monitoring of the progress of those actions and to return to the House to provide regular updates on those actions.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We will need a process to keep the House up to date on the next steps and actions that are taken forward. We will do that through the victims and survivors panel that will be established by the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and through regular updates on the work of the cross-departmental group of Ministers to pursue and take forward the recommendations.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement; it is great to see some progress. I will not cover what has been said about the legal powers, but I am interested in the funding. When I led a commission in Plymouth, the money to pay for it came from the local authority’s in-year budget. I appreciate the £7 million in total that has been announced. However, the Home Secretary has talked a lot about the police. What additional funding will they receive to do this work on a local level? What additional funding will there be for the practicalities of holding these inquiries, outside the five initial local authorities? What funding will come forward for the interventions that might be recommended following the inquiries? We know that local authorities are incredibly cash-strapped, and this could potentially disincentivise them to follow through on these local inquiries. Finally, is that £7 million new money going into the violence against women and girls budget, or is it money that would have been spent elsewhere?
Yvette Cooper
On the funding to support the various measures we are taking forward, we have identified up to £10 million for additional investment to support further action. However, I cannot stress enough that this has to be part of the mainstream work that agencies, police forces and local councils do, because tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse cannot just be an add-on. It cannot be something that is done only if there is a particular announcement from the Government—it has to be done as part of the core responsibilities of police forces and local councils and included in their funding. That is why we want our mission to halve violence against women and girls to be the central mission right across agencies and right across the Government, as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I appreciate that this is a very sensitive subject, but if the questions are long and the answers are just as long, we will get very few people in. Chris Murray, show us how it is done.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her report, Alexis Jay notes that one in 20 boys and one in six girls in the United Kingdom is estimated to be a victim of sexual abuse. We have had scandal after scandal of grooming in care homes, councils, schools and churches for decades. I welcome the appointment of Baroness Casey on the rapid review into grooming, and welcome that it will be rapid, because these victims deserve justice.
It is unbelievable to my mind that grooming is not an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders. Will the Home Secretary restate her commitment to making it an aggravating factor, and commit to that being done quickly and by force, so that child sexual offenders are properly punished by the law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The inquiry identified that half a million children are victims of sexual abuse every year. The majority of cases are, sadly, within the family—a betrayal by those from whom children should be able to expect protection. However, as he said, there have also been huge betrayals in residential homes and other institutions, including faith institutions—the Church of England and the Catholic Church—as well as wider grooming online and on the streets as part of these terrible crimes. So yes, we will change the law, strengthen sentencing and make grooming an aggravating factor, because the punishment should fit this terrible crime.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There is much to welcome in the Home Secretary’s statement, but she has resisted six invitations from hon. Members to confirm that the Government-supported local inquiries will have statutory powers. Instead, she is relying on the duty of candour, responsibility and accountability, so let me try it a different way. Is the Home Secretary 100% certain that the duty of candour, responsibility and accountability is equivalent to statutory powers?
Yvette Cooper
What we need to do is to ensure that the crimes are investigated and that there is proper follow-up in those areas where things have gone badly wrong—and we know that there are some areas where things have gone badly wrong. The first stage has to be for the police to have full powers to pursue these crimes and to follow wherever the evidence takes them in order to put perpetrators behind bars. Frankly, that is where they should be to protect children and keep them safe.
We also need to ensure that where things have gone wrong, there are sufficient powers to be able to get to the truth and sufficient ability for local organisations to do that, so that no one can hide from accountability, run away or obfuscate, or use bureaucracy to get away with providing the answers, the justice and the accountability that victims need. That is why we have set up a new programme of work to look at how we can strengthen the powers available and the accountability available. Part of that has to be the duty of candour. It also has to include the duty to report, because there have to be stronger responsibilities on people to report child abuse in the first place and we have to make it a criminal offence to cover it up. If the law is not strong enough, we will not get the accountability or the action.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I encourage Opposition Members to heed the appeal from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) to stop scoring party political points on such an important and sensitive subject. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement, in particular the Government’s commitment to take action to protect victims and secure justice by accelerating investigations and prosecutions. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the support is there so that police forces such as West Yorkshire have the resources they need to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these horrible crimes?
Yvette Cooper
We have increased the resources for police forces across the country by up to £1 billion next year. It is really important that all police forces see these kinds of crimes, against some of the most vulnerable people in society, as part of the core work that they must do on public protection and keeping people safe.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent campaign to get an inquiry into Keighley and Bradford.
Scotland is not immune from grooming gangs. Indeed, a survivor expert fears that grooming gangs are operating in every town and city in Scotland. What discussions has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government to ensure there is a unified and co-ordinated approach across the United Kingdom? Lastly, just to add my voice to those of others in the Chamber, why on earth can the inquiry not be backed by statute? The Inquiries Act 2005 gives all the accountability and assurances that victims and communities need to ensure process is followed properly.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the child sexual exploitation and abuse that takes place in every corner of the United Kingdom. Obviously, on the issues that involve police forces, the Home Office has responsibility for the police forces in England and Wales. Therefore, some of the changes we are making around the review panel, and around performance management and proper data in these areas, will apply to England and Wales police forces. However, we are also working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which as he will know works very closely with Police Scotland to ensure there is a national approach. I would also say that we had the nationwide inquiry into both child sexual abuse more widely and child sexual exploitation. It is really important that we fill the gaps in the evidence and that we take forward those recommendations, alongside supporting those areas where there have been particular problems to get to the truth.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome today’s news that Baroness Casey will conduct a rapid review of the scale and nature of grooming gang offences. Having served as deputy police and crime commissioner on the frontline in Lancashire, I know that much exploitation and abuse goes unreported and unidentified in towns such as Blackpool, and that the figures are a significant underestimate. What will the Government do to ensure that systems are in place that enable these crimes to be reported and command the confidence of victims and survivors?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that it should be easier to report crimes, but I also think there should be a proactive duty on police forces, local authorities and child protection authorities to pursue the evidence of where these crimes are taking place even when they are not being reported. If kids are going missing from home, and particularly from residential care homes, they may not be reporting crimes partly because they are being groomed and exploited. As well as making it easier for victims to come forward and disclose the terrible things that have happened to them, we should ensure that those authorities have a responsibility to pursue crimes wherever they are found.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am usually measured when I come here, but it worries me that the Labour Government seem to be playing us for fools today. The Home Secretary has picked five out of 50 towns and provided no statutory powers. She has announced a review by the incredibly able Baroness Casey, but Baroness Casey is already conducting a review of social care, and this review is not a review; it is an audit. Is not the truth that the good Members on the other side of the House went back to their constituencies—and there are many across the country—and recognised the strength of feeling among the public about the need for a national inquiry? Members on this side of the Chamber get it, and most of the Back Benchers on the Home Secretary’s side get it. Why does she not swallow her pride and launch a national inquiry?
Yvette Cooper
Let me just say that I was one of those who called for the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse very many years ago, and that I also supported the two-year investigation by that independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation, as well as some of its other investigations. However, we also have a responsibility to act. When more than 500 recommendations from inquiries are just sitting there with dust gathering on them, we have to ensure that we get action, including the audit that we need from Baroness Casey, who will be proceeding with that for three months before the commission on social care gets going. It is also important for us to have stronger police investigations—because if the police investigations do not happen, no one will get the protection they need—and for Tom Crowther to work with the first local areas that want to take forward local inquiries in order to develop a model and a programme that can be used in other areas, wherever it is needed.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Child sexual exploitation is without a shadow of a doubt the most disgusting, degrading crime imaginable, and we must at all times have the victims at the forefront of our minds. When Conservative Members table amendments to important legislation that they know will not result in an inquiry but will block child protection measures, and then spend the subsequent days spreading misinformation, they are letting victims down.
I welcome the national audit of grooming gangs, and I welcome the reopening of the police investigations to ensure that criminals are brought to justice, but may I check one point with the Home Secretary? She said a number of times that the five local areas she had identified were initial, pilot areas. Is it the ambition that wherever these crimes are taking place, local inquiries can take place?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Wherever there are serious problems or failings and it is believed that local inquiries are needed, we want those areas to be able to conduct the kind of effective local inquiry that Telford was able to conduct, rather than having to start from scratch. Tom Crowther will work with five areas so that he can draw up conclusions about how we can most effectively learn the lessons of what happened in Telford, where victims and survivors felt supported and also felt that they delivered change—that things had actually happened as a result—rather than having inquiries whose recommendations just sit on a shelf, letting everyone down.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
As well as withheld court transcripts, I have been pushing the Ministry of Justice for data on the following: how many Pakistani or other foreign rapists have been deported, are still in prison, did not serve a custodial sentence, are back in the same community as their victims, had previous convictions or have reoffended, with a full nationality breakdown of those involved in the gangs. The response was that the requested information
“is not centrally identified in the data systems relevant to these questions.”
If this were a state inquiry into the private sector, it would be accused of negligence. My view is that we need a full national inquiry. This is a rotting stain on our country, and it needs to be exorcised in full. It cannot continue to be kicked into the long grass. The British public want transparency, and they want to know why this has taken so long to be dealt with.
Yvette Cooper
We do believe that better, more comprehensive data needs to be collected. That is why I have said that the overall data on child sexual abuse needs to be overhauled, with immediate changes to the gathering of data on ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims, because the system we inherited from the previous Government simply is not strong enough. We will need further changes as well.
On the issue of foreign national offenders, where foreign citizens have committed sexual offences in this country, they have no right to stay in this country, and we have to increase returns. That is why, rightly, this Government have increased returns of foreign national offenders by over 20% since the election.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the announcements the Home Secretary has made today. Disclosing abuse is a very difficult thing to do. Many victims speak out, but too often their words are not heard, they are not taken seriously or they fall between multiple agencies. Will the Secretary of State investigate how we can assist victims to disclose in the first place and ensure that agencies act on those disclosures?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to make that important point. By establishing a victims and survivors panel to work with the safeguarding Minister and other Ministers on taking forward recommendations around sexual abuse, we want to make sure we are recognising those experiences and exactly how difficult it can be to come forward. People need to have the confidence that if they do come forward to do something incredibly difficult, they will be listened to, they will be taken seriously and investigations will follow.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for her in-depth explanation of what the Government are and will be doing to ensure the safety of our children in the face of the most heinous crimes. Since the vote on the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill last week and the subsequent attention that it attracted in the media, many of my constituents have written to me upset, angry and in fear over the grooming scandal. All the correspondence I have received demands a public inquiry into this scandal, to determine the failures—both historical and present—of the institutions involved that allowed these heinous crimes against vulnerable children to go on for so long and so widely, without being stopped and without the victims being safeguarded and protected sufficiently.
In northern towns such as Blackburn in my constituency, crimes of this nature and grooming gangs continue to haunt our streets and vulnerable children. Can the Home Secretary confirm that further public inquiries and reports are needed to find out why this has gone on for such a long time? We need to provide my constituents and everybody across the country with solace.
Yvette Cooper
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation concluded that child sexual exploitation is happening right across the country and that action is needed across the country. The taskforce reports that there are currently 127 major police operations under way on child sexual exploitation and gang grooming across 29 police forces. That is why it is so important that recommendations from those inquiries are implemented and that we get action to protect children and young people who too often are let down when inquiry recommendations are ignored.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I need Members to work with me so that we can get in the final 10 questions; otherwise, there will be a lot of disappointment. If Members have not been here and bobbing throughout, there is no point in them trying to catch my eye now.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which was full of action. I am pleased that last week I supported the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill so that we can start implementing much-needed safeguarding measures—unlike some Conservative Members, who attempted to wreck the Bill and spread misinformation, which led to online abuse towards many Members. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the most rapidly evolving forms of child sexual abuse taking place online, including through artificial intelligence-facilitated child sexual abuse material? Can she outline what plans the Government have to strengthen the law in this area?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. In addition to the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including on the proper identification of children to strengthen child protection, which is crucial, we need much stronger measures to tackle online abuse and exploitation. I am really worried about the pace at which this problem is escalating, about the fact that it involves online grooming, abuse and indecent images, and about the impact of drawing young people into contact abuse. We will bring forward new laws in this area.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new victims and survivors panel will have representation from regions across the country to ensure that victims’ voices are heard loud and clear? Does she agree that we need to dial down the political opportunism that we have sadly seen from some Members on the Opposition Benches?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, the victims and survivors panel will include people from right across the country. The inquiry into child sexual abuse had cross-party support, and I really hope that there will be cross-party support for implementing the action that we need, which I have set out today.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed out, the victims and survivors panel really needs countrywide representation. Given that I am a Welsh MP, can the Secretary of State confirm that Welsh voices will be heard loud and clear?
Yvette Cooper
We will ensure that Welsh voices are heard loud and clear.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have contacted me to share their concerns about child abuse and child exploitation. They will be relieved that, unlike the previous Government, this Government are no longer allowing this matter to be kicked into the long grass and are taking action, not least through Baroness Casey’s rapid review. I think my constituents will be concerned that the official figures woefully underestimate the scale and nature of grooming activities. How can the Home Secretary reassure the House, me and my constituents that in future the reporting systems will be such that they can guarantee the confidence of victims and survivors?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Some of this is about giving victims and survivors the confidence to come forward and report abuse, some of it is about getting agencies and organisations to take seriously the risk factors so that they identify potential crimes and pursue them, and some of it is about making sure that we have much stronger data requirements on police forces and local authorities so that we collect information and data. That was the first recommendation of the independent inquiry, and we are taking it forward. It has not been taken forward for far too long.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. There are victims and survivors in many communities, including in my constituency, and I welcome the steps that she has announced. I commend the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).
Does the Home Secretary agree that the voices that matter when we discuss how we tackle these issues are not those of billionaires, politicians or talk show hosts seeking to weaponise the pain and suffering of victims and survivors? Above all, we should be listening to victims and survivors themselves.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We need to make sure that victims and survivors are at the heart of this issue. Seven thousand victims and survivors gave evidence to the independent inquiry, which is a really hard thing to do. We owe it to them to make sure there is action as a result of their testimony, rather than just leaving the inquiry to sit on a shelf.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
A number of constituents have contacted me on this serious issue, and I have made it clear that I would welcome any further inquiry that is able to command the support of experts and victims and to build on the recommendations of the Jay report, rather than choosing to ignore them or delay action. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is exactly what she set before the House this afternoon? Does she believe, as I do, that on this basis these measures should command support from across the House?
Yvette Cooper
I hope these measures command cross-party support because, ultimately, we need stronger action from the police and local authorities, from across Government and from across communities to do the things that, for more than 10 years, we have been told need to change, and yet for too long simply have not changed. That is why we urgently need this action to keep children safe.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on the action she will take to implement Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations. Professor Jay made another set of recommendations on which my constituent has been campaigning—those on safeguarding in the Church of England. Professor Jay called for an independent process for the oversight and operation of safeguarding in the Church. The Synod is discussing this next month, but does the Home Secretary agree that measures must be brought forward to be approved by the House without delay?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there were many further inquiries as part of the overarching national inquiry into child abuse, including on Church and faith organisations. Some of the recommendations were for those organisations to take forward. They need to ensure that they do, that they are responding and that they have strong enough child protection arrangements in place. We will be monitoring and looking at the recommendations of all those reports.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her answers, which have clarified a number of the questions I would have wanted to raise with her. I am also grateful for her victim-centred approach. One of the challenges is that, when a child is being groomed for sexual exploitation, they do not always know that they are a victim until they are an adult, living haunted by the past. What more can be done to help children recognise what is happening in their lives?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s important point. Part of our wider work on tackling violence against women and girls is to ensure that children and young people have the confidence to be able to recognise abuse and exploitation. I know the Education Secretary takes this immensely seriously and is looking at how to take it forward.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Child sexual exploitation is a vile crime that violates the trust, safety and dignity of children. Perpetrators of such despicable crimes—individuals or groups, no matter their race, religion or creed—must face the full force of the law. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the steps it sets out, especially on victims’ right to review. So many victims feel that the authorities have neglected their position. Can the Home Secretary please give a timetable, even an estimate, for the duty of candour? I am sure she knows that justice delayed is justice denied.
Yvette Cooper
Work is under way on drawing up the Hillsborough law, which was part of the King’s Speech to be taken forward as a priority in this Session. That work is being done across the Cabinet Office, with Ministry of Justice support, and it is part of the wider work on making sure there can be proper accountability where things fail and where people are let down, alongside both the duty of candour and the duty to report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Well done to everyone who kept their question short. We got everybody in. I thank the Home Secretary.
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the many colleagues from across the House who supported my application for it, especially the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), and also the hon. Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines used in the UK. Its job is to oversee medical products, medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion. The responsibility it has is extremely important, as it comes with the potential not only to change people’s lives for the better, but to cause serious harm—even death—if poor decisions are made or safety signals are missed.
The MHRA is required to scrutinise applications from the pharmaceutical companies for new products and devices and to remain ever vigilant over existing drugs should safety problems arise post-authorisation. It has to weigh up the arguments for and against these products and devices. After all, the companies trying to get these products on to the market—and to keep them there—are driven, as all industries are, by commercial success. It is up to the MHRA to balance that with the health and safety of the UK and the public.
Alarm bells rang for many of us when, in March 2022, Dame June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, boasted of the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler. Twenty years ago, the Health Committee report, “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”, found that the MHRA was unusual in being one of the few European agencies
“funded entirely by fees derived from services to industry”.
Not much has changed since, with the MHRA continuing to get 75% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In this context, the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler does little to quell suspicions of conflicts and the implications that has for patient safety.
One of the most worrying issues is the MHRA’s mismanagement of the yellow card system. Established in 1964, the system is a way for patients, relatives and healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs or medical devices. The reporting scheme should be a valuable source of information about possible harms, and act as an early warning system, but there is gross under-reporting to it. As the IMMDS’s 2020 review put it, the system is
“too complex and too diffuse to allow early signal detection.”
Under-reporting is a big problem because it makes it difficult to spot safety signals and assign causation. That then translates into unnecessary harm or death, with devastating side effects from treatment going unnoticed for years, months or even decades. That was recognised by the IMMDS review led by Baroness Cumberlege in the case of Primodos, sodium valproate and surgical mess—I meant to say mesh, though perhaps the word should have been “mess.”
According to research from Bangor University in 2019, potentially avoidable adverse drug reactions cost the NHS £2.2 billion a year in hospital admissions. In 2018, the MHRA estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2% and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. More recently, it has claimed that reporting rates for covid vaccines are better due to higher public awareness, but it has not been able to point to published evidence to back up that claim. The yellow card is currently a voluntary scheme that doctors and members of the public can report to, but I echo calls from the Sling the Mesh campaign and others for the UK to follow the example of Denmark and Sweden by making it mandatory for all healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions.
Let me turn to the MHRA’s failure to act promptly on evidence of adverse reactions. We have seen that historically. For example, sodium valproate was known to cause harm to unborn babies in the 1980s, yet the MHRA did not establish a valproate pregnancy prevention plan until 2018. The known harms to unborn babies were allowed to persist for over 30 years. More recently, in 2021, the MHRA reacted slowly to strong signals that there was a serious problem with the AstraZeneca vaccine causing an autoimmune condition called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Denmark and other European countries suspended the vaccine for all age groups on 11 March 2021. The MHRA, by contrast, only started to restrict the vaccine in some age groups nearly two months later, on 7 May—yet there was a signal in the yellow card reports as early as 8 February. How many people were needlessly exposed to a risk?
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend hits on an important point. What action did the MHRA take to apologise for or explain its failure to give adequate and timely warnings to potential patients?
Esther McVey
I do not believe that the MHRA has taken such action. We are probably still waiting for it. Hopefully, that will come out. People are also either not getting compensation quickly enough or not receiving compensation that is commensurate with the illness and damage caused to them.
It is worth noting what happened when The Daily Telegraph reported on the potential causal link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots in March 2021. The journalist who wrote the story received a threatening call from the MHRA warning that The Telegraph would be banned from future briefings and press notices if it did not soften the news—an extremely defensive approach for an agency whose No. 1 strategic objective is to maintain public trust through transparency and proactive communication. Does that sound like an agency that is doing its best to maintain public trust, let alone patient safety?
It is clear that the system does not work. We have good evidence that suspected adverse reactions are under-reported, but what about the ones that are reported? We know from freedom of information requests that the MHRA does not have a process for investigating and following up individual yellow card reports. We know that the retrieval of follow-up information from the yellow card database still requires manual extraction and that only 54% of deaths reported as possibly linked to exposure to one of the covid-19 vaccines were followed up by the MHRA. That is extremely worrying or, as Matt Hancock infamously described it in a 2021 WhatsApp message, “shonky”. The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, replied to that message by saying that the system “needs to get better”.
Another long-standing problem with the MHRA is its lack of transparency. Take FOIs to the agency as an example. Between 2008 and 2017, only 41% of requests were successful. In 2021, 76% were answered outside the 20-working-day statutory response time. A culture of delay and secrecy has emerged, and MHRA’s behaviour around the Commission on Human Medicines meetings for the covid-19 vaccine benefit risk expert working group show that beyond any doubt. Minutes of the meetings were published just last month, four years after they took place—why the delay? They are stuffed full of redactions that leave us with many more questions than answers, particularly as to why the new vaccines were continually described as safe and effective.
In the meeting on 18 November 2020, the expert working group asks if Pfizer was “required to respond to the 36 questions asked by MHRA”. In response, the MHRA confirmed that “there is no formal obligation to reply”. Why is there no formal obligation to reply? Surely it is essential, when making such an important decision as to whether to allow a new vaccine to be rolled out to the nation, to have those replies. The minutes do not specify the 36 questions. Indeed, they do not appear to have been mentioned again.
I asked a written question last week to see whether, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the MHRA would publish those questions and any answers received from Pfizer. The response was that the MHRA does not intend to publish those questions or any subsequent responses. Why not? Is this not a matter of public interest? Those issues were not resolved before the MHRA gave the green light to start the vaccination of the nation.
Particularly worrying is the issue of lymphopenia, where blood does not have enough white blood cells, which was reported in phase 1 of the trials and then went away—not because they fixed the problem, but because testing for the condition was not conducted in phases 2 or 3.
In summary, the failure to act on the weaknesses of the MHRA will lead only to more harm and further damage to the public’s trust in the pharmaceuticals agency and those tasked with regulating it. My hope is that the debate will help bring those wide-ranging issues further to light and focus the Minister’s mind on finding solutions. I will end on the words of Dr Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford:
“You cannot support both secrecy and vaccination. Requesting data is not a sign of being against drugs or vaccines; it shows that you favour transparency. Those who try to keep data confidential and criticise those who ask for evidence are anti an evidence-based approach. How can you have informed consent if you do not know precisely what is happening?”
Sir Christopher Chope
On that point, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of the lack of transparency has been a public distrust of vaccines, which is spreading rapidly? As a consequence, for example, there is less take-up of MMR vaccines than there should be and used to be, and that is because of a lack of trust in the system.
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If people lose trust in vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory agency, that is precisely what happens. We know that these vaccines are essential to many people, so we do not want that happen. We want to ensure that new vaccines and medicines coming into use are thoroughly tested and that, along the way, we keep an overall watch on whether they are working correctly.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I agree with every word she said. It is late in the day for a Thursday, so I will try not to repeat many of the pieces of evidence and arguments that she proposed, but they are all valuable contributions to this debate.
I will start by talking about the attitude of Members of Parliament and politicians to regulation in general. A long time ago, I had responsibility in the Cabinet Office for dealing with better regulations. I travelled around the country to look at businesses that complained about regulations and see how those regulations could be made better—that was 18 months of my life that I will never get back. I came to a number of conclusions after that. Politicians have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to regulation. If a child dies, if there is a fire, or if there is another disaster of some sort, there is a cry from both sides of the House for more regulation— not necessarily better regulation and enforcement, but more regulation—when, in many cases, regulations are already there but inspections and enforcement have not taken place.
The other knee-jerk response, which my Government are giving at the moment, is to say, “Regulations are burdensome so we will try to get rid of some of them.” I do not think that either of those responses deals with the issue. We set up regulators—this afternoon we are talking about the MHRA—but, by and large, once they are set up, MPs and Ministers abdicate responsibility and do not consider them until there is a crisis.
When I had that responsibility, I went to see the European Medicines Agency—this was some time before we left the EU. One of the surprising things I found—or maybe it was not so surprising—was that I was the only Minister who had been anywhere near the place. It was the major European agency that this country got after the Maastricht treaty. It had wide-ranging and important powers, to deal both with the market and with regulation, but nobody bothered with it. If there had been a crisis, however, Ministers and shadow Ministers would have been queuing up to go there.
If there is a lesson, particularly in relation to the MHRA, it is that we should look at regulators—be they water, medicine or other regulators—all the time. We cannot as a Government and MPs abdicate our responsibility, because we then come to a crisis, and the electorate say, “Well, what are you doing?” and the answer is, “Not a lot; we have passed that on.” Those water regulators or medical regulators might be, as the right hon. Lady showed, pretty useless. We should be looking at them all the time.
I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee in 2012. Partly because of that experience, and partly because there was a lot of press discussion and debate about metal hips that were squeaking and not working very well when they had been implanted and about breast implants that were falling apart, potentially damaging and poisoning the recipients, we had an inquiry that reported in October of that year. I will read out some of the comments from the witnesses we heard from about the MHRA, because they are being repeated now. They are very similar to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about the MHRA’s responses—secretive and slow. For instance, there was evidence that there were problems with metal hips for four years before the MHRA took any action whatsoever. Nearly 14 years later, it still has the same problems.
I asked Dr Heneghan from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford who had authorised those metal hips. His answer was extraordinary: “Nobody knows. I don’t know—nobody knows.” It was a different regulatory regime then, because we were part of the European Union. Anybody who had the competence—or at least the authority—in any country in the EU could give authorisation, but nobody knew which body had done it, and whether that body was composed of competent people and what evidence they had used to do so.
However, when the MHRA found out, it did nothing for four years. That is disgraceful, and there were all sorts of comments that I can give the House. One was from Dr Stephen O’Connor at the Institute of Physics and Engineering, who said that the MHRA was overly bureaucratic relative to other competent bodies, inefficient, and difficult to deal with. As the right hon. Member for Tatton showed, the MHRA does not answer FOI requests, and it does not tell us what is going on.
The Lancet said about the breast implants, which I will talk about next, that the MHRA was in paralysis and in need of reform. Again, that was a long time ago. It was a different issue with the breast implants, because the MHRA was dealing with a fraudulent product—the products that had been authorised were not the products that were being sold to surgeons to be implanted in women. However, the Committee asked for there to be random and regular testing of the bodies that were responsible for manufacturing those implants. I do not expect the Minister to know at this time, but will she check whether the authorities have done any of those randomised tests on those bodies?
That is the history. The right hon. Member for Tatton has basically analysed what is going on now, but I will just talk about what we learned during the covid period. We learned that many of the NHS’s constituent parts—although not the clinicians—were secretive. Earlier today in the Chamber, we talked about the Government’s response to the first part of the covid inquiry. At the present time, that inquiry is not getting to part of what went wrong during covid, which was the fact that the NHS did not tell us what was going on, and there was also a restriction on political debate. If we are to get the best policies in any crisis, and in the regular turn of events outside crises, we need transparency so that we know how things can be improved and what we can criticise.
The right hon. Lady made the excellent point that keeping things secret encourages people who do not trust vaccines and have odd theories about how societies is controlled not to take the protection from vaccines. We know that no medicine is 100% safe, and there is no point in pretending they are safe, but vaccines have saved many lives over decades—more than decades; over a century—and it is good for society and for individuals that people understand that, and they will be less trusting if we do not tell them what is going on.
As recently as a few minutes ago, I got an email telling me that the UK Health Security Agency is still refusing to release the cost of the bird flu vaccines it has purchased. What possible reason can there be for not saying how much public money has been spent on a good cause? Having vaccines ready for any flu epidemic is a good thing because it saves people’s lives, as we have been discussing. Why should it be kept secret? Could the Minister to respond to that?
Is there any Member in the House who thinks that turning the MHRA, in the right hon. Lady’s phrase, from a watchdog to an enabler is a good idea, or even knows what it means and what is being enabled? I certainly do not know what is being enabled, but one of the things we should remember is that the MHRA and the whole of the health industry are swimming in a sea of pharmaceutical sharks. Pharmaceutical companies produce some extraordinarily wonderful products that keep us safe, but they also produce huge profits, and sometimes they get their products on to the markets by telling lies, or certainly by sins of omission. Everybody knows about the thalidomide case, and how long it took to prove it and to get compensation for the victims.
Almost at random, I have picked two other cases. With Paroxetine—I think that is how to pronounce it—GSK held back information because it did not release the tests that did not show a positive benefit. It also kept back tests that showed that Paroxetine increased the chances of children committing suicide, and it took a lot of investigation to get that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Stringer, I assume you are coming to a conclusion soon.
Graham Stringer
I am. I have one sentence. I am sorry; I did not realise I had speaking for so long.
Lastly, Reboxetine is another example of where the information given out to doctors was inadequate because it did not show the negative tests. I use those two examples basically to show that the MHRA should not be enabling these things. It should be much more vigilant, and it should be asking for powers to demand the right to know all the information that drugs companies have before it says those drugs are as safe as they can be.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. To enable us to get everyone in, I hope all Members will be mindful of those who are to speak after them.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I shall try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by referring to a quote from Hayek’s book, “The Road to Serfdom”. I do not claim credit for identifying it myself; it was quoted in the other place by Lord Hannan of Kingsclere on 15 January in the context of the Football Governance Bill. He was talking about the growth of the administrative state, about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking at the beginning of his speech. Hayek said:
“The delegation of particular tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process by which a democracy…relinquishes its powers”.
That is in chapter 5 of “The Road to Serfdom” from 1944, so not much has changed. The MHRA is an example of what happens if we in this House transfer responsibility to unelected and unaccountable organisations.
It so happens that on the Order Paper for tomorrow is my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, which is sponsored by a former Attorney General. That Bill calls for an independent review of covid-19 vaccine damage. It calls on the Secretary of State to
“appoint a current or former High Court judge to lead an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations administered in the United Kingdom and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled.”
We know that more than 600 people have already been told by the agency responsible at the Department of Health and Social Care that they have suffered disabilities as a result of covid-19 vaccines. A large number of them, where the disability is in excess of 60%, have been awarded wholly derisory payments of £120,000 each.
My Bill goes on:
“The review must consider…the rates and extent of disablement caused by each type of Covid-19 vaccination offered in the United Kingdom”.
Relevant to this debate, the review must also consider
“the effectiveness of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency monitoring of such side effects, and National Health Service and Government responses to such monitoring”,
as well as
“the adequacy of compensation offered to persons so disabled”.
There has always been an agreement, basically, that if something goes wrong for people who undertake vaccination voluntarily or are in receipt of other medical products—if they are doing the right thing by the country at large—and they have an adverse reaction, they will be able to look to the Government or the taxpayer to pay them some recompense under the scheme to which I have referred, if causation is established. The trust built by that scheme has been undermined by the long denial of the previous Government—and, to an extent, the current one—that any adverse reactions had been caused by the covid-19 vaccines, other than the most minor disablement. It has also been undermined by the fact that so many people have applied for a review of their cases. Some people—I think more than a thousand—have been waiting more than 18 months for a decision. That shows that this is a low priority for the Government.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to explain why the Government will block my Bill again tomorrow. If they were taking this issue seriously, as they should be, they would be open to and supportive of the establishment of an independent review of disablement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am setting a five-minute time limit.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing a debate on what is an incredibly important campaign in support of the reforms to the MHRA. I would like to make clear my interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos.
I will focus on the human case for reform. I would like to share part of a speech delivered at a recent APPG meeting by Jason Farrell, a journalist who has been instrumental in communicating the campaign for some time and who powerfully put into words the experience of Marie Lyon and other victims. He said:
“In October 1970, in Billinge maternity ward in Wigan, a woman gives birth to a girl. The baby is quickly rushed out of sight and later brought back swaddled. When Marie Lyon unwraps her daughter, she discovers half her baby’s arm is missing.
Meanwhile, in Portsmouth, Shirley Gubbins gives birth. Her daughter is so damaged, medics put her in a cupboard, assuming she will be dead within minutes. Shirley’s husband demands to see his child and discovers the baby’s back is twisted, her face disfigured, and one eye is missing. When she’s eventually allowed to see her baby, Shirley reacts in exactly the same way as Marie does: ‘She’s beautiful. She’s mine.’”
As a relatively new MP, I first met Marie Lyon, campaigner-in-chief and chairwoman of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, just a few months ago at the request of a constituent. Marie has met many MPs in her years campaigning for recognition and justice for mothers and children affected by hormone pregnancy tests. I had not met many campaigners like her before, and I had certainly never met a leader with such reserves of stamina and such a profound sense of injustice.
I speak here on the shoulders of victims, families, activists, MPs, scientists and academics who have called for substantial reform of the MHRA and for the Government to acknowledge the harm done to patients and to implement the recommendations of the IMMDS. The harrowing stories of victims of this scandal after decades of fudges, obfuscation and inaction that have hindered their pursuit of justice must be heard again and again in the Chamber. The evidence is clear. The time for talk has long passed. It is time for us now to act.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can be, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about over-prescription and the vaccines. I acknowledge my role as the co-chair and past chair of the beyond pills all-party parliamentary group, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) chairs in this Parliament. I thank the secretariat for the great work it does to support the group.
We have a crisis of over-prescription in our country, with the rates of prescription drugs being given to people going up vertiginously. Prescriptions have doubled over the last 12 years. Nearly 9 million people—one in five adults—are on antidepressants, which is way too high a figure. Many people should never have been put on these drugs—they should have been offered non-chemical alternatives—and they should be supported to withdraw. I very much hope that the MHRA and the Government more widely will heed the calls we are making on the APPG for better training of GPs, better labelling of these drugs and withdrawal services for people who want to come off them.
In addition to social prescribing, which I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud will talk about from his experience, I want to mention the important potential role of digital therapeutics, which are not properly commissioned by the NHS but could be a big part of the answer.
I want to talk briefly about the role of the MHRA in over-prescription, particularly with respect to anti-depressants. We know from evidence, from anecdote and from coroners’ reports that SSRIs—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—can cause people to take their own lives. There are dozens of documented cases. The most prominent of those recently has been the tragic case of Thomas Kingston, whom I knew and whose family I have been speaking to since his death. Tom shot himself last February after being put on SSRIs. In fact, he was put on that SSRI after another SSRI caused him to feel absolutely awful, so he was put on two in very quick succession.
The coroner for Gloucestershire, who conducted the inquest, recommended much clearer communication of the risks of these pills, and she is not the first coroner to make that recommendation. I pay tribute to The Times for its campaigning to highlight the fact that so many coroners’ reports have not been heeded by the authorities. I wish they had been, as it might well have saved many lives.
Esther McVey
The number of people who have taken their lives after coming off SSRIs shows that it is not a one-off or rare. There are many people, including one of my constituents, aged only 25, who took her life. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. What more can we do to raise awareness of the effects of withdrawal from these antidepressants?
Danny Kruger
The tragedies that we read and hear about are bringing to light the chronic problem of over-prescription in our society. I am afraid that the MHRA is to blame. A review is under way, but it does not sufficiently recognise the direct harms that these pills can induce in people. I hope that through better labelling and regulation, and a better culture of alternative prescriptions, we can reduce the tragedies that we are so familiar with.
Let me quickly comment, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), on the experience of the MHRA during the covid epidemic. The vaccines were developed at a frantic rate. We can be very impressed by the speed of the taskforce and pay tribute to the work of the private sector, particularly our world-leading research base. The Government managed to act at great speed, largely because they bypassed Whitehall. But significant questions remain, which my hon. Friend raised, about whether the vaccines are genuinely safe and effective.
It is right that people ask questions about the data on excess deaths and wonder if there is a connection with the vaccine—that is not inappropriate. Ultimately, there is only one way to answer that question: to have the data. However, we do not have access to that data. The Government hold it and, extraordinarily, they have made it available to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines, but not to researchers—individual-level death data that shows who was dosed with what vaccines and which of them died.
In a debate in the House last April, and previously in correspondence with Ministers, I clearly and simply asked for that data to be made available to researchers, anonymised as appropriate. The UK Health Security Agency has admitted that the data exists, but has refused to release it, almost unbelievably, because of the risk to the mental health of the relatives of the dead. That begs the question, does the data show a link between the vaccines and those deaths? The information tribunal is due to rule on that matter shortly, and I fervently hope that common sense will prevail and the data can be made available to disprove the link, so that our minds and those of our constituents can be put at rest. There is also a case with the information tribunal about the data held by the MHRA on the vaccines’ safety for pregnant women. Again, the agency has been withholding that data for two years.
Let me finish by observing, in the light of the comments made by hon. Members across the House, that we have a genuine problem with the regulation of the medical industry and of medical products. I very much welcome the appointment of R. F. Kennedy to the role of Health Secretary in the United States. He will shake things up over there. Perhaps the Minister can be our own RFK over here, and bring some genuine transparency to the health system.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and I am very happy to be called to speak on such an important issue.
As chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, I am very interested in the need for MHRA reform in the context of the mesh, Primodos and valproate scandals. However, for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks on MHRA reform and the mesh scandal in particular, not least because the right hon. Lady opened the debate so well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) will speak about the Primodos scandal and I do not want to steal any of her thunder.
I want to start by paying tribute to all the campaigners we have worked with over so many years on the “First Do No Harm” report scandal, especially Kath Sanson from Sling the Mesh, Marie Lyon, who has been mentioned, from the Primodos campaign, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the valproate campaign. I also must pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who recently retired from the other place, who was the author of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the former co-chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group. She has been a great support to me over the years. Thanks to her invaluable hard work highlighting key recommendations to prevent future health scandals, including vital MHRA reform, we know what we need to do. Now we must get on with the job.
As we have heard, colleagues here today are in agreement that the MHRA is in need of urgent and substantial reform. One area in particular is the need for mandatory reporting of adverse events to the yellow card by healthcare professionals. Contrary to responses I received when I asked questions on the topic in the House, which argue that the current system works, it does not. It is broken. Let me be clear: the current voluntary system, which doctors enjoy, enabling them to choose whether to log side effects and complications to the MHRA yellow card, is simply unacceptable. This voluntary system has led to many adverse events going unreported. The system must be made mandatory, but that fix alone will not work if the data is there but is not used. The information must be tracked and assessed in real time by the MHRA, to spot trends of harm so that treatments can be stopped immediately if needed, to prevent the repetition of mistakes and, in turn, to prevent their escalation into further health scandals, as we have seen with mesh, valproate and Primodos.
Comparison of datasets conducted by Sling the Mesh found that a whopping two thirds of mesh complications —some as serious as slicing into bladders, bowels or through vaginal walls—were not logged by healthcare professionals to the MHRA yellow card. If these excruciating examples are not interpreted by healthcare professionals as worthy of reporting, what reason do we have to trust that healthcare treatments are safe? We need to see the MHRA at the heart of patient safety, properly and efficiently regulating and recording and not just nodding treatments through like a tick-box exercise.
Mesh, for example, was allowed from the 1990s onwards on the basis that it was equivalent to hernia mesh. Without any post-market surveillance by the MHRA, it was allowed to be aggressively sold, free rein, in the UK. This ultimately led to thousands of women, including my very own mam, being irreversibly harmed. Had reporting been mandatory, the sheer scale of women impacted could have at least been reduced through spotting a clear pattern of harm and putting a stop to it. It is clear that we need to change the current system, and fast.
Most of the scandals we are talking about today affect women, so women’s voices must be taken seriously. We should not have to wait until media coverage publicly shames health scandals or documentaries force account-ability and answers upon us. The MHRA needs to be functioning and not just responding to treatments causing harm, but regulating and preventing them in the first place. Surely this is the absolute least we should expect from a regulation agency that is supposed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patients and the medicines and medical devices that they receive—hence: first do no harm.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
I should start by alerting people to my declared interests relating to the pharmaceutical industry.
All of us familiar with the growth of the quango will be aware of how these unelected, unaccountable organisations have come to control and dominate British public life—not us, the democratically elected Members, but the quangos. Failure is rewarded and never punished. No organisation encapsulates that point as comprehensively as the MHRA. Its role is essentially to ensure that medicines and medical devices are safe and effective—where have we heard those words before? How can it possibly be trusted to regulate properly when it is funded largely by the companies it is tasked with regulating? It is simply human nature for a conflict like this to impact on the decision-making process.
The biggest challenge in the MHRA’s history was the covid response, and it failed. It enabled the biggest assault on civil liberties and economic prosperity in my lifetime, which was lockdown—the greatest scandal of them all. It was, quite simply, the most disgraceful period of recent history. The MHRA’s insistence on vaccines for all enabled lockdown restrictions to continue for as long as they did. It must take part responsibility for the consequences: vast NHS backlogs, mental health issues rife, soaring alcohol-related deaths, obesity booming, children’s development wrecked, long-term illnesses mounting, increased substance abuse, domestic violence on the rise, unnoticed child neglect, fathers missing the birth of their children and elderly loved ones left to rot and die alone. We were not even allowed to mourn the dead properly. The wicked list is endless.
None of it was based on any science, and certainly not the vaccination of almost the entire population—including, disgracefully, young children. This was a hideous dereliction of duty by the MHRA. It was not just children it forced the covid vaccination on, but tens of millions of people who had absolutely no need for it whatsoever. There was clear risk from taking the vaccine—not just the initial two doses, but the booster following them. The evidence for the vaccine was simply not there, particularly considering that by that stage, almost the entire population had actually caught the virus, which gave far more effective natural protection than any man-made intervention. The MHRA knew that, but it failed to act. Why? Was it under political pressure not to undermine the wretched covid response? Had it been honest about the real need—or lack thereof—for population-wide vaccinations, the whole case for lockdown would have collapsed.
As of 4 November, there had been 489,991 adverse reaction reports from covid-19 vaccines in the UK. Those are just the reported issues. What is the true number? When individual after individual reports feeling far worse after taking the vaccine than they ever did after the virus, should we not question whether that vaccination was necessary? The MHRA failed. This was simply not a vaccine that was needed by the entire population.
We were fed the lie that taking the jab would protect vulnerable loved ones, which was disgraceful dishonesty. The vaccine did not prevent transmission—we know that now, and we knew that then. It should always have been a fully free and informed choice. If an elderly man in his 90s believes that the virus poses more of a threat than the vaccine, then let him take it. For almost everyone under 70, that is a risk analysis that falls firmly in the camp of not having the vaccine. Don’t even get me started on the abhorrent vaccine passport policy—one of the most evil policies devised by Government in living memory.
The MHRA should have provided full and transparent data so that educated adults could make their own decisions for themselves and for their families. It must act as an independent barrier against both political expedience and corporate profit, protecting public health above all else.
The question is: who regulates the regulator? Who protects against regulatory capture? How did the MHRA allow politicians, celebrities and even its own agency to describe these vaccines as safe and effective, when yellow card data clearly showed it is not universally safe and certainly not universally effective? How could MHRA CEO June Raine say she had transformed the MHRA from a watchdog to an “enabler” of the pharmaceutical industry—an oxymoron for a watchdog that is meant to safeguard public health? It is Parliament’s duty now to exercise its sovereign power to ensure that we learn from the myriad of mistakes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We are going to have to drop the time limit to four minutes. I call Dr Simon Opher.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have quite a lot to say here, but I shall squeeze it into four minutes.
First of all, having a regulator funded by a drug company is genuinely a case of marking one’s own homework, and we need to change that straightaway. I think we need a reform there.
From clinical experience, I would also say that the yellow card system does work, but that we never get any feedback from it. That is one of the problems. The other problem is that clinically one is often not sure whether or not something is an adverse effect. We need a very easy system that can just be fired off. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned low white blood cells, for example, and whether that was a reaction. Then, when a number of different doctors get it, we can accumulate that information.
If I may, I want to say a few things about vaccinations. Vaccinations save far, far more lives than they cause damage. Every medicine that has ever been invented has side effects and I do not deny vaccine side effects. However, the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I ran the covid vaccination service in our area in Dursley. At the height of the pandemic, if we injected 180 people over 80, we saved a life—that is incredible. Compared to that, the side effect rate was incredibly small. It does exist and we need to look at it, but let us not get on the backs of vaccines. Vaccines have saved more lives than anything else.
I really want to talk about antidepressants, on which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) has already said a few words. We have a problem with over-prescribing in this country. Some 8.7 million people are on antidepressants. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) spoke about Paroxetine causing increased risks of suicide. We need to wean ourselves off medications. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines say that for mild to moderate depression we should not start tablets, yet they are started. That is because people have become a bit over-medicalised, we have 10-minute appointments and no psychological therapies. We must also make use of social prescriptions, available to the NHS, where we can prescribe to patients something that is not medical. We need to de-medicalise what is going on. That can include lots of different things, such as exercise and being very creative. In fact, yesterday I went with the Lord Mayor of Westminster and Lu Jackson to St John’s Wood library for a Comedy-on-Prescription event. Making people laugh can avoid the need for medication. We need to look at those things much more seriously and get people off tablets.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said that one of her constituents took their own life when they were trying to get off antidepressant medication. The MHRA needs to put warnings on the packet, but it has failed to do so. We also need a support mechanism for people coming off tablets. Of the 8 million people on antidepressants, about 2 million are trying to get off them, so it is a major problem. GPs, actually, are not that well informed about this. There are some very strong Maudsley guidelines based around micro-tapering, so that people can come off slowly and safely. Some kind of support service might have helped her constituent and stopped them taking their own life.
In conclusion, we have a pandemic of over-prescription and we need to start looking at that. As chair of the beyond pills all-party parliamentary group, with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire we are trying to reduce prescriptions and make it safe for people to come off antidepressants.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Before being elected to this House I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharmaceutical regulation and compliance industry. I know from first-hand experience the critical role that the MHRA must play in protecting the public and its indispensable role in ensuring public trust in the medical sector. My comments, therefore, come from a place of wanting to ensure that that trust, so painstakingly built up, continues to be strengthened.
A recent survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry found that 80% of respondents felt the MHRA’s lack of capacity was undermining industry trust and deterring domestic investment—problems compounded by Brexit, which has created obstacles to co-operation in the European Union. Faced with a large backlog of clinical trial applications, one would imagine the obvious solution is to make more resources available to recruit and train new staff, and to rebuild relationships with our European partners. However, the Prime Minister seems more determined to demonstrate his commitment to slashing red tape and the need to, as he says, “regulate smartly and regulate creatively”. I must admit I get very nervous when I hear that kind of language used in relation to the pharmaceutical industry, because it is normally code for measures that threaten safety standards even further.
The need for openness, transparency and regulation is probably greater than ever before. Recently, I have had constituents raise with me why the animal feed additive Bovaer, which is given to cows to reduce methane, is not tested or approved to MHRA pharmaceutical standards and why it is not even listed on milk cartons. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the use of carcinogenic chemicals in our food. We know that a host of chemicals that are banned from being used in food in the European Union are permitted in the United States. It is perfectly understandable for people to fear that, amid the bonfire of red tape that the Government are planning to set alight, some things that better protect us might go up in smoke.
Constituents have also raised questions with me about the latest impact of the covid-19 vaccines. Before anyone starts accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer, I took both covid vaccines and agree that they saved many lives, but it is also the case that legitimate concerns have been voiced about long-term side effects. We now know that in the largest vaccine study to date, two very rare side effects—a neurological disorder and inflammation of the spinal cord—have been detected. Other studies have confirmed side effects including inflammation of the heart muscle and the lining around the heart, particularly in young males, as well as blood clots in the brain’s venous sinuses.
Today we stand united in our commitment to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our citizens. The motion highlights critical issues within the MHRA that demand our immediate attention and action. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review has shed light on persistent and exacerbated patient safety concerns since its publication in 2020, and it is our duty to ensure that the MHRA undergoes substantial revision to address those issues. The safety of our citizens must be paramount, and we cannot afford to overlook the shortcomings that have been identified.
In conclusion, let us not forget that our primary responsibility is to the people we serve. We must act with urgency and determination to rectify those issues with the MHRA. By implementing these recommendations, we can work towards a safer, more responsive healthcare system that prioritises patient safety and trust above corporate profits and interests
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. My interest in the issue stems from the fact that one of my constituents, Barbara Manning, was affected by Primodos, and, along with the tireless campaigner Marie Lyon—who has already been mentioned today—has been seeking justice ever since.
For the benefit of Members who do not know this, let me explain that between 1958 and 1978, Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test that was given to about 1.5 million women in the form of pills. It was taken off the market in 1978 amid concerns about the effect on the unborn children of those who were pregnant, but the link has never been formally recognised by regulators or the manufacturer. Some research at the time suggested that there might be an association between the drug and miscarriages, and babies born with shortened limbs, abnormalities in their internal organs, brain damage and heart defects. Many of those children died before reaching adulthood, and of those still alive, some are blind, deaf and brain-damaged.
In 2017, a report from an expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines concluded that there was no causal association between Primodos and severe disabilities in babies, but there are real concerns about the conflict of interests involving some of those on the expert working group and their connections to the big pharmaceutical companies involved in the scandal.
On 8 July 2020, Baroness Cumberlege published her in-depth findings on how the health system responds to reports from patients about harmful side effects from medicines and medical devices. On the MHRA, she said:
“A regulator must work both for patients and with them. This hasn’t been the case in the past. We are recommending that the regulator of medicines and medical devices… is overhauled. It needs to change and radically improve the way that concerns about medicines and devices are detected and acted upon. The regulation of devices in particular needs urgent change. The MHRA needs to engage more with patients and track how medicines and devices improve—or fail to improve—patients’ health and quality of life. It needs to raise public awareness of its role and it needs to ensure that patients have a core role in its work.”
The review also concluded that the state and manufacturers have a moral responsibility to provide ex gratia payments to those families who have experienced avoidable harm due to their failure to remove Primodos from the market.
The duty of the regulator was to protect women. It chose to protect the manufacturer instead. Thousands of women and unborn children were exposed to a risk that was widely acknowledged at the time. That should not have happened. It now falls to us to put right that injustice, to persuade the manufacturer to pay compensation to those affected families and to reform the regulatory system, so that it protects patients in the future.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
My interest in this matter arises as I chair the APPG on Primodos, and it is a campaign that I and many other MPs have been working on for the past 12 years. On one occasion, after a big debate, the Minister ordered an expert working group to be set up. The MHRA was supposed to examine the evidence. We the campaigners and Members of Parliament thought that all the documents we had would be looked at by the MHRA, but clearly it did not look at them. The MHRA was supposed to engage with the victims and their families, but they were not spoken to or dealt with properly, and there was no thorough examination.
In fact, some of the members of the expert working group, which was set up by the Commission on Human Medicines, had connections with pharmaceutical companies. We wanted the MHRA to look at the documents, which showed very clearly that in the 1970s it was accepted by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines that this drug was causing deformities. However, the chief medical officer at the time colluded with the manufacturer, destroyed the evidence and refused to help.
We have documents that show that the manufacturer knew there was a cover-up, and yet the MHRA refused to look at them. Subsequently, Professor Carl Heneghan from Oxford University looked at the same material the EWG had looked at and came to a completely different conclusion: he said the evidence showed that there was a connection. The EWG was asked to look at whether there was a causal connection, and it changed its recommendation again. The former Prime Minister, Mrs May, was also not convinced by the expert working group. We persuaded her to set up a review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege, who said there was avoidable harm and that the victims should be compensated.
Throughout all those years, the Government of the day did not want to communicate with us, and they have not been dealing with this issue properly. They have always relied on the expert working group’s report, which has held the victims back and held us back from pursuing a possible legal claim. We say to the Government now that the EWG report needs to be relooked at, and Professor Carl Heneghan’s study of it should also be looked at. Scientific evidence has been produced using an experiment on zebrafish which shows that there is a link with this drug, and we have sent this to the Commission on Human Medicines for the Department to look at.
We must remember that this drug is 40 times the strength of the morning after pill. Women were given this pill and told it had no effect other than to see whether they were pregnant, and it then caused this damage. I ask the Minister today, with the new Government now in place, to please relook at this; the report by the EWG, which was set up by the MHRA, has been discredited, so please stop listening to it.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing forward this really important debate and for her excellent opening speech, which was very informative. In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is tasked with vital work, and we all agree that it is there to protect and promote public health. As a number of Members have set out, it is concerning that despite the MHRA’s obvious importance, it clearly faces a number of challenges that need to be addressed. The Cumberlege review highlighted a conflict of interests, because the MHRA relies on fee income from pharmaceutical companies; as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) said, this is a case of the agency marking its own homework. It is not a great way to set up its funding.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really important point about Brexit, which is the elephant in the room. As with so many parts of our economy, Brexit caused major disruption to the pharmaceutical industry. Among other things, the loss of the prestigious European Medicines Agency from London to Amsterdam damaged trust in the UK’s pharmaceutical investment space.
Alison Bennett
In the interests of time, I will not.
Brexit caused significant confusion for companies looking to sell products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It has also slowed down the time in which novel medicines and treatments can be approved for use, as pharmaceutical companies have understandably prioritised obtaining a single approval, allowing access to 27 markets via the EMA.
Meanwhile, strict affordability models imposed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence mean that companies face a further hurdle before their products can reach patients. Again, that diminishes the attractiveness of the UK market post Brexit. To help address this issue, the MHRA introduced the international recognition procedure a year ago to streamline the authorisation process by incorporating assessments from trusted regulatory partners worldwide, including the EMA. However, that relies on those partners having already approved the products, so UK patients will inevitably still have access to medicines later than people in other countries, including EU member states. When I met representatives of Roche Diagnostics, based in Burgess Hill in my constituency, they told me about the industry’s serious concerns that the additional GB-specific conformity checks required could be prohibitively expensive and lead to significant delays.
As things stand, the forecast is looking gloomy. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are committed to addressing these issues head-on, and to helping the MHRA become world leading. First, we are pushing to expand the MHRA’s capacity by halving the time for treatments to reach patients suffering from illnesses such as cancer. Secondly, we encourage the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Cumberlege review, including on compensation, corrective surgery and psychological support for those who were failed and who suffered from faulty devices and drugs. Thirdly—this is vital—the Government should actively seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the EMA to promote faster access to new and novel medicines and medical devices. That would reduce red tape, cost and friction, providing hope for those who need access to these lifesaving and life-enhancing medicines and devices.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate, and on giving Members from across the House the opportunity to raise issues such as Primodos, breast implants, mesh, SSRIs, vaccines and MMR. As a clinician, I have seen patients who have been affected by all these issues, and I know the heartfelt difficulties that they have faced—not only in what has happened to them, but in trying to resolve the problems. It is a testament to her that she has given the House the chance to debate these issues, and I am not sure that the public have ever paid so much attention to a regulator, even in the financial crisis. The MHRA has suddenly become something that people know.
I often used to explain to patients that a regulator should be like a good referee: we should not see them, but they should be there to hold people to account and know the rules. However, modern refereeing is about more than that. A referee has already met the players beforehand, and speaks to the public about how things work. They help to shape the way in which the rules should be interpreted, allowing us to improve the game.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) asked who regulates the regulators, and the answer is that this House is accountable. That accountability is key.
What are the functions of the MHRA? They are: to ensure that medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy; to secure safe supply chains for medicines, medical devices and blood components; to promote international standardisation and harmonisation to ensure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines; to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices and blood components, leading to safer and more effective use; and to enable the development of innovation and research that benefit public health.
I welcome the MHRA’s new chair, Professor Anthony Harnden, who was appointed at the start of the year. I hope he is listening to this debate, as it will be important for him in setting his priorities. I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton because, whether or not the MHRA knew this debate was happening, I noticed during my research that all the guidance was updated on the MHRA’s website only yesterday. That is testament to the power of this place, even if inadvertently.
The last Government did a lot in this space, particularly focusing on patient safety and access. They introduced new regulations on medical devices, with the classic example being diabetes monitoring, but they also set out to attract innovation. Their reforms have helped to make the UK an attractive market for medical technologies. I am pleased that both sides of the House agree that this is a great place for the UK to find growth.
These developments were based on a consultation-led approach, following the changes we have had since 2021, when there was a consultation on the future regulation of medical devices. This led to a proportionate and phased approach that minimises supply disruptions and supports system readiness.
Under the last Government, a road map for implementation was set out on 9 January 2024. Again, I am pleased to see that the current Government updated the road map in December. This has the regulatory aims of adapting new technologies, strengthening patient safety and providing clarity for manufacturers that are trying to bring products to market.
All these significant changes try to balance medical technology advances, market capture, patient access, affordability and clinical outcomes. However, as we have heard in this debate, this is all well and good, but “perception versus reality” comes to mind. We arguably have one of the best regulatory regimes in the world and, post Brexit, there is a real opportunity to lead the way. Counter to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said, it is because of Brexit that we were able to regulate around our vaccines.
As has been said today, there are still serious concerns about the system, surveillance and resources, given the medical tech boom. This is a wide debate, so I will focus my remarks on three areas: the current medical market, the emerging medical market, and communications with the public, perceptions and beliefs.
When it comes to the system for current medications, we need only consider what we heard earlier about SSRIs, and particularly their impact on sexual dysfunction —I happen to have that casework on my desk at the moment. Do the Government believe that the yellow card system works, or will they consider a review?
When it comes to emerging markets, we have to remember that the MHRA has a statutory role not only in regulating but in the advertising and promotion of medicines in the UK. We have seen thousands of online adverts for weight-loss injections, such as Ozempic. The Times found approximately 6,500 adverts that mention GLP-1 on Meta’s ad library between January 2022 and the end of June 2024. And Sky has reported that, according to Simple Online Pharmacy, which has access to wholesale figures, 500,000 people in the UK are currently using things like Wegovy.
I would be grateful if the Government could set out what support they are offering the MHRA to ensure that it can fulfil its roles and functions properly, given that it has to manage promotion, safety and supply in all these areas. Are there any plans to review whether the MHRA is able to meet these conditions in a changing medical world?
Finally, and most importantly, if I were to be critical of the MHRA, I would say that the key thing missing on the list of objectives, as set out by the new chair, is communication. Let me finish where I started: a regulator has never been more in the public eye. As a clinician, I know how difficult it is to wade through complex medical data that is both conflicting and opaque. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, freedom of information requests and transparency are key to our understanding of this area. Will the Government look to review how the MHRA interacts with the public, how it communicates with grassroots professionals, and what it can do to explain the hugely important work that it does?
To conclude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out, this is all about trust. I think it was Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify”. That seems particularly apt for this debate—for that is the role of a regulator, but it is also the role of the Government and the public. We must build a regulatory system that all can trust, and do so inherently, but that is also easily verifiable at any point. If we can achieve that, we can build a trusted ecosystem that is good for innovation, good for the economy, and, most importantly, good for the people.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate and thank her and all those who have spoken for their contributions. We have heard some powerful stories of failure as well as some useful experiences. I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the shadow Minister for sharing their expertise. I have heard many of these stories before in my 10 years in this place. Sadly, I have also had a constituent who shared her experiences with me, for which I am grateful. Frankly, those experiences shocked me and my staff.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and many others who have brought their experiences to this place, shining a light on the issues. It is right for us to debate this matter. Six months into the job and I am still learning, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) that I cannot answer everything, and I am glad that he recognised that. The right hon. Member for Tatton has focused my mind, for which I am very grateful. If I do not do justice to the points that have been raised, I will write to Members about specific things. I am meeting representatives from the MHRA and will be very clear about our expectations. It is absolutely the role of Parliament to be the ultimate monitor of its work.
The MHRA plays a vital role in fulfilling the Government’s health mission: balancing its responsibilities to maintain product safety and championing innovation. I will, if I may, be clear about the role of an enabler. It is about enabling innovative products to reach patients without compromising patient safety and without unnecessary delay.
It is thanks to vaccines and medicines such as antibiotics and modern surgical procedures that we are living longer, healthier, and more active lives. No medical product is completely free of risk; the main objective of the safety monitoring process is to identify any new risks that may emerge. When that happens, the MHRA must take its responsibility seriously, rigorously and transparently when balancing population risks and benefits of each medical product, taking prompt and decisive action whenever that is needed.
On supporting safety, the MHRA recognises the need constantly to seek to improve its safety monitoring systems to deliver better results for people. Recent improvements include implementing the new Safety Connect IT system, following recommendations from the Cumberlege Review. This IT system will improve the efficiency of reporting and processing of yellow card reports, much of which we have heard about today, supporting the prompt identification and assessment of new safety concerns.
In addition, the MHRA makes use of real-world data via the clinical practice research datalink, which collects anonymised patient data from a network of GP practices, across the UK, encompassing data from 60 million patients, including 18 million currently registered patients.
The MHRA has recently launched a pilot, in partnership with Genomics England, to create a rich source of genetic information to investigate the role of genetic pre-disposition in the development of serious adverse drug reactions. The aim is to establish a yellow card biobank to reduce the number of harmful side effects caused by medicines—a step towards personalised prescribing.
The Cumberlege review also highlighted the need to improve the regulation of implantable medical devices. In November last year, the Government introduced new regulations to strengthen the requirements for manufacturers to proactively monitor and report on medical devices once they are on the market, which was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South.
We plan to lay further reforms before Parliament this year, including unique device identifiers and implant cards to improve the traceability of implanted devices, as well as increasing the classification of devices to ensure that they receive the highest scrutiny throughout their lifetime. Finally, the MHRA has made some progress in response to the wider set of recommendations set out in Baroness Cumberlege’s report. It listened carefully to the people who gave evidence and to the review’s findings, and is committed to bring about those changes. It is our job to ensure that that happens.
The yellow card scheme provides the backbone of our safety monitoring system. The scheme relies on voluntarily reporting from patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The MHRA also collects reports of suspected safety concerns involving defective, falsified or fake healthcare products. Last year, it assessed more than 118,000 reports, and identified 134 safety signals, but I take onboard the comments made today. When safety signals lead to confirmed risks, the MHRA can introduce specific risk minimisation measures, such as introducing particular warnings about the risk of side effects in the product information, restricting the use of the medicine or medical device, or suspending or removing the medicine or device from the market. The MHRA will continue to proactively encourage the reporting of adverse effects through improvements such as those within the new Safety Connect system, and will ensure that there are better connections between clinical systems, working with the wider healthcare system.
The MHRA recognises that there have been delays in some of the regulatory services that it provides, including licence applications for innovative and generic medicines, variations to licences, and inspections of manufacturing and laboratory premises. Since September 2024, all new applications for marketing authorisations of established medicines are being assessed within expected timescales. That element is therefore improving, but we will keep a close eye on it.
I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Member for Tatton. This has been an informative and, bizarrely, a wide-ranging but focused debate. Trust is really important. Patients have to be at the heart of our work, and that of the MHRA. Patient safety is the foremost priority. The MHRA is continuing to work on improving engagement and involving patients in decision making throughout the life cycle of the products that it regulates. It will continue to work to facilitate patient access to new medicines and medical devices, in collaboration with health system partners across the UK. The regulator maintains its focus on continuous improvement, and has implemented new ways of working to maximise productivity in ways that put patients and public health outcomes first. I take the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that communication around that is key.
The MHRA has turned around performance on clinical trials and is on track to deliver all regulatory services within statutory timelines by the end of March 2025. Later this year, as part of its programme of reform, we will introduce new point of care manufacturing legislation that will make the MHRA the first regulator in the world to introduce a tailored framework for innovative manufacturing methods, taking the manufacture and supply of medicines to patients. It is truly an exciting development, and I pay tribute to those involved.
The process for recruiting the new chief executive is well under way. We welcome Professor Anthony Harnden. His strategic focus is on helping the organisation to protect patient safety through robust surveillance systems, embracing risk-proportionate regulation and fostering an inclusive workplace where people flourish. Without putting him on the spot, we should think about organising a parliamentary event of some sort to bring people together to discuss matters with the MHRA and build that trust. I am pleased to support its work. It is internationally recognised as a regulator. We want to do better. The Government will ensure that the MHRA is better.
Esther McVey
I thank all Members who have stayed late to speak today, many of them recounting the deeply moving and harrowing experiences of their constituents. All contributions reinforced the failings of the MHRA. In fact, listening to Members, the verdict on the MHRA is guilty as charged, confirming that it is in need of substantial reform. I feel sure that the Minister will ensure that that reform starts here and now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures.
UK Air Defence
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity and declare my interests as a reservist, the father of two servicewomen and the brother of a serving admiral.
Among the many issues that should be keeping Ministers awake at night are two tech-based conundrums that particularly worry me. One is future access to critical minerals and their products, which I have spoken about in the past. The other related issue is the patchy nature of the protection of these islands against missiles and drones. That is what I want to raise this evening.
Everything costs, and it is easy when one is not in government to wish the ends without the means. At the moment, defence is spread too thinly and what I am suggesting would spread it even more thinly. Whether the UK should be globally deployable or focus on the defence of the homeland and its Euro-Atlantic neighbourhood is moot. The likelihood is that we will soldier on, make do and mend—we always have. But the scene is set for the biggest retrenchment since Suez. I wish it were otherwise, but it falls to this Government to make the call. Their attempted unforced surrender of the Chagos islands is perhaps an indication of where their thinking lies.
In 1963, the 35th US President told his National Security Council that European NATO members were not paying their fair share. John F. Kennedy said,
“We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves”.
On Monday, the 45th and 47th President will likely be saying the same thing. Clearly, American frustration with Europe enjoying the insurance policy without paying the premium is nothing new. What is new is the American willingness to strong-arm Europe into changing its ways. Forget 2% or 2.5%—Trump says he wants 5% of GDP spent on defence by all NATO members, and here is the kicker: he wants a 20% tariff on all goods imported to the US. Combine the two and it is not a stretch to imagine him slapping tariffs on European goods unless Europeans step up to the plate.
Ultimately, the single most important reason Trump can do what we fear he is about to do is that America is no longer principally competing with Europe’s proximate threat—Russia. A vast but thinly populated nation of 144 million, a busted economy and a military whose weaknesses have been generously displayed for all to see since February 2022 is not perceived by Washington as a main threat. An America emerging from the 9/11 Bush counter-terrorism era is back to facing off with great powers once again, but the great power is not Russia; it is China.
As the US pivots, European states of all sizes must step up to defend their homeland and safeguard the north Atlantic. There are no free passes. Israel is a small state, but its military capabilities are unmatched in the middle east. Its layered missile defence systems—the famous Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow—and its formidable fleet of aircraft demonstrate how small states, with a little help from their friends, can punch way above their weight. Several of those small states will provide the first line of defence against Putin’s Russia. The bulk of the cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles that Putin would fire at Britain as a proxy for the US will be intercepted by existing defence systems and fighter aircraft stationed in the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Poland.
While our geography, as so often in our history, gives strategic depth and protection from long-range attack, we can have less confidence in dealing with proximate threats from sea and subsea platforms and with threats to deployed and overseas assets, such as Cyprus, that fall well within the scope of short-range missiles and drones from Russia, Iran and their proxies. In any event, some missiles directed at the homeland would get through in the event of a full-on attack right now by the Russian Federation. That has been our blind spot.
The public would expect that missiles evading the first line of integrated missile defence would be destroyed closer to their target. The Type 45-mounted Sea Viper and the ground-based Sky Sabre are exquisite examples of air and missile defence systems, but there are simply not enough of them—not enough missiles ready to go and not enough industrial capacity to enable resilience in anything more than the very short term. Russia’s war on Ukraine has helpfully made us alive to our vulnerability. Russia, as we have seen in Ukraine and throughout its history, is capable of taking long-term pain in a way that it seems unlikely we would. As things stand, the capital is particularly vulnerable to Russian missile attack, unless we park all our Type 45s—those that are operational—on the Thames.
Happily, unlike Israel and Ukraine, we are surrounded by friends. It makes sense to be a full part of, and a contributor to, NATO integrated air and missile defence, but European IAMD, and its suppression and destruction of enemy air defence systems, are currently completely reliant on the US. In any event, the suspicion is that a full-on attack by Russia right now would find too many holes in the patchy architecture that has evolved to protect against missiles.
Germany has recognised that threat; it has owned the consequences of doing nothing. It has established the European Sky Shield initiative, and has begun procuring trusted systems such as Patriot and Arrow 3. The UK has been considering joining ESSI. Where are we with that? What about off-the-shelf systems such as Arrow 3?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that point. It is interesting that the Arrow 3 project he mentions is a joint project between Boeing in America and the Israeli defence machinery. Is there something in the innovation offered by Patria, a Finnish company, which is offering to help us build armoured vehicles here in Britain but based on its design? Do we need less of a reliance on domestic systems and to consider, as he says, off-the-shelf systems from elsewhere?
Dr Murrison
There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Historically, buying off the shelf has proved to be somewhat more cost-effective than designing exquisite systems of our own. I hope very much that, as we go further into this process, we can partner with others to ensure that what we buy is both integrated and cost-effective. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on ESSI.
Ukraine has shown the limitations of the “just in time, not just in case” policy that has driven our failure to stockpile the materiel of war in recent decades. In the 1930s, the shadow factories initiative fitted commercial premises that typically produced cars for reconfiguration as armament factories, in case the need should arise, which it did. Car workers would switch to become the basis of the skilled workforce necessary to create materiel for prosecuting the war effort. That then happened, to the point that in 1940, this country was outstripping Germany in the production of fighter aircraft. With every respect due to the Few, the Battle of Britain was won in Britain’s factories and on its production lines as much as in the skies. Victory hinges just as much on logistics now, except the timelines are far shorter. The defence ecosystem in the US 2022 national defence strategy had more than a whiff of the 1930s in advancing an intertwined commercial-military co-operative.
In a good light, we can see shadow factories in the thematic approach to missile defence taken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory missile defence centre. Crucially, it is industry partner-based, with a heavy focus on growing suitably qualified and experienced people, of whom we are desperately short. The MDC is now 20 years old. What assessment has the Minister made of it, and what changes does he propose to its structure and remit to help plug holes in our missile defence architecture? In the light of prevailing circumstances, will he consider upgrading the MDC so that it has the salience and clout approaching that of the pre-war directorate of aeronautical production? Then, it was Spitfires and Hurricanes; today it is missile defence, SDEAD—suppression and destruction of enemy air defences—and drones. Then, it was preparation for the total war to come; now—God willing—it is deterrence.
There are those who say that the solution to our vulnerability to missile attack from the east is simple: it is Israel’s Iron Dome—the close-in element of the layered missile defence system used successfully to thwart Iran in April. However, Israel is a small country with a small population concentrated in a small number of cities with limited critical national infrastructure. It is surrounded by hostiles. Happily, none of that applies here.
Our missile defence must be fully integrated with NATO partners. NATO needs European leadership as the US pivots, and we must not encourage those whose primary interest in defence lies in extending the remit of the institutions of the European Union, rather than the defence and security of Europeans. We do not need the distraction of a separate, competing EU defence architecture; NATO is our strength and our stay, and we must use our status as the continent’s leading military power to ensure it remains so. In particular, we must articulate clearly the case for layered missile defence and SDEAD within a NATO construct, as the US pivots towards the Indo-Pacific. The UK and Europe need NATO integrated air and missile defence that incorporates close-in systems to guarantee major centres of population, defence assets and critical national infrastructure. Crucially, member states must not give an aggressor capable of waging an attritional war grounds for believing that the west will exhaust its ordnance in the first few hours or days.
Where are we with the versatile and scalable very short to medium-range modular ground-based air defence system envisaged by NATO Defence Ministers at their meeting in October 2020? What application might that system have to provide the last arrow in our quiver—one that will destroy missiles that have evaded intermediate layers and are about to land on critical sites in the UK? For a country with no money, directed energy weapons offer a potential solution for dealing with drones and missiles, albeit in line of sight and in good weather. Is DSTL’s DragonFire weapon still on course for service with the Royal Navy in 2027, and what export opportunities are Ministers exploring? Do they expect that Type 26s, Type 31s, and any Type 32s will carry DragonFire or successor directed energy weapons? Will they be fitted as standard, or as expensive retrofits?
Do we really need a sixth-generation manned—or even hybrid—fast jet to replace Typhoon? Would it not be better to rely on the F-35 airframe with mid-life upgrades in a future that is surely progressively unmanned? The lineal, if less romantic, descendants of the Few will be tech geeks, gamers, coders and those who provide a human interface with artificial intelligence. What are we doing to grow them, and will the Minister visit the #TechTrowbridge initiative that I started in Wiltshire’s county town, which was once a centre for Spitfire manufacture? He would be warmly welcomed on his way to his constituency.
The reason that a grisly artillery war has played out in Ukraine is because nobody has been able to command the airspace. Happily and to our surprise, Russia has been unable to suppress or destroy Ukraine’s air defences. In the future, unmanned combat aerial vehicles configured to shoot the archer, not the arrow, will do that. I would be very surprised if Lord Robertson were not casting a critical eye over the global combat air programme, and comparing and contrasting its cost and effectiveness with those of unmanned combat aerial vehicles.
I appreciate the deep cultural difficulty of envisaging an unmanned future battlespace. It is deeply unsettling for those of us steeped in the traditions of the armed forces, but while there will always be a need for sufficient booted and spurred combat troops ready to close with and kill the enemy and hold the ground—as the Member of Parliament for a garrison town, I am not for one moment suggesting a further reduction in headcount—this country will never again be able to expose itself to attritional warfare of the sort we are seeing being played out in Ukraine. Politically and societally, that would be impossible and unconscionable. That means integrated missile defence, SDEAD, drones, and command of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Once again at a dreadnought crossroads, Britain must configure the forces at its disposal for the long term in all domains and take a lead as what is still the principal military power in its Euro-Atlantic voisinage. Early pointers suggesting that this Government are taking the right fork in the road would include difficult and unpopular decisions such as standing firm on the deep space advanced radar capability envisaged for Cawdor barracks on the St David’s peninsula, which was bottled by previous Governments. As we chop to an unmanned future, those pointers would—for example, and very painfully—include consignment of the RAF Red Arrows aero-acrobatics team to the historic flight.
This Government have four years left to run—the time the directorate of aeronautical production had to fit out this country with what it needed to prevail. Recent events have revealed the fundamental truth that we are vulnerable now, as we were then, and the shifting geopolitical plates will likely make us more so. The public will never forgive an Administration of whatever colour who muddle through, leaving them open to the predations of Putin’s advancing missile programme.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for calling this debate and for the seriousness with which he has approached it. I share his general analysis of the context that we live in more difficult, unsettled and challenging times. That is the reason why, on coming into office, the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Robertson to begin the strategic defence review to look at our capabilities and to set those against the threats we are facing as a country. I will return to some of those areas, and indeed to the questions the right hon. Gentleman asked.
There is a real challenge when it comes to integrated air missile defence, the threats from drones and the threats from one-way effectors and long-range strike, as we have seen every single day in Ukraine, with the brave people of Ukraine being on the receiving end of onslaughts from Putin’s illegal invasion. Those are the lessons we are seeking to learn in the strategic defence review to make sure not only that we can support our friends in Ukraine with the equipment they need, but that we can adapt our own ways of war fighting and defending to deter aggression if at all possible, and to defeat it if necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, and I will come on to those in my remarks if I can, but I am sure he will keep me honest if I have missed any by the time I reach the end of my response to him. His analysis of the context of the political challenges in this debate is certainly true. When he was a Defence Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, the current Defence Secretary and I made that argument. Having heard from the Government Dispatch Box that defence had been hollowed out and underfunded, we argued that we needed a different approach.
I do not like the approach the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of having to “make do and mend—we always have”. I recognise it, but I do not think we should accept it, especially in more difficult times. Precisely because of that, the SDR needs to be bold, and that is in effect the remit given to Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that it falls to this Government to make those decisions, and we have already made a number of decisions about retiring old platforms. That is sometimes difficult, and he raises the interesting challenge of how we renew technologies without offending or upsetting the established norms. As an example, Watchkeeper, a 14-year-old drone system used by the British Army, has been retired because it cannot keep pace with the modern challenges of electronic warfare jamming and other things we would be asking it to do if it were to be deployed on a frontline. That is certainly something we feel incredibly strongly about.
I have just returned from the E5 Defence Ministers meeting that took place in Warsaw in Poland, and it is clear to me that our NATO allies are all taking integrated air and missile defence seriously. If we look at the experiences of the nations on NATO’s eastern flank—particularly Poland and the Baltic states, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—we are seeing very real concern about protection of their airspace. Protection is being built up through what they are seeking to procure and the support they are asking for from allies in providing a protective bubble over their countries. Britain’s island geography may have deterred aggressors throughout much of our history, but it is no shield against sophisticated weapons and modern air warfare, and for that reason the SDR has been commissioned.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. From the discussions the Minister had at the E5 conference, does he think our allies are confident that we are playing our part in air defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank my fellow Devon MP for that question. He will be able to read the joint statement by the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Poland when it is published on the Ministry of Defence website on the conference’s conclusion. I made the point clearly in the press conference afterwards that the UK is calling on all NATO partners to increase their defence spending. We have a plan to increase our defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5%. Where any increased defence spending goes matters, because it needs not only to deter aggression, but to defeat it and—perhaps most importantly and relevant to this debate—to be interoperable with our allies. We need to ensure that any investment in defence has an increase in our deployability and our lethality as we fight together. It is the assumption of this Government, with a declared NATO-first policy, that we will be supporting our NATO allies in any defensive measures. That is the reason we have the British Army in Estonia with Operation Cabrit. It is the reason we have NATO air policing in a variety of states along NATO’s eastern flank.
Integrated air and missile defence is an area that all NATO members need to develop. There is not one answer that everyone has reached for yet. It is a difficult, wicked problem that requires investment and a change in strategy. That is part of the reason why that is being addressed by the SDR. That is a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope it provides him with the clarity he needs.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister represents a city and a football club that are close to my heart. I also thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing forward this important debate. I am heartened to hear that the Minister views the interoperability of our workforce and our assets alongside our NATO allies. Do the Government view the defence of UK airspace not singularly but, as I do, as the western front of European air defence?
Luke Pollard
I would certainly be happy afterwards to take up any discussion about Plymouth Argyle and a post Wayne Rooney world.
It is certainly true that the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks. Part of the challenge we have with integrated air and missile defence and the threats that the UK and our allies face is that the definitions of what are the close and the deep have fundamentally changed, because of the experience of the Ukraine war. I recognise that there are Members in this House and this debate who served in our armed forces, and they will be familiar with the broad definitions of close and deep.
It is certainly true that what we previously regarded as close and deep have fundamentally changed. The distances have increased enormously. We are seeing that in Ukraine, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments. Having the ability to project power and fire at distance is one reason that we have supported Ukraine with so many weapons systems. It is also the reason why the SDR is looking in particular at this area and how any forces and capabilities can meet the threat we are facing. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) understands that the SDR will address many of the answers to his broad question. Our responsibilities are more than just securing the UK homeland; they are about supporting our allies, and indeed it is our allies’ role to support not only their own country, but their NATO partners, including the UK.
The threats posed to our security continue to proliferate and converge. With technologies rapidly developing, protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging. Let me be absolutely clear: adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities contributing to our integrated air and missile defence, along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies. We have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has seen the quick reaction aircraft, as I have, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth and seen the incredible speed, dedication and professionalism of our teams there responding to threats approaching the United Kingdom. Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 destroyer against different air threats in the recent operations in the Red sea in particular. That included shooting down drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine.
In relation to the specifics of our capabilities, I have had the privilege of visiting UK forces stationed forward in Poland using the Sky Sabre system, supporting the NATO logistics hub that supports so much of what we provide to Ukraine. Operation Stifftail has now concluded, and that mission has been a success. I thank all those members of the Royal Artillery in particular who supported that mission.
The Sky Sabre system that was in Poland has been returned to the UK and is being reconstituted. The Sky Sabre system that we have in the Falklands provides continuous air defence to the islands, protecting the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. Having seen that system up close and personal on my recent visit to the Falklands, I thank those members of our armed forces protecting the skies above the Falklands. We will need to ensure that integrated air missile defence is more than just a bubble over Poland and protection of the Falklands.
I think that is at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise in the debate. It is also one of the challenges that the strategic defence review seeks to answer. I will not steal Lord Robertson’s sandwiches in terms of what I expect to see in the strategic defence review, but certainly enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR, and I would expect him and his review team to be making recommendations about how that should be done in the SDR when it is published in the spring. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring. Hopefully, that will enable us to look at those two parts together to ensure that we are, in his words, meeting the challenge of stepping up. I agree that there are no free passes, and as a nation we have relied on our strategic depth for a great many years, but we cannot rely on that alone today. That is why our capabilities need to match that challenge.
Our NATO-first approach means ensuring that we deliver not only on the article 3 responsibilities in the NATO treaty to protect our own homeland, but on article 5 and be able to support our NATO allies. That is why we will continue to support our deployments around the NATO area of operations.
As a country, we are leading the way with initiatives such as DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—which will improve air defence integration across Europe and strengthen NATO’s air and missile protection. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on missile capabilities, which is a catalyst to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine and address the burgeoning security threat to NATO members as well.
We are also forging deeper relations with individual European partners. Hon. Members may have seen the landmark Trinity House agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Germany, which will see us turbocharge a series of major projects across air, land and sea, working in partnership to strengthen air defences and better protect European airspace. We are also working more closely with France, with our most recently signing a letter of intent for the European long-range strike approach—the ELSA initiative—at France’s request. Such initiatives demonstrate our determination to support Ukraine, counter the threat posed by Putin and reconnect Britain internationally.
I realise that I have not got to every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but if he will forgive me, I will write to him and place a letter in the House so that all Members can be certain of these matters. Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values and our allies in more uncertain times.
Question put and agreed to.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 62 stand part.
Clause 80 stand part.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.
In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for his birthday felicitations. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.
Andrew Gwynne
I was just about to say, Sir Roger, that might be one thing that we have to divide on later. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford all the best for today and hope that he gets home in reasonable time to enjoy with friends and family what is left of his birthday.
I thank hon. Members for their speeches on these clauses today and earlier this week. The Government have two objectives on vaping. The first is to tackle youth vaping. Too many children are vaping and vapes are attractive and accessible to them. The Bill will bring about definitive and positive change to prevent future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine. The second objective is to support adult smokers to access vapes to help them to quit smoking. As the chief medical officer says:
“If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2025; c. 11, Q8.]
I concur with that entirely.
In support of those aims, the clauses do not apply to licensed medicines and there is a defence available when any free vaping or nicotine product is given out in accordance with arrangements made by a public health authority or a public authority. That means that smoking cessation services will be able to continue to support adult smokers to quit smoking, for example by providing free smoking cessation quit aids where appropriate. That includes our national swap to stop programme that continues to help smokers move from cigarettes to vapes.
I also stress that we will continue to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to support applications from industry for vapes as a licensed medicine. As Dr Laura Squire, the MHRA chief healthcare quality and access officer, stated in the evidence session, there may be progress in this area. I hope that that assures hon. Members that we continue to take a balanced approach to vaping, both through the measures in the Bill and our wider work on tobacco control.
More generally, the clauses make it an offence to give away any tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers if the purpose or effect is to promote any tobacco, herbal smoking, smoking-related, vaping or nicotine product to a member of the public of any age—for England and Wales, in clause 15, for Scotland, in clause 62, and for Northern Ireland, in clause 80. The maximum penalty for the offence will be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
The clause also extends to coupons and vouchers and to selling a product at a substantial discount. These measures mean that disreputable actors cannot bypass the restriction by offering a free voucher for a product instead of a free product. The clause also covers products that promote any of the aforementioned products—for example, t-shirts with vape company branding to promote vapes cannot be freely given away. On discounts, we are only prohibiting substantial discounts, so we can make sure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point at which the price is no longer relevant. Businesses can still discount products if they choose to. Clause 62 also includes a power for Scottish Ministers to create additional defences.
It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could be legally handed out for free. This is one of the many avenues by which industry is addicting our children. It is for these reasons I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Clause 22 stand part.
Clause 85 stand part.
Schedules 11 to 13.
Dr Johnson
I put on the record my good wishes for a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dartford. He shares a birthday with both my daughter and my son’s science teacher, and I wish them all a happy birthday. While fully enjoying and engaging with this very important piece of legislation, I understand his urge to celebrate his birthday later, and I hope he will be able to do so.
This is quite a big group of clauses. They provide for the licensing regime for retail sales of various products, tobacco products and others in England and are quite complex.
Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the granting of personal and premises licences. It establishes a licensing system for the sale, storage, exposure and supply of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England and outlines the requirement for individuals and businesses involved in the retail of those products to hold specific licences.
The clause can essentially be broken down as follows. Subsection (1) establishes that individuals in England are prohibited from selling, displaying for sale or possessing certain relevant products, such as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, unless they have a valid personal licence. That ensures that all transactions are regulated and aims to control access, ensure compliance with legal standards and promote accountability among retailers in handling those products.
Clause 16 also effectively creates a licensing framework to monitor and enforce sale practices. That is important, because we have heard evidence—and seen for ourselves when we walk down the street—that virtually every shop, whatever it sells otherwise, sells vapes. The clause will help to reduce the number of outlets selling those products and ensure that they are being sold responsibly and only to those above the age of sale.
Subsection (2) mandates that premises cannot be used for certain activities involving the relevant products, including storing, displaying or supplying them without a valid premises licence. Again, that ensures that the locations themselves are regulated by requiring a licence, which allows for oversight of operations, ensures compliance with health and safety and legal standards and prevents and reduces unauthorised and illicit sales. That will help to enforce accountability and the responsible handling of regulated goods.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to create by regulations exemptions to subsections (1) and (2) if he or she wishes to do so. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to create regulations governing the granting of both personal and premises licences. That provision is essential to establish clear criteria and procedures for individuals and businesses seeking licences to sell, store or display relevant products. Subsection (4) will ensure that those activities are conducted responsibly and legally, aligning public safety standards and allowing for consistent oversight, as I said. It ensures that there is a thorough process in considering input from those who are directly affected by or have expertise in the matter.
Subsection (7) specifies that regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have talked about before. Subsection (8) defines key terms, such as “personal licence”, “premises licence” and “relevant products”, ensuring that there is clarity in the interpretation and application of the provisions so that individuals subject to them understand what their duties involve.
Schedule 1 concerns the retail licensing scheme for England only. To tackle the illicit market and protect legitimate businesses, the Bill provides powers to introduce a new retail licensing scheme in England for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The schedule details the regulations for a retail licensing scheme and explains the regulations that the Secretary of State can implement under the powers granted in clause 16, which mandate that retail sales of those products in England must be licensed.
There clearly needs to be a licensing authority, and the regulations will designate a local authority as the responsible body for granting licences to retailers that wish to sell tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. With regard to yesterday’s statement on the changes to some local authorities, it is important that the provisions in the schedule work, even in the event that the local authorities change as part of that process.
The regulations on licensing conditions can prevent the granting of licences in certain areas—for example, near schools—limit the number of licences in specific areas and require premises to be inspected before a licence is granted. The licensing authority can charge a fee to cover the cost of administering and enforcing a licensing scheme, and a portion of those fees may be allocated to other bodies involved in the enforcement process, especially if licensing and enforcement are handled by different authorities. The regulations will also do other sensible things; they mention the licence duration, public disclosure and how to renew and appeal any licence that has been either granted or refused. The Secretary of State will be able to provide guidance to the local authorities providing the licensing duty on how to carry out their duties in that respect.
The impact assessment on the Bill, which was published by the Department for Health and Social Care in November 2024, notes:
“A retail licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products would support enforcement (and in turn, public health) by:
a) strengthening retailers’ adherence to existing regulations”
and by
“b) providing the opportunity to introduce further restrictions…in the interest of public health, for example conditions relating to retail density.”
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
For clarity, does that notice give notice of the amount of the penalty or just that a penalty will be imposed? Can the retailer appeal to the weights and measures authority about whether they will get a fine, or are they simply told the amount of the fine that they are likely to get? If my hon. Friend does not know, perhaps the Minister might.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.
Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty. To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so.
The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed. If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid. Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.
Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales. As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products. In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.
Gregory Stafford
I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.
Dr Johnson
I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon. Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important, however, that those who are selling online and those who are selling in shops have to have a licence to do so. I hope that the Minister does not intend to exempt online retailers from the need to have a licence to sell such products—he is shaking his head, so I suggest that is not the case, which is good.
One reason for tabling new clause 10 was to highlight the importance of ensuring that online retailers are held to the same standards as those real-world retailers. We have talked previously about ensuring that online apps and online sales cannot be used as a get-around—similar to vending machines, for example. It is important to ensure that the online world is not used to get around the Government’s intention to prevent smoking and the purchase of smoking, vaping and nicotine products by under-age individuals.
To return to clause 19, subsection (5) requires Welsh Ministers to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations, which is sensible. Subsection (7) specifies that the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which for Wales means that the proposed regulations must be formally approved by the Senedd before becoming law, increasing democratic accountability and providing an extra layer of scrutiny. Respect for Welsh devolution, as we talked about in the last session, is therefore included within the Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for retail licensing schemes in Wales, making provision regarding the granting of a licence in Wales, including provisions meaning that a licensing authority cannot grant a licence to premises in a particular area, for example, in proximity to a school, and limiting the number of licences within a particular area. We heard previously that specifying that licensed premises should not be near a school could cause difficulties in some rural areas where there may be only one shop in that village and no shops for many miles around it. That is one of the reasons decisions are made locally, because the local individuals providing those licences know the local circumstances, and that would need to be done cautiously. The regulations will also specify the duration of the licence, how it is enforced and the appeals process.
Clause 20 relates to offences in connection with licences in Wales and sets out how offences are committed, along with the penalties that may be put in place. I will not go through that in any more detail.
Clause 21 talks about the financial penalties in Wales. We have talked previously about how it is a matter for the devolved nations to decide how high those penalties should be. Subsection (1) grants the local weights and measures authorities in Wales the powers to impose those financial penalties relating to a breach of conditions attached to a personal or premises licence.
Schedule 4 outlines the procedure for local authorities in Wales, such as trading standards, to impose financial penalties for breaching licence conditions. Again, before imposing a penalty, authorities must issue a notice of intent and allow time for it to be challenged. If a penalty is imposed, a final notice is issued, which can be withdrawn or reduced, and the person can appeal the decision or the penalty amount to the magistrates court. Unpaid penalties can be recovered as if they were payable under an order of the county court and proceeds, after enforcement costs, are returned to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
Clause 22 is the repeal of register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. It proposes to repeal chapter 2 in part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which established a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. Clearly, if this Bill passes, that provision will no longer be required because the clauses in the Bill provide for new provisions. Clause 22 repeals that chapter of the 2017 Act so that it can be replaced, which is sensible.
Gregory Stafford
I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon. Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Chapter 2 of part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which is being repealed by the Bill, establishes a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. That Act requires the creation and maintenance of a register for all retailers of tobacco, cigarette papers and nicotine products. That register has to include detailed information about each registrant, such as their name, residential or business address, and the location of the premises. It also specifies whether the retailer sells tobacco, nicotine products or both. For mobile and temporary premises, such as stalls, tents or vehicles, the register must record the relevant local authorities where the business operates, if there is more than one.
Welsh Ministers may be designated as the authority responsible for overseeing the register, with additional details about registration requirements subject to regulations. To register, businesses must apply to the registration authority and provide comprehensive details about their operations, including the type of products sold and the methods of sale, such as online transactions or delivery services. Applications must comply with a prescribed format and a fee may be required. The authority must grant registration unless legal restrictions, such as restricted premises or sale orders, apply. Approved applications result in updates to the register.
Registered retailers are obligated to notify the authority of significant changes, such as modifications to business details, the cessation of operations at specific locations or the discontinuation of mobile operations in a local authority area. Notifications must be submitted within 28 days and the registration authority is responsible for revising the register to reflect the changes or correct any inaccuracies. Before amending or removing a registrant’s entry, the authority must provide notice to explain the reasons and allow time for the registrant to respond.
The chapter of the Act that is being repealed includes provisions to enhance the regulation of tobacco and nicotine businesses by ensuring access to the retailers register and enforcing compliance. The registration authority is required to publish a list identifying registered businesses and their premises. For businesses operating from moveable structures, such as stalls or vehicles, the list must specify the local authorities where operations occur, instead of physical addresses.
Local authorities are granted full access to information on the register relevant to the premises within their jurisdiction to enable effective monitoring. Certain premises may be exempt from the Act’s provisions, as specified in regulations. The application of the provisions to moveable premises may be modified if deemed necessary by Welsh Ministers.
Conducting a tobacco or nicotine business without registration is an offence, as is operating at locations not listed in the register. Exceptions apply to moveable premises, but failing to notify the authority of a change in business operations without reasonable cause also constitutes an offence. Offenders face fines proportional to the severity of the breach.
To enforce compliance, local authorities may appoint authorised officers and grant them powers to investigate potential offences. Officers may enter premises at reasonable times, provided that they suspect violations and need access for verification. Entry into dwellings for such a purpose requires a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which remains valid for 28 days. Warrants may also be granted for other premises under specific conditions, such as denial of access or risk of compromising an investigation.
Authorised officers have extensive inspection powers, including examining premises, taking samples and copying documents. They may also secure properties for analysis where necessary. Obstructing officers or failing to co-operate with a reasonable requirement is an offence. Fixed-penalty notices can be issued for minor breaches, offering offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution through prompt payment. Those measures, in the chapter of the Act that is being repealed, collectively aim to uphold public health standards and ensure the responsible sale of tobacco and nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.
Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.
Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.
Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.
The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.
There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.
Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.
The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.
Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.
Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.
Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.
Jack Rankin
In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.
I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.
On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.
Sarah Bool
I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor.
The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions. I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations. It mentions in written evidence that
“The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws. A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.”
I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.
Dr Johnson
It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.
Sarah Bool
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.
Evapo also says that
“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”
That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.
I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. What does she think about the idea of having a single licence? If a shop—for example, a small convenience store—is selling alcohol, tobacco, where it is still permitted under the regulation, and vapes for those over 18, would a single regulatory process and licensing scheme be more efficient and more beneficial both to the customer and the retailer?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business. We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank Members for their contributions.
Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.
Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.
Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.
The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.
I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to Scotland in due course.
Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority. In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.
The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance. It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date. That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations. For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.
Dr Johnson
Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?
Andrew Gwynne
Where we know an area is moving from a two-tier to a unitary authority, the clue is in the name: the unitary authority will be the licensing authority because there will be only one local authority covering that area.
Gregory Stafford
I am sure the Minister has much greater understanding of his own Government’s policy, but my understanding is that there will be some devolution of powers to parish and town councils. Will they potentially become the licensing authority when there is a downward devolution of power?
Andrew Gwynne
No. The local authority, not the parish council, would be and will remain the licensing authority, as is the case at the present time. Notwithstanding that there may be a quasi-additional tier in the form of a mayor and a combined authority, where areas move from a two-tier to a unitary authority, it will be the local authority that is the licensing authority. That is what happens in my constituency in Greater Manchester, where we have effectively had unitary authorities since the metropolitan county council was abolished in 1986. Tameside metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council are both unitary authorities. They are both the licensing authorities for their respective parts of my constituency, even though we have a Greater Manchester combined authority and a Great Manchester metro mayor. I hope that clarifies the issue.
Schedule 1 also establishes that regulations may make provisions regarding the granting, duration, renewal and revocation of licences, and enables the licensing authority to charge a fee for the granting of a licence. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor, the fee structure may be set at a level that takes into account administration and enforcement costs. The local authority will be able to use the fee to help cover the cost of granting licences and enforcing the scheme. That is the closest I can get: we intend it to be cost-neutral for the purpose of operating the scheme.
Schedule 1 establishes that regulations can place conditions on the licence. Retailers that breach those conditions will be subject to civil financial penalties. Regulations may make provision for licensing authorities to publish information about licences, such as the addresses of licensed retailers, and, to maintain fairness, regulations must include an appeals route, so that retailers can, for example, appeal decisions on the granting of a licence. Finally, regulations may require that a licensing authority must consider guidance published by the Secretary of State to support the smooth implementation of the scheme.
Clause 19 and schedule 3 establish the same power to introduce a licensing scheme in Wales, with the same framework for the regulations. The schedule establishes the licensing authority in Wales to be the council of the county or county borough. Clause 85 achieves the same in Northern Ireland by inserting a new clause into the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, while schedule 11 establishes the same framework. In Northern Ireland, a council will be the licensing authority.
Clause 17 creates offences in relation to the licensing scheme in England. It makes it an offence to sell, expose for sale, or possess for the purpose of sale any relevant products without, or not in accordance with, a personal licence. The clause also makes it an offence to use a premises in England for the storage of relevant product for the purpose of retail sale, the exposure for sale, or the supply of any relevant product to a retail customer without, or not in accordance with, a premises licence, and knowingly to provide materially false or misleading information in a licence application.
Anyone found to be committing a licensing offence may be issued with an unlimited fine on conviction. As an alternative to prosecution, trading standards may issue a £2,500 fixed penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine. Regulations can confer on courts a discretionary power to suspend or revoke a licence on conviction. The court may order relevant product to be forfeited and destroyed, to prevent a business from continuing to sell or unlawfully selling product.
Clause 20 establishes the same licensing offences in Wales, and clause 85 establishes the same licensing offences in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, district councils will enforce the licensing scheme. People convicted of a licensing offence face a fine of up to £5,000. As an alternative to prosecution, councils in Northern Ireland can issue a fixed penalty notice, the value for which will be determined in regulations.
Clause 18 creates civil financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions in England, to ensure that licensed retailers continue to follow the rules. Breaching conditions is a civil matter, not dealt with by the courts. The value of the civil financial penalty cannot exceed £2,500. The clause also provides a limited and specific power to update that value to account for inflation, to ensure that the value remains relevant. A civil penalty cannot be issued if the breach of the licence condition already constitutes a licensing offence. That is to ensure that someone cannot be subject to double punishment for the same licence breach.
Dr Johnson
The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent. Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?
Andrew Gwynne
As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation. That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 24 to 27 stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
No, it is too late; I am sorry. Members have to understand that if they wish to make a contribution, they must make that clear by standing up; otherwise, I push forward. It is too late. The clause is debated.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
Sorry, Sir Roger. We had wanted to adjourn at clause 22.
The Chair
But we have just agreed clause 23. It is done. Whether you like it or not, the Committee has said yes to clause 23, so it stands part of the Bill. We cannot go back; there is no retrospective route in Committee. If Members wish to debate clauses 24 to 27, which technically have not been moved, they may do so, but they cannot debate clause 23.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Hang on, not now! This is like trying to herd kittens. When you come back this afternoon, you may, if the Chairman chooses to allow you—you will be pleased to know it will not be me—speak to clauses 24 to 27, before you vote on those. But you cannot go back over clause 23.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesWater (Special Measures) Act 2025 View all Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members that they should send their speaking notes by email to Hansard and that electronic devices should be switched to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings but, appropriately for this Bill, there is water.
New Clause 27
Environmental duties with respect to national parks
“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘4A Environmental duties with respect to national parks
(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within national parks or the Broads, that undertaker must—
(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;
(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;
(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;
(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.
(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—
(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;
(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.
(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—
“the Broads” has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988;
“land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;
“High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require water companies to adhere to and deliver stronger environmental objectives and duties within National Parks and the Broads, so as to protect waters across National Parks from sewage. The new clause would give the Secretary of State regulation-making power to extend protections to specific bodies of water, such as Lake Windermere.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, everyone. I will highlight two key points about new clause 28, which concerns what happens when companies that have gone into special administration come out of it. Subsection (1) refers to considering
“the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.”
Subsection (2) states that that would involving considering
“the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and…what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.”
We are not saying that companies have to be this or that; we are just advocating considering this possibility. Private companies have made an absolute mess of our water sector, have added no value over the past 36 years and have ramped up nearly £70 billion of debt. When the companies come out of special administration, we have an opportunity to do something different and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want the Committee to take that on board. We are not asking for a commitment; we are just asking for consideration. Hon. Members all know how badly the private companies have treated us, our rivers and our communities.
These companies are monopolies, so they have absolute power. Unfortunately, our regulators have completely failed in their task. If they have failed in the task, and if we do not have absolute confidence in the regulators—I do not think that anybody who will be voting today does—we must not give water back to the private sector.
Globally, this is standard. It is what the rest of the world does with its water sector. Even in the US, the vast majority of the water sector is mutually or municipally held. Chile may be the one shining example of private capitalism that we can point to in this regard, but there are almost no other countries in the world that do as we do. We are asking the Committee to do what is standard, rather than what is unusual.
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), has written about the benefits of the mutual ownership model, which he states forces water companies
“to operate in the interests of consumers; where environmental considerations such as disposal of sewage would take precedence over profit.”
That is our request. I rest my case.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?
Charlie Maynard
What I really like about our proposal is that the companies are coming out of special administration, so it does not cost anybody anything: the equity of the shareholders has been written off. We often hear that it would not be a good idea, because it would cost too much to buy the companies out. Under our proposal, we would not need to buy them out, because we are advocating this only where companies are going into special administration. We are advocating a mutual model and—I say respectfully to the hon. Member—only that. That is what is on the table today, and that is what we are after.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is lucky that within six months we will have the Cunliffe review, which will look in great depth at ownership, regulation and everything to do with the water industry? Maybe this is something that we could take further at that stage.
Charlie Maynard
That may be a chink of light, because all I have heard from the Government so far is “Only private companies welcome here.” My understanding is that the Cunliffe review’s remit purposely excludes ownership. If that is now on the table, it is great news, because it is one of the fundamental problems in the water sector. If the commission’s remit now includes ownership structures, I am delighted. I would love the Minister to clarify the point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship once again, Dr Huq. As promised, I have provided a fact sheet on the use of special administration. All Committee members should have received it by email, but hard copies are available on the table for their convenience.
Welcome to the last day of Committee.
Charlie Maynard
We all welcome one another, but I meant the fact sheet. I really appreciate your going to the trouble of putting it together; I thank your team as well. I have read it diligently and done my best, but I have a quiz question for you. The first bullet point refers to giving
“the power to recover HMG funding should there not be sufficient funds to pay HMG back at the end of a SAR.”
Then, under the heading “Context”, the penultimate bullet point states:
“If this shortfall occurred, and Ministers decided to use this new power, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must launch a consultation prior to this power being used. This will ensure that those affected (e.g. water billpayers) are able to provide their views. It will also ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is implemented in a way that means costs are recovered fairly.”
To me, that completely confirms paragraph 69 of the explanatory notes published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says that the Government will make the bill payers, as opposed to the creditors, pay for the costs. Please confirm, if you could.
Emma Hardy
At the risk of having the same debate over and over, I refer the hon. Member to the last page of our fact sheet. I am not sure how much clearer we can make it:
“Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR?
No. The shortfall recovery mechanism could only ever be used to recover a Government shortfall in the unlikely event of a SAR.”
Once again, I welcome everybody to the last day of this Committee. As I may not have the opportunity to do so later, may I thank all Members for their contributions and for taking part? I especially thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling another new clause.
As I have said, a special administration regime enables a company that provides vital public services, such as water, energy or rail, to be put into administration in certain circumstances. During a SAR, a special administrator appointed by and answerable to the court takes over the affairs of the business.
The court-appointed special administrator’s statutory objectives, which are set out in legislation, are twofold: to continue the running of the company to meet its statutory functions until it is possible to rescue the company, for example via a debt restructure, or to transfer the company to new owners, for example by selling it. There is nothing to prevent the company, or parts of it, from being transferred as a going concern to mutual ownership by a company’s customers, should the special administrator deem that appropriate. Although in an insolvency scenario the special administrator’s primary purpose is to rescue the company as a going concern, mutual ownership could be an option following a SAR, provided that the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue properly to carry out its activities relating to water.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We pushed the Minister earlier on the Cunliffe review. I thought it had been explicitly stated that ownership was off the table for that review. By talking about mutuals being a potential outcome, is the Minister saying that what is actually off the table is full-scale nationalisation, but that mutualisation, public benefit companies and not-for-profit companies could be a serious option in the Cunliffe review and in whatever legislation might follow?
Emma Hardy
Yes. We have ruled out nationalisation, but all other forms of ownership are in the scope of the Cunliffe review. I stress, however, that in a scenario in which a company was exiting special administration, it could go into mutual ownership if the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue to properly carry out its activities related to water. Of course, no one would want, in any situation, to transfer to a company incapable of operating and providing water.
It is important to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the terms of exit from a SAR, as that would interfere with the conduct of the court-appointed administrator and their statutory objectives.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?
Emma Hardy
The commission will focus on reforms that improve the privatised regulatory model. We have already been quite clear that nationalisation of the water sector is not in scope because of the high costs associated with that option, the lack of evidence that it would lead to improvements, and the delays that it would cause in achieving better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
The commission covers Wales and will review the model in Wales, where the largest water company operates a not-for-profit dividend model with no shareholders. In addition, as I have previously noted, the scope of the independent commission will include the governance of companies and the operation of existing tools such as the special administration regime. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Witney can see why the Government will not accept his new clause.
Charlie Maynard
I am happy to hear that mutual ownership is being considered. I am very grateful for that.
I will take my chances and try to clear up one point. I completely agree with what the Minister read out from the last page of the fact sheet:
“Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR?
No.”
Absolutely, but my point is not remotely about that. I am not asking about compensating creditors.
Let me take the Committee back to the first paragraph on page 1. Where there is a recovery to be made, who pays for it? We are not talking about compensating creditors; we are talking about taking money off them. Rather than the money being taken from the customers, which is exactly what the bullet point that I read out three minutes ago states, we believe that it should be taken from the creditors.
It is not about compensation. I am surprised that there is confusion on the point, because that is not where I am coming from. It is about the shortfall and who pays for it. It is clearly stated twice—both in DEFRA’s explanatory notes and in the bullet point, which I can read out again as desired—that the bill payers will pay for it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In my first speech of what I suspect will be our last sitting—we will see—let me thank you, Dr Huq, and every member of the Committee. It is no fault of anyone here, but I think these Committees are something of a charade. There was a brief time under the Theresa May Government when Committees were genuinely balanced, but I have never known a Committee to accept any Opposition amendment. I am sure it is not always because the Opposition’s ideas are bad—that is just how it works. We know that it is a bit of a charade. Having said that, 16 or 17 of us have been through the process of looking at the Bill in some detail, and that in itself has value.
Despite that frustration, which I have had for nearly 20 years, I am grateful to have been in the good company of courteous, decent people and to have had a robust but polite debate over the past few days. I am especially grateful to the Minister and her team for their engagement, which is genuinely appreciated; to the Conservative Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Broadland and Fakenham; and to my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley. They have all been very courteous and constructive.
I will seek to be brief, which does not always happen—whether I merely seek it, or whether it happens, let’s find out. We think that new clause 30 is very important. As we said in the previous sitting, the Government have chosen to underpin an awful lot of the scrutiny of the water industry on volunteers, citizen scientists and the like, which we strongly approve of. Groups such as Clean River Kent, and the Rivers Trust in Eden, south lakes and Windermere are great examples in my own communities, and around Staveley and Burneside, Staveley parish council has done a great job holding United Utilities to account. What they do is of immense value.
Underpinning the ability of those groups to scrutinise in the future is this interesting live database, which will demonstrate the performance of various water company assets around the country. We want to clarify in the Bill that the database will be publicly and freely accessible and updated in live time, but critically, that it will contain not just current but historical data—that is probably the key bit of the new clause. If we are going to depend on volunteers, we cannot assume that they are going to be on it 24/7; they have lives to lead. We must clarify in the Bill that historical data will be available and searchable, so that if we blink, we do not miss it.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairmanship; it is a pleasure to serve under you today. The Bill already introduces a duty on water companies to produce and publish pollution targets and a reduction plan. We can also get data fairly straightforwardly on how water companies are performing overall. However, what my residents in North West Leicestershire want to know is how their water company is performing week in, week out on the sewage outlets that they are interested in. I believe we already have plenty of ways to monitor performance, and this addition is unnecessary.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. What we are talking about, though, is a toolkit that is being provided for the voluntary sector and for activists up and down the country, including ourselves. It is a great addition—this is a good new thing that the Government are proposing.
I have some examples of why this toolkit is necessary. About 10 months ago, at the Glebe Road pumping station water treatment works at Windermere, we had a significant deluge of untreated sewage going into the lake, and we found out only because a whistleblower told us. The Environment Agency was notified 13 hours after the incident took place. The good thing about what the Government are proposing is that there will be a live database so that we can see what is happening there and then, and we can be on it.
However, unless we include the new clause—I would be happy to accept clarification from the Minister if something similar is going to happen anyway—the assumption will be that there is someone on it. Matt Staniek, who leads Save Windermere, works every hour God sends, but he is allowed to sleep sometimes, and what if something happens at 3 o’clock in the morning and he is tucked up? Do we miss it? I am simply saying that we should put in the Bill that this very good toolkit, which I commend the Government for, should be historically searchable, so that we can really hold the water companies to account.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am sympathetic to quite a lot of the intention behind the new clause, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Proposed new section 272B(2)(d)(ii)(a) contains a duty to publish the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has already been a duty to publish that information for some time? All undertakers have a duty to publish information from event duration monitors within—from memory—60 minutes of an event being triggered. Will the hon. Gentleman give a bit more detail on what he has in mind for the authority to publish? Proposed new subsection (2)(c) says that the database must
“contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary”.
Such a bland statement will be open to challenge and interpretation, with all sorts of committed parties deciding that their “independently collected and analysed information” should be in the database, and other people saying it should not. Is this not just a charter for judicial review of the authority?
Tim Farron
I will not rehash the debates we have had in Committee already, but we are talking about more than just event duration monitoring, as set out in proposed new section 27ZB(2)(d)(ii)(a); we are talking about flow and volume, and it is right to specify those things.
Jerome Mayhew
That may be the hon. Member’s intention, but the drafting does not say that. Part of the problem is that (ii)(a) deals the with start time, end time and duration, not flow. Does that particular sub-paragraph not duplicate the existing legal requirements for publication within 60 minutes?
Tim Farron
We dealt with that with other amendments; even though they are not part of the Bill, that would be covered by the suite of things we have proposed. Fundamentally, all we are asking for is that the information and the evidence that is put out there will be searchable historically. That cannot be beyond the wit and capability of the very clever IT specialists who I am sure are already working for the water companies. This is important, and it is part of what those of us in this corner of the Committee Room are trying to do, which is to take the Government at their word when it comes to the elevation—and we support that elevation—of the role of volunteers and citizen scientists, equipping them to do their job properly and not expecting them to be at their computers 24/7 without sleep.
Emma Hardy
Very briefly, to return to the SAR—our favourite subject—it might be best if we take the conversation out of Committee and sit down with officials to make sure we are both having the same conversation about the same thing and we can clarify that. We will follow up on that, and of course I extend that offer to the shadow Minister.
New clause 30 would require Ofwat to establish a public database on the performance of sewerage undertakers. I understand and acknowledge the intent behind the new clause, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to all the environmental campaign groups that have been working in this area to make information available. It is vital that the public are able to access and scrutinise information on the performance of water companies.
To support this, the Government are focusing our efforts on ensuring that the most salient information is published in a transparent way and is publicly accessible. That is why clause 3 already requires water companies to publish information on discharges from emergency overflows in a way that is readily accessible and understandable to the public. As mentioned, this matches the pre-existing duty for storm overflows. To support the storm overflow duty, Water UK has published a centralised map of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies on one website. A similar approach is intended for emergency overflows.
We have also requested that water companies begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows in the 2024 price review. This will provide useful information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality, and we will be working with water companies to consider how best to publish the information in near-real time. That is in addition to the duty to publish information on pollution incidents in clause 2, as well as existing regulatory requirements for the Environment Agency to publish water company environmental performance data. This data includes the annual environmental performance assessment of the water sector, which provides information on the performance of waste water treatment works.
Information from flow monitors, as we have discussed previously, is very technical and does not relate to the impact of the discharge, unlike continuous water quality monitoring data. Therefore, we do not think there is sufficient additional value in requiring this data to be published. As the industry is already centralising data on sewage discharges from storm overflows on one website, and given the existing environmental performance reporting, the Government do not believe that an amendment to require further publications by Ofwet—Ofwat—to do the same thing is necessary. I therefore hope that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw his new clause.
Tim Farron
We are not going to push this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 32 is about procurement. I will read out the key point:
“The Authority must issue rules requiring relevant undertakers to use competitive procurement processes in respect of procurement relating to water infrastructure.”
What are we getting at here? There is an unholy trinity that is causing trouble inside our water sector: too much debt, regulatory capital value—a concept that is misfiring big time—and the ownership model. I hope that the Government will take on that unholy trinity and find a stake.
The new clause addresses RCV, because it is not working in the water sector. I touched on that in our last sittings, so I will not drag the Committee through it again. Regulatory capital value encourages as big an asset base as possible, which gives water companies an incentive to source product as expensively as possible—to pour really expensive concrete. It has been going on over the last few decades, so I am not pinning the blame on this Government, but I am asking for their help to stop it.
It is not in the customers’ interests for us to continue to have faulty procurement processes that encourage water companies to buy things expensively. With new clause 32 the Liberal Democrats are trying to highlight that problem and address it. I suspect that the provision will not be passed, but I am going to be talking about it. RCV is the issue, and I am interested to see if the Government will recognise it as such and look to address it.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the intention behind new clause 32. On a personal level, I welcome the scrutiny and the level of detail that we have gone into. As the Bill started in the other place, there was a lot of cross-party work and the Government have taken onboard some of the recommendations. I gently push back on the idea that this is not a necessary or valid way to examine legislation.
The Government agree that competitive procurement can be a successful way to provide better value for money for consumers, and greater innovation within major infrastructure projects. In the 2019 price review, Ofwat developed the direct procurement for customers approach, or DPC, building on the success of the Thames tideway tunnel. The DPC allows the water company to competitively tender for services in relation to the delivery of major infrastructure projects. At price review 2024, Ofwat noted that, by default, all projects with a total life cost of over £200 million should be delivered through a DPC. Following final determinations in December 2024, Ofwat announced that 26 major water company projects would be delivered by competitive tendering processes, including a DPC, with a total whole-life cost of almost £50 billion.
Charlie Maynard
Two-hundred million is a really big number. In my patch in Witney, we have sewage treatment works as far as the eye can see that are undercapacity and are leaking sewage all over the place—at Bampton, Cassington, Carterton, Witney, Milton; you name it. It is awful, and I am sure that is the case in other constituencies, too. Two-hundred million pounds is miles higher than any of their spend, so—correct me if I am wrong—all those sewage treatment works are going to carry on without the new procurement processes because they are below the £200 million threshold.
Emma Hardy
The point is that competitive tendering processes were introduced back in 2019, including looking at where money is being used and how that money can be used most effectively. As I have just mentioned, we have £50 billion-worth of competitive processes in the next price review determination. Water companies are already actively using competitive procurement processes. This is something that Ofwat already encourages through the price review process. I therefore hope that the hon. Member is content that this amendment is unnecessary.
Charlie Maynard
We will not put this to a vote, but I will continue to highlight the point that £200 million is too high a benchmark and we should drop it, because that would serve us all, and our customers, better. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 33
Responsibility in relation to planning issues
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 37 (General duty to maintain water supply system etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide—
(a) full and accurate information, and
(b) an honest assessment,
in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1).
(1B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (1A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.
(1C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (1A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsection (1), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.
(3) In section 94, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide—
(a) full and accurate information, and
(b) an honest assessment,
in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.
(2C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.
(2D) An undertaker which fails to carry out a plan established under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.””—(Charlie Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are only three new clauses to go; I will highlight the key parts of new clause 33. Subsection (2)(1A) states:
“When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide full and accurate information, and an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1)”
Subsection (3)(2C) states:
“Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.”
What does that mean? It means that if an undertaker does not have sewage treatment work capacity, they must commit to draw up a plan to install it by a relevant time. The “relevant time” means that if 200 or 2,000 houses are being added and the sewage treatment works do not have sufficient capacity, then the undertaker will be saying, “By the time those houses are occupied, we will have increased capacity by the amount required.”
This is all very common-sense, but many hon. Members will have been district councillors in their time—I currently am one—and I am sure they will have seen it happen time and time again in planning committees where, guess what, the response from the water utility is: “Fine, no problem. Hook ’em up.”
Jayne Kirkham
Is it not the case that the water companies used to have more power to object? Did they have a veto which the previous Government removed? Do they now have to cope with whatever the planning authority decides?
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I do not know when that changed. [Interruption] In 2015, was it? There we are: maybe it was changed in 2015. Perhaps all of us, or most of us, recognise that is not a good situation. Time and again—I have seen this in Witney, Ducklington, Bampton, Aston and Carterton—this is just waved through. When I quiz people from Thames Water about why they have waved it through, they say, “We have a duty to connect.” They do have a legal duty to connect, which they take seriously, but they take their duty to add capacity to match that increase much less seriously.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a request for information on my part. In my conversations with Anglian Water, one of its key asks relates to the imbalance in which the company has a legal duty to connect any planning application that is passed, yet it is not a statutory consultee. It is therefore not required—not able, in fact—to take part in the planning process. Until the companies are made statutory consultees, all this is irrelevant, so should not the new clause focus on their becoming statutory consultees?
While I am on my feet, I have a query about the drafting. The hon. Gentleman defined a “relevant time”, but I do not see that definition in the new clause. Is it contained somewhere in the draft legislation? If it is not, what might the effective definition be?
Charlie Maynard
The point about “relevant time” is fair and deserves to be clarified. I completely agree on the issue of statutory consultees and have no issue with that either—that would make much more sense, because there is a real failure in that regard.
I will go a step further—I have lived experience in this regard—and give a special shout-out to Thames Water employee Richard Aylard, who for two years dutifully showed up every six weeks with West Oxfordshire district council to hash through these issues. I learned a lot from him and am grateful to him, as well as to Jake Morley, Lidia Arciszewska, Phil Martin, Laurence King, Alaric Smith and Alistair Wray. They sat through all that, and we all learned together. It is important that everybody knows what came out of those meetings. When sewage treatment works’ capacity is calculated—they are very much under-capacity in my patch and, I am sure, in those of other hon. Members—there are four criteria. The first is the population or population equivalent, which is normally optimistically understated. The second is per capita consumption. Thames Water has a high per capita consumption when it suits the company and a low per capita consumption when it suits the company, so again that is understated.
The third is the Environment Agency multiplier, which is typically 3.0, and is discounted far too often. When there is a known record of spills, Thames Water is still allowed to discount the EA multiplier, often from 3.0 down to 2.4; that is a 20% cut, which means that the capacity can be 20% less. That is a real problem, and it is being done repeatedly on sewage treatment works that have dumped sewage left, right and centre for years.
The fourth criterion is infiltration. Some 47% of the capacity of west Oxfordshire’s big nine sewage treatment works comes from infiltration. That means that our pipes are leaking. There is not enough science on this matter. If we were to put in flow meters, we would have the information, but it seems that we Lib Dems are the only team in the room, alongside the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, that advocates flow meters. If we want to solve these problems, we have to get serious about the information.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Using West Oxfordshire as an example again, we have installed Grampian conditions, which I encourage other Members to look into, where we have said, “You may not occupy this house.” We could not stop the houses being built by arguing that there was insufficient capacity, but we could put a Grampian condition in force that says, “Those houses may not be occupied. Any buyer knows this, so they will not buy them.” It is flagged to any buyer so that they do not buy a house they cannot occupy, which will continue until the capacity has been added. That puts some heat underneath the water companies to get on and increase their sewage treatment works capacity. I really encourage the Government to look into those. We have vast amounts of housing that will be built, and under the current law, they will be steamrolled through and the capacities will not keep up. That is a real problem for everybody, and it puts more pressure on our rivers.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I have a lot of respect for the new clauses that he has tabled to put pressure on water companies to provide more information at critical stages. The Opposition have tabled amendments requiring water companies to publish data on their websites to enable citizen science, so I respect what he is saying. I guess some of the issue is in the detail of the wording of the new clause. I am sure we are all in agreement about water companies providing information, but proposed new section 37(1A) says that we want them to be “full and accurate” and “honest”. I guess the devil is in the detail. How will that be judged? If this new clause were to come into play, how will people judge that? Is an “honest assessment” whether something is not false, or whether something is complete or incomplete? There is an element of challenge that could be put in. I understand the sentiment, but the devil is in the detail of the wording as to how this could actually work.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and I look forward to his support in some of the votes at some point. In the meantime, if he has recommendations on the wording that he would like to put forward, I ask that he please do so. These new clauses are already in place, so maybe that is impossible, but let us by all means try to improve them.
Tim Farron
I will say a brief word on the new clause. This is important, and I would like to add to the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has set out. Essentially, we have two problems here, one of which is that water companies are not statutory consultees, and they should be. I take the point that it could be more clearly stated, but the new clause does say “When participating” more than once, not “If participating”.
Without pointing fingers—well, maybe a bit at water companies in certain parts of the country, including mine—the key thing is that there is an incentive for a water company, when giving its advice to a planning committee, whether it be in the national parks, the dales, the lakes or a local council, basically to say that everything is fine, and why would it not? If a water company says, “We have no capacity issues. You can build those 200 houses on the edge of Kendal and it won’t cause any problems for our sewer capacity,” two things happen, do they not? First, the water company is not conceding the need to spend any money on upgrading the sewerage network. Secondly, it is guaranteeing itself 200 households that pay water bills, in addition to the ones it already has, so it has a built-in incentive—maybe not to be dishonest, but to not really give the fullest and broadest assessment of the situation.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I would like to give the hon. Member a practical example of where the absolute opposite has happened in Wales. In my constituency of Monmouthshire, Welsh Water was very clear that, because of the phosphate levels in the River Wye, there could be no development whatsoever in my area of the constituency—Monmouth—for several years. It absolutely stopped all development and seemed to be very honest in doing so. Now the problems have cleared up somewhat, and Monmouthshire county council has put forward a proposal in the local development plan to build houses. We also have a sustainable drainage systems regime, which means that absolutely nothing will be built without those systems. By the way, 50% of the homes will be affordable and they will be 100% net zero, so I commend Monmouthshire county council for putting that forward. I just wanted to say that there are examples where the opposite has happened to what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is saying.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention; I am sure that is the case, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I want to see houses built. The great frustration in our communities in the lakes and dales and just outside is that we desperately need homes that are affordable, and we want homes to be zero carbon. We want to be in a situation where the local community is able to hold developers to account. The danger is that developers who are going to build stuff on the cheap that is not affordable to potential buyers or renters are able to get themselves off the hook because the water companies will not really test the resilience of the existing infrastructure.
It is true that both things can happen. We feel that this is about giving planning authorities the power to say, “The developer is seeking to do this, but the community as a whole does not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with 200 extra bathrooms; so what resources will the developer or the water company put in to ensure that the facilities are upgraded to make that possible?” This is about ensuring that planning does its job.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire for her excellent point. It is very interesting that a mutually owned water company is taking that very sensible decision and approach. It highlights that that is a benefit. They are not trying to make money hand over fist. They are trying to do the right thing.
Emma Hardy
With your indulgence, Dr Huq, I will clarify something that I should have mentioned in the previous debate. Ofwat reserves the right to explore the use of DPC for major projects below the £200 million threshold where it offers value for money for customers. I just wanted to put that on record.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling new clause 33, which would increase the responsibilities of water companies where they participate in the planning process. As we all do, I genuinely recognise the intent behind the clause and where the hon. Member is trying to get to. We absolutely recognise concerns surrounding water and sewage companies’ ability to keep pace with the needs arising from new property developments.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
This is an active issue across many of our constituencies, and we have heard many personal stories. In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, we have had a new town built called Cranbrook. A sewage treatment works was promised but has not been delivered. That has put pressure on systems elsewhere, and we have seen big sewage outflows in other parts of the constituency. We know that in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government there are big reforms coming for the national planning policy framework. Will the Minister please confirm whether her Department is having active conversations about what we are speaking about, and whether or not there will be changes in this space?
Emma Hardy
Conversations are ongoing, but I would not want to pre-empt their results. I recognise from previous conversations that this is a concern for the hon. Gentleman.
The Government consider that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve this issue. It should be addressed through measures such as the water resources management plans or draining and waste water management planning. As was mentioned earlier, it is our job as legislators to ensure that we draft the right amendments to the right Bills in order to achieve the aims we are seeking.
Water companies already account for local plan growth forecasts in their water resource management plans. These plans for water provision over a five-year period with a forward look over 25 years provide for a development outline. We recognise the need for stronger and earlier join-up between local planning authorities, regulators and water companies. As I mentioned, work is under way to consider such questions and to ensure timely and mutual understanding of water resource requirements at a local scale to support sustainable development. That work includes the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system, which will provide recommendations for the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators that govern the water industry model and strategic planning.
As such, it would be premature to legislate in this area or to impose any additional responsibilities for regulators until the commission has concluded its review, but I reassure hon. Members that the Government recognise the need for water companies and local planning authorities to co-operate effectively in considering the water infrastructure requirements that will underpin development plans, housing growth and sustainable development. The proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Witney to withdraw it.
Charlie Maynard
We wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have conferred, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that we have two proposed new clauses to go and we will not press either to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and I may disagree, but I think we have confirmed that that is our view.
I have little to say on new clause 34. We had the substance of this debate on amendment 19, but the new clause is significant all the same. The point is simply that among the things that deeply undermine the public’s confidence in the water companies, and in the industry in general, is the very obvious revolving door between the regulator and the water companies themselves.
I will reiterate some points and add to some things that were said the other day. In its analysis in 2023, The Observer found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the water industry that they had previously regulated.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The hon. Member mentioned directors. I think we all agree that the strength of this Bill is its clarity, but in his new clause, he has chosen to write “any individual”. Does he agree that it is the directors, not the catering team, the cleaning staff, the admin people, the accountants and so on, who have sought to swindle customers or flim-flam the taxpayer? That is where we should focus the attention, and that vagueness does not add to the Bill.
Tim Farron
That is an excellent point, and if I was pushing the new clause to a vote, that might make me think twice. I am not the only person who has done this, but I have spoken at length on this issue, not just during this Committee, to make the point that we understand that this is a heated debate, which at times has become quite fiery out there in communities and in this place. But the people who work for the water companies, the regulators and so on are human beings doing a job, and we need to value them. That even includes the directors.
Having said all that, it is clearly wrong that directors are switching from one to the other. I add that our research found that the director for regulatory strategy at Thames Water had previously been a senior Ofwat employee. We had a senior principal at Ofwat moving directly from Thames, where they had worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors and those who work on regulation.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
There is a serious point about regulatory capture, which we should talk about cross-industry, cross-sector. There is something that we could do constructively across the House on regulatory capture. We talk a lot at the moment about artificial intelligence and the growth of the tech industry, and we need to implement stuff on regulatory capture now. Any lessons that we learn about regulatory capture in the water industry should be implemented across other industries. I hope that the whole House can come together on that.
Tim Farron
I am grateful for that well-informed and thoughtful intervention. The hon. Member is absolutely right: that is what we should do. To be reasonable, we want people who understand the industry working for the regulators. We understand why there could be a benign reason for what is happening, but nevertheless, we trace it to some of the reluctance in the culture of Ofwat towards taking action. I talked about the £168 million-worth of fines still not collected by Ofwat from three transgressing water companies. Some of the reluctance comes not from corruption but cosiness, and we need to make sure we address that, as the new clause seeks to do. We dealt with this issue on amendment 19 and it was pushed to a vote. I do not want to trouble the Committee again, so I will be happy to withdraw the new clause.
Emma Hardy
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Again, we recognise the intent behind new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. However, it would be disproportionate to prevent all water company employees from being able to accept employment in Ofwat.
Ofwat seriously considers the handling of actual and potential conflicts of interest. Staff in Ofwat are bound by the civil service business appointment rules, which do not apply to every agency, but they do in terms of Ofwat, and by the duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act. Any new employees in Ofwat, regardless of their previous employment, would be bound by those rules. Compliance is mandatory and any breach may result in disciplinary action being taken.
Individuals with experience working in the water sector have a wealth of knowledge—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—that might be a valuable asset to Ofwat and could support better policymaking. I hope that this reassures him on his concern about the potential conflicts of interest in Ofwat, and that the new clause, as drafted, is therefore unnecessary.
Tim Farron
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—
‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—
(a) annual, and
(b) rolling five-year average
pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.
(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.
(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—
(a) a 25% reduction within five years;
(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;
(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and
(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.
(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—
(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and
(b) financial penalties.’”—(Charlie Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
This is a big one: companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets. I will read out the key bits:
“(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish…annual, and…rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.”
On the five-year average, obviously we have wet years and dry years. We cannot just have flat numbers. We have to take an average. The new clause also states:
“A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline…a 25% reduction within five years;…a 60% reduction within ten years;…an 85% reduction within fifteen years…and…a 99% reduction within twenty years.”
What are we trying to get at? Clause 2 is about pollution incident reduction plans. That is about specific events, so it is at a micro level. We have a national problem and need to think about things at a national level. We have a lot of data already. I think it was Peter Drucker who said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” We have been advocating for measuring it; we have had that debate. The good news is that we already have one metric of measurement—event duration monitors—that tells us how many hours of sewage are spilled per year. EDMs are a long way from perfect in two respects. First, we do not know the volumes going out or how much of that is actually sewage, as we have discussed at length. Secondly, a lot of EDMs are sub-par. I will give a shout-out to Professor Peter Hammond, who has highlighted some essential messages about that. However, that is still the best dataset we have, and we should all take the view that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
As soon as we put in flow monitors and quality monitors—I know the Government do not support that—we will advocate using those as a metric, but we do not have those now. However, we do have EDM data, so I am advocating that we use that metric. We already know how many hours are spilled by operator. We can take the five-year average and start setting out targets.
Businesses like knowing where they stand. I am a naive politician who is only six months into the job, so there is an awful lot I do not know. I probably committed a key error here by putting in numbers, so some smart politician could come along and say, “That is an incredibly generous number. We’ll go lower than that.” Fine—I do not really care if someone wants to play that game. I want our rivers fixed, and we get our rivers fixed by setting targets, telling the water companies that we want them to meet those targets and giving them sticks, and possibly carrots, to meet them.
We are missing an opportunity—respectfully, I feel that we have missed a lot of opportunities. We did not have to have this Bill now, but we do have it. We ought to be going for the wins now, but every single amendment has been rejected regardless of which party tabled it. That is a loss for our rivers as much as for hon. Members present. However, this new clause provides an opportunity to set some targets. Whether it is today—although this new clause will almost certainly fail because we will not push it to a vote—or in the future, I encourage the Government to take the metric they have, which is hours of sewage spilled, set benchmarks against which to measure water companies and set out bad news or good news depending on whether they miss or hit them. If we hit those targets, we are seriously getting closer to fixing our rivers. Without them, we are not.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in saying that I have really enjoyed most of the three days of this Committee. I appreciate the courtesy and generosity in the answers. I thank the Chair, the team of Clerks, who have been so helpful, and the DEFRA team.
Emma Hardy
I would like to thank, as I have before, all the environmental groups and activists up and down the country who do so much to champion cleaner air, rivers, lakes and seas for us all. I look forward to seeing hon. Members on Third Reading and Report.
As I did before, I will gently push back and say that the Government did work collectively and cross-party in the other House and brought in compromise amendments before the Bill came here. It would be slightly disingenuous to imply that the Government have not accepted amendments or worked with other parties on the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling new clause 35. We must ensure that companies accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment, halting the unacceptable harm they have caused in recent decades. That is why we have introduced a new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans and the accompanying implementation reports through the Bill. Again, I gently note that the implementation reports and the strengthening of that provision was done cross-party in the other place.
The plans will need to set out the actions that water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have. Companies must then report on the progress they have made with measures they committed to in the previous year, and must clearly explain the reasons for any failures to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.
In addition to the new requirements that increase accountability for pollution incidents, the Government are committed to acting as fast as possible to reduce sewage pollution in our waterways and upholding stringent performance criteria for water companies, as evidenced by the significant forthcoming programme of investment in price review ’24. A delivery programme of this scale, improving thousands of storm overflows with billions of pounds of investment, requires clear and robust regulation. The new clause as drafted would unfortunately undermine that.
The Government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan sets stretching timebound targets to eliminate ecological harm from all storm overflows by 2050, and for water companies to significantly reduce harmful pathogens from storm overflows discharging into bathing waters by 2035. This is supported by an ambitious backstop target. By 2050, no storm overflow will be permitted to spill more than 10 times a year on average. Those stretching targets are informed by detailed analysis and extensive engagement. They will drive £60 billion of investment between 2025 and 2050—the largest infrastructure programme in water company history. Almost £12 billion of that investment will begin this year, improving over 2,800 storm overflows by 2029-30.
Those targets bolster underpinning legislative requirements to limit pollution from storm overflows. The Environment Agency monitors and enforces against breaches of environmental requirements, utilising monitoring data to support its investigations. Where breaches are identified, it has significant powers to ensure enforcement orders and financial penalties, and where appropriate, to pursue criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will further strengthen its powers, including by introducing automatic penalties.
Charlie Maynard
These timelines are too slow. Setting the date at 2035 for monitor installation will mean that this is done at a much slower rate than the rate over the last seven years. That is disappointing. Targets set for 2045 and 2050 are too far away. We do not need to, and should not, move that slowly. We must do better.
Emma Hardy
I think when we had this debate, it led to the first of the fact sheets that we produced for the Committee. The hon. Member is talking about the speed of installation, and we highlighted that we will double the rate of the previous Government. We also highlighted that some of the improvements involve engineering and work. That is why we think that with £12 billion of investment, we are improving things, and I mention again the 2,800 storm overflows by 2029-30. So in the next few years, there will be billions of pounds-worth of improvements.
We all want opportunities to go quicker—everybody would want everything to be done quickly. As a Government, there is always a balance between making promises we cannot keep—which is never the best way to go—and being stretching and ambitious. I feel that we are being stretching and ambitious while also ensuring that we do not make promises we cannot keep. Obviously, however, if there was a way to go faster, everybody would accept that.
The Environment Agency is currently consulting on proposals to add new spill frequency thresholds to storm overflow permits. That will maintain the performance of storm overflows that have undergone improvements, and make it easier for the Environment Agency to act quickly if storm overflow performance deteriorates. Ofwat sets specific performance targets for water companies in the five-yearly price review. Ofwat is expanding those performance commitments for price review ’24, to include an ambitious storm overflow spill reduction target, which, if achieved, would see average spill per storm overflow reducing by 45% by 2029, compared with the 2021 levels across the industry. Where the commitments are not met, companies must reimburse customers, holding water companies to account to deliver outcomes.
Charlie Maynard
I am sorry, but with spill per overflow, I again think we are drinking the water industry’s Kool-Aid. We are doing its metrics, and that is not doing anybody any favours. We are talking about spill per overflow; what we should be talking about is how many hours. We have that information. Why are we not saying how many hours? Let us think about it. We could have a spill for one hour or a spill for a month. That is just one, in that metric. It is missing a huge amount of what is going on. Please can we move away from these metrics towards spill hours, at a minimum?
Emma Hardy
Again, I recognise the intent behind the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Whichever way we want to address this, talk about it or set targets, ultimately what we want from a Government is less sewage going into our rivers, lakes and seas. If we can find a way to all agree on the best way to move that forward, that is something we can unite behind.
As I mentioned, the Government cannot accept the new clause, but I recognise the intent behind it. It would cut across the existing targets that I have set out, creating confusion and uncertainty about which water targets the companies should meet. That would risk undermining the extensive forward investment programme that is already under way and is essential to delivering the changes that we all want. For those reasons, and for the last time, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Charlie Maynard
We will not press this new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Hudson
It is a great pleasure to again serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. May I first, on behalf of the Opposition and, I hope, colleagues from across the Committee, give a vote of thanks to everyone involved in this process? I have a list here, and please shout out if I miss anyone out.
First, I thank the Chairs—Dr Huq and Mr Vickers—for guiding us through the process. I thank all the Bill Committee staff—the Clerks and officials—for their assiduous, thorough work, which keeps us on message as Members of Parliament scrutinising this legislation. We thank them for that. Dr Huq, thank you—I will use the word “you” for you. I thank the DEFRA officials for all their hard work on this and for engaging with the Opposition as well. I very much appreciate the Minister allowing the officials to do that.
I thank the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I do not think I have missed anyone in the room except the public. This gives me the chance to thank the members of the public who have come in and watched our proceedings, as well as people who have watched online from afar. There are also, as the Minister said, the stakeholders: the environmental groups, the volunteers and the experts who have fed into this Bill and the water debate that we are having and who are helping legislators across the House to improve and refine legislation. We thank the public very much as well.
We have had a very interesting few days. It has shown us that there is a lot of cross-party consensus on what we are trying to do to improve our water quality. There is some disagreement about how best we do that, but this Committee has shown the House that, actually, there is a lot of agreement about the scale of the problem and the fact that we need to address it.
I respectfully say that I am disappointed with the comments from the third-party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, about the Bill Committee stage being a charade. I do not think that line-by-line scrutiny of Bills is a charade. Yes, there is a process as to how Committees are populated, but that is democracy. I would have thought that that particular party, given its title, would respect election results. That is how democracy works. We have seen that they have had some disagreement among themselves about some of their votes as well, but I will leave that point there.
We have had some interesting discussions, and it would be remiss of me not to talk about teeth. We have had dental analogies aplenty: we are wanting to give more teeth to the various regulators. Finally, I think I did detect—we will have to check Hansard—the Minister using the word “Ofwet”. When this matter goes to the commission, “Ofwet” might be an interesting term for a new body that might be set up, but I will leave that with the Minister.
Tim Farron
Thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Vickers, in his absence, for brilliantly chairing our five Committee sittings. I will not list everyone that the hon. Member for Epping Forest just did, but I endorse what he said. I thank the Clerks, the DEFRA officials, the Minister’s team and colleagues on both sides of the House for their courtesy and the seriousness with which they have engaged with the Opposition, the members of the public who attended the Committee in person and those who have followed it from afar.
There is no doubt that the voluntary sector and the public have been ahead of politicians on this issue for many years. I would argue that the UK leaving the European Union was a key moment, because we had to go back and look under the bonnet to see what was already accepted and already permitted. We could argue about whether the previous Government gave us regulations and standards that were as good as what we had before we left the European Union. That might be an additional issue, but none the less, the likes of Surfers Against Sewage, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign and so many others in all our communities have led the debate on this and created great scrutiny. That is why we strongly approve of a significant part of the Government’s ethos in the Bill, which is to put an awful lot of power in the hands of those who care so much in our communities.
I do not mean to offend people by referring to this as a charade, but the reality is that we spent five years in Government, and I am pretty confident that the Government that I was part of never allowed a single Opposition amendment to pass in Committee. There is a little bit of pretence in this. All the same, it is an enjoyable pretence. Having gone through the Bill line by line, we all understand it better, which means that, on Report, a dozen and a half of us can speak about this Bill in the Commons with a greater awareness than beforehand.
We support the Bill. If anybody was to call a Division on it, we would go into the Aye Lobby. Our frustration is that we feel that the Government have missed an opportunity. Their answer is obviously, “Here comes the Cunliffe review, and we will see what happens next.” Are we going to get an undertaking that there will be another Bill in the next King’s Speech? If there is, that is exciting and interesting, and that could answer many of our concerns.
The Bill could have been much clearer about limiting bonuses and about recognising that a fundamental problem with the water industry is the fragmentation and the weakness of regulation. It could have recognised that the financials are clearly all wrong, unfair and wasteful. We are looking at duration, but not volume, content or impact, and we are not supporting the citizens behind the citizen science enough by giving them the information, the resource and the place on the water company boards that they need. There are many areas where we think the Bill could be so much better, and where we do not need to wait for Sir Jon to do those things.
Having said that, what is wrong with this Bill is what is not in it, not what is in it. We are therefore happy to support it and are very grateful for the constructive nature of the debate throughout.
The Chair
Anyone else? In that case, for the last tearful time, I call Minister Emma Hardy to respond.
Emma Hardy
Thank you very much, Dr Huq, for your wonderful chairwomanship. I thank everybody on the Committee. It has been a new experience for so many of us, with Members in new positions and some new Members appearing on a Bill Committee for the first time. It has been really enjoyable, and there has been pleasant camaraderie. Where there have been disagreements, we have had them in a polite and courteous manner. I think we have set a wonderful example for many of the other debates, and long may it continue.
I thank the incredible Bill Committee team, who have done such an amazing job in supporting me in my work. I thank the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington, for making sure that we all voted in the right way at the right time, which definitely prevented me from getting into trouble while leading on my first Bill. And of course, we have had loads of written evidence, and for a small Bill, we have had lots of amendments, which shows the strength of feeling and interest in the Bill from the wider community.
What else can I say other than we’ve only just begun, and you ain’t seen nothing yet? Following this Bill, which is just part of our phased transition to transform the water sector as a whole, we also have the Cunliffe review, and in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back”, with another Bill—similar time, same place. I hope to see many of you there, as we go again to clear up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place
“whether made—
(a) by the offender or any other person, or
(b) by means of any machine”,
and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of
“any one or more of the following—
(a) tobacco products;
(b) herbal smoking products;
(c) cigarette papers;
(d) vaping products;
(e) nicotine products.”
They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.
Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:
“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”
Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:
“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—
(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—
(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);
(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);
(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);
(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—
(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);
(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”
For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?
I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?
Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine
“(a) the occupier of the premises, and
(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”
Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?
Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?
Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?
Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence
“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”
If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.
Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.
That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?
Sarah Bool
Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.
Dr Johnson
When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?
Sarah Bool
I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches the age of sale and vending machine restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. The clauses are based on and replace existing legislation.
A restricted premises order is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling from a vending machine, at least twice within the previous two years. The person who brought the proceedings for the sales offence makes a complaint to a magistrates court to apply for a restricted premises order in respect of the premises where the offence was committed.
Clause 24 requires notice to be given to people who might have an interest in a restricted premises order being made in England and Wales, and sets out situations where an interested person might challenge a restricted premises order. An interested person is the occupier of the premises or someone who has an interest in it, such as the manager or owner. The clause sets out the circumstances in which notice should be given to an interested person where a restricted premises order is being applied for. Interested persons are allowed to make representations to the court to try to prevent a restricted premises order from being issued, or at least to try to vary it. This is a safeguard so that suitable steps are taken before a restricted premises order is made, and to maintain fairness so that a relevant person is informed of an impending restricted premises order.
Clause 25 provides those in receipt of a restricted premises order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. This is important to the function of enforcement in the Bill as it enables businesses to appeal against a restricted premises order, such as where they feel they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. This provision maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 26 makes it an offence to breach a restricted premises order in England and Wales. The offence is committed when a tobacco, herbal smoking product, cigarette paper, vaping or nicotine product whose sale is prohibited under a restricted premises order is sold on the premises. The offence occurs if a person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the sale was in breach of the order. It also provides a defence for the person charged, where they prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid a committing the offence. Making it an offence to breach a restricted premises order gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
Finally, Clause 27 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to add to the offences for which restricted premises orders can be issued, in addition to what is already prescribed in the Bill. Offences added must be in relation to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products only. This re-enacts an existing power for Welsh Ministers, who must consult before making regulations under this power. The clause is therefore important as it maintains existing powers that enable legislation in Wales to be kept up to date to ensure that restricted premises orders can continue to be used as an effective enforcement tool.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that if you want to talk about the clauses, this is the point at which you should do so.
Andrew Gwynne
In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.
Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.
Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.
If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?
With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.
The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.
Sarah Bool
I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.
The Chair
I will call the Minister. He may well wish to respond on the points related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 rather than the other points that have been raised, which can be taken up at another place and another time.
Andrew Gwynne
I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.
First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.
That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.
On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.
On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.
On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.
I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Dr Johnson
I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.
Dr Johnson
I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?
Andrew Gwynne
It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.
In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 33 and 34 stand part.
Clause 81 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
The clause places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in part 1 of the Bill and any display regulations in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities. It provides local weights and measures authorities—meaning local authority trading standards in England and Wales—with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity.
Those investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises. Trading standards officers are experts in enforcement, and it is vital that we provide them with the appropriate powers to perform their duty. The clause ensures that local authority trading standards can use the same investigatory powers that are used now, and known to be effective, to enable successful enforcement of the new legislation.
Clause 33 provides a requirement for local weights and measures authorities in England, meaning local authority trading standards, to consider a programme of enforcement action and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement for offences under part 1 of the Bill and display regulations, on a yearly basis. The clause is important to the Bill as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider appropriate action to enforce tobacco, vapes and nicotine product regulations in their local area.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister is outlining clause 33. Under subsection (2), it is clear what the programme of enforcement action might involve, but what is not clear is what the consideration means in this case. In the local authority, is that decision made by a certain department, by the cabinet or, if a combined authority, by the mayor? What is due consideration under the Bill?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because that very much depends on the constitutional make-up of the local authority. The governance of that local authority will determine the way in which that is considered. As licensing functions tend to be quasi-judicial in their nature, enforcement required to ensure that those licensing conditions are met means that, in effect, elected members across the authority have some role in and responsibility for giving consideration to those points. I hope that clarifies the matter for him.
Gregory Stafford
It does in the most general sense, but I am trying to get to the specifics of this, if the Minister does not mind. The clause is very clear. It says in subsection (1) of clause 33,
“Each local weights and measures authority in England must, at least once a year, consider”
and so on. Presumably, the Department has some idea of what that consideration would look like, and it is presumably the Department’s job to enforce that the local authority has made some consideration. It must have some benchmark as to what that consideration would be, otherwise how on earth will it enforce that part of the Act once passed?
Andrew Gwynne
Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.
The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?
Andrew Gwynne
Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.
If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—
Dr Johnson
Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?
Andrew Gwynne
All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.
Dr Johnson
With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?
Andrew Gwynne
Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.
This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.
Dr Johnson
I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?
Andrew Gwynne
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland.
Clause stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.
I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.
However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.
The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.
The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.
The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.
The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.
I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.
Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.
A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.
Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.
On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.
Dr Johnson
I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.
Dr Johnson
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Fixed penalties: use of proceeds
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.
This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert—
“such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.
Clause stand part.
Liz Jarvis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments.
The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health. We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.
Gregory Stafford
As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health? Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?
Liz Jarvis
That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs. We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations. Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.
Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges. Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Would the hon. Lady’s amendments affect the financing of the actions of trading standards, and would more money need to go in to offset that?
Liz Jarvis
I do not know the answer to that, so I will refer that question to the Minister.
Liz Jarvis
I am sorry; I do not know about that.
Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.
Liz Jarvis
I have one sentence left.
The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.
I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.
I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with
“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,
so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to repeat too many points that other people have made. This a well-meaning, but ill thought-through amendment, as has been highlighted by the two hon. Members who spoke before me.
I was a local government councillor for 17 years, and served on many health and wellbeing boards. I do not recall them ever having a separate fund, so this would be a new innovation. It would not necessarily be an innovation without good intention, but using central Government legislation to enforce a completely new set of financial arrangements on local authorities could have a wider impact than those who have tabled these amendments have anticipated. The Minister, either in his summary or on Report, might find a way of achieving what those hon. Members want via other means, because clearly we would all want the moneys from continued enforcement to be used for things as close to health and public health improvements as possible. Will the Minister address that in his response?
Andrew Gwynne
I will first discuss the clause and then move on to the amendments. Clause 38 sets out how proceeds from the new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales must be used. I will also discuss the amendments that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The clause states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issues in relation to the licensing offences in the Bill must be returned to the relevant Consolidated Fund once the costs of investigating the offences and issuing the notice have been deducted. That will ensure that these fixed penalty notices remain cost-neutral and will not cause local authorities to incur additional cost burdens for enforcing a future licensing scheme. For all other offences, which carry a fixed penalty notice of £200, proceeds will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under this Bill, part 1 of the Health Act 2006, part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016. That means that if local authority trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice—for example, to a retailer selling to someone under age—the local authority may retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That will allow local authorities to cover the enforcement costs for issuing fixed penalty notices and to reinvest any remaining funds into their enforcement regimes.
The amendments to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh seek to ringfence the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences for public health projects. They would achieve that by making it mandatory for any proceeds received by local authority trading standards from these fixed penalty notices to be allocated by local health and wellbeing boards to public health projects. Although I admire the hon. Lady’s ambition to further support public health—and who would not?—it would not be appropriate to enable local authorities to retain the fixed penalty notice proceeds in that way.
Councils already have a ringfenced budget for public health in England. The proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices for licensing offences were never intended as a revenue-generation mechanism. The fixed penalty notice is introduced to support the enforcement of the future licensing scheme and tobacco and vape sales regulations. It should continue to be the choice of trading standards officers to determine the appropriate enforcement action to take in a given case to achieve compliance. Enabling retention of fixed penalty notice proceeds for a different purpose risks distorting the operational priorities of the licensing scheme.
The £200 fixed penalty notice introduced by the Bill for offences such as under age sales are an exception. We worked carefully with His Majesty’s Treasury during the development of the Bill to enable trading standards to retain that relatively small value in order to support their procedures. To ensure that the future licensing scheme can be sustainably implemented, we have established that local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee to support them in covering the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing scheme, and that trading standards can deduct the costs of investigation and issuing fines from the FPN proceeds before returning the remainder to the Consolidated Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the fact that the provision is not compliant with the reality of seeking to apply to both England and Wales, in that it makes specific reference to bodies that do not exist in Wales, namely the health and wellbeing boards, which only appertain to local authorities in England. I want to be clear that local authorities are receiving not just their public health grant but, in the financial year 2025-26, an additional £70 million from central Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England. We expect that investment will support our aim to help around 360,000 people to make quit attempts, and up to 198,000 successful quits a year.
Decisions for future years are subject to the spending review process, but that money, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, in part comes from the Consolidated Fund. So there is a virtuous circle of the kind that the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly wants to see, in that there are direct correlations between money that my Department gets from His Majesty’s Treasury and money that the Treasury will get from not just those fixed penalty notices in the future, but other sources of income generation, including fines and penalties.
That money, in one form or another, almost certainly will be recycled into public health measures determined by Ministers and by Parliament and given to local authorities to determine how to spend at their local level. That could be through the public health grants, or through direct grants such as the smoking cessation or the drugs and alcohol grants that we make available to local authorities. But rest assured, there will be investment in public health, and that will come from money that my Department receives from His Majesty’s Treasury through the usual routes. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw her amendment.
Liz Jarvis
I will not be withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment 2 negatived.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Power to change amount of fixed penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.
Dr Johnson
I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.
Andrew Gwynne
We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 42
Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Power to extend Part 1 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.
These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.
The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.
Dr Johnson
My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?
Andrew Gwynne
I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.
I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.
The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible. In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary. Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one. That is why this is a landmark Bill.
The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf. That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon. Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Power to amend lists of identity documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.
I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.
Gregory Stafford
I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?
Dr Johnson
One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?
Andrew Gwynne
We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.
Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.
I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.
Dr Johnson
Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?
Andrew Gwynne
That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.
I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.
On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.
Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.
I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.
Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.
The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?
Sir Ashley Fox
That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.
I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.
The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.
I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.
I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.
I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.
We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.
Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.
I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.
Greg Smith
The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?
Justin Madders
We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.
Sir Ashley Fox
Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Carer’s leave: remuneration
“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—
(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and
(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.
The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.
Greg Smith
I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.
Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.
New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.
I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.
We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.
However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.
I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.
Steve Darling
I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Right to be accompanied
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.
That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.
We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.
It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.
As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.
Steve Darling
Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Time off for volunteering: consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering.
(2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters—
(a) the amount of time off an employer must grant;
(b) when the time off may be taken;
(c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and
(d) the definition of ‘volunteering’.
(3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?
Greg Smith
I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.
It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.
In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.
However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.
Justin Madders
Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.
However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared
“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.
So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.
Steve Darling
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.
We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.
It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.
The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.
For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.
Steve Darling
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.
Justin Madders
It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one.
In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Adoption pay: self-employed persons
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.
I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives.
New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.
At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.
None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.
In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.
We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.
(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.
(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—
(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and
(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.
It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.
I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.
We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.
By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.
Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.
It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?
In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.
The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.
It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison.
I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward.
The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way.
The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one.
Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.
Chris Law
The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.
Chris Murray
That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.
Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.
Greg Smith
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.
Justin Madders
Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.
Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.
We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.
The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Chris Law
I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Warrants under Part 5: further provision
“Part 1
Application of this Schedule
1 This Schedule applies in relation to—
(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and
(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.
Part 2
Warrants: applications and safeguards
Applications for warrants
2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must—
(a) state the ground on which the application is made,
(b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued,
(c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and
(d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
(2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath.
(3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer.
Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant
3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.
4 (1) A warrant must specify—
(a) the name of the person who applies for it,
(b) the date on which it is issued,
(c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and
(d) the premises to be entered.
(2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant.
(2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies.
(3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies.
Part 3
Execution of warrants
Warrant to be executed within three months
6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.
Time of entry
7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time.
Evidence of authority etc
8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—
(a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer;
(b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name;
(c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;
(d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5.
(2) Where—
(a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but
(b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present,
sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.
(3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises.
Securing premises after entry
9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.
Return and retention of warrants
10 (1) A warrant which—
(a) has been executed, or
(b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution,
must be returned to the appropriate person.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is—
(a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued;
(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed;
(c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk;
(d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions.
(3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months.
(4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Increase in time limits for making claims
“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
2 (1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’.
Pension Schemes Act 1993
3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Rights Act 1996
4 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 23 (protection of wages)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996
5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Working Time Regulations 1998
6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Relations Act 1999
8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999
9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)—
(a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’;
(b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’;
(c) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(d) omit paragraph (2B).
(2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’.
(3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert—
‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland
(1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer–
(a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or
(b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26.
(2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented–
(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or
(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.
(3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2).
(4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect.
(5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused.
(6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’
(4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’.
Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003
10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004
11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004
12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008
14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009
15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Agency Workers Regulations 2010
16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Equality Act 2010
17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”.
Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018
18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Seafarers’ wages and working conditions
“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023
1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23.
Part 1 of the Act: relevant services
2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—
‘Part 1
Relevant services’.
3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)—
(a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’;
(b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’;
(c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’;
(d) for subsection (4) substitute—
‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—
(a) includes—
(i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and
(ii) hovercraft;
(b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers
4 After section 1 insert—
‘Part 2
Remuneration of seafarers
Chapter 1
Non-qualifying seafarers’.
5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations
6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—
‘Chapter 2
National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.
7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’;
(ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’;
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’;
(d) omit subsections (5) and (6).
8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19.
(5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’;
(c) omit subsections (6) to (10).
Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations
9 After section 4 insert—
‘Chapter 3
Remuneration regulations and declarations
Remuneration regulations
4A Remuneration regulations
(1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom).
(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”.
(3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way.
(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
(6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply.
Remuneration declarations
4B Request for remuneration declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4C Nature of remuneration declaration
(1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred—
(i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and
(b) in what remains of the relevant year—
(i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
Chapter 4
Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations
4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations.
(2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part—
(a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and
(b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make—
(a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;
(b) provision relating to currency conversion.
(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—
(a) section 4, and
(b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent.
(5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’
Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions
10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 3
Seafarers’ working conditions
Safe working regulations
4E Safe working regulations
(1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service.
(2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about—
(a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period;
(b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period.
(3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things—
(a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”);
(b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time.
(5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring—
(a) the safety of the ship on which they work,
(b) the safety of things on the ship, or
(c) the health or safety of persons on the ship.
(6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”.
(7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.
(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
Safe working declarations
4F Request for safe working declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4G Nature of safe working declaration
(1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and
(b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time—
(a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service,
(b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and
(c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service.
(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’
Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 4
Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.
12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’.
13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘—
(i) section 4(4) or (5),
(ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or
(iii) section 4G(4) or (5),
(whichever applies).’
(8) In subsection (6)—
(a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’;
(c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.
14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’;
(c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘—
(i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or
(iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(whichever applies).’
15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’;
(4) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’.
16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—
(i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service;
(ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’
(4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’.
19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions
20 After section 15 insert—
‘Part 5
General and final provisions’.
21 After section 16 insert—
‘16A Regulations about declarations
(1) Regulations may make provision—
(a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided;
(b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided;
(c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’
22 In section 17 (regulations)—
(a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute—
‘(i) relevant service,’.
23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert—
‘“declaration” (without more) means—
(a) an equivalence declaration,
(b) a remuneration declaration, or
(c) a safe working declaration;’.
(3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.
(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
(5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert—
‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’.
(6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months;’.
(7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert—
‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1);
“remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2);
“safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1);
“safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.
(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’.
Amendment of title of the Act
24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023.
(2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 113
Power to make consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.
Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.
Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.
We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Regulations
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—
(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.
Greg Smith
I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.
The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.
The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.
The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.
Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.
Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.
With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.
Steve Darling
Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.
Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.
We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.
Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.
As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.
I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.
Greg Smith
Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.
We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.
Michael Wheeler
I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?
Greg Smith
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.
What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.
Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.
Greg Smith
I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced. With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.
Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced. Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force. Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.
With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.
I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that
“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,
the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Extent
Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for
“Part 3 of this Act extends”
substitute
“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.
Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.
This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.
Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.
Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert
“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.
This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.
Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert
“amended, repealed or revoked.
(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—
(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;
(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Commencement
Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—
“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.
This amendment is consequential on NS3.
Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on NC52.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Justin Madders
I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.
Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.
I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.
Greg Smith
I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.
Steve Darling
I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.
Chris Law
It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.
The Chair
May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Marine Renewables Industry
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the allocation of time for this important and, as we head towards allocation round 7, timely debate. I hope that we will be able to influence some of the Minister’s thinking. It is good to welcome him to his place in the Chamber.
It is also good to welcome you to the Chair for the first time, Ms Jardine. You and I have known each other for many years, and I anticipate—I might yet be shown to be horribly wrong about this—that the next few hours may witness the longest I have ever been able to speak in your presence without interruption. [Laughter.] I should also place on the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) is celebrating a significant birthday today. What better way to celebrate the acquisition of a bus pass than an afternoon spent in Westminster Hall?
This debate is particularly timely. As well as coming in the run-up to AR7, we anticipate in the next few weeks the publication of a fairly comprehensive piece of work by one of Scotland’s finest universities, the University of Edinburgh. Its school of engineering is about to publish a report on the future economic potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland. I will not spike the release of the report, but it is an enormously significant piece of work, which will significantly progress the debate as we head towards AR7.
Among the headlines from that report may be an indication of the potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland and across the whole United Kingdom. Marine energy could contribute £37 billion gross value added to Scotland’s economy by 2050, and £28 billion of that, most significantly, is from exports. When the Minister speaks to colleagues in Government about the opportunities to grow our manufacturing base, contribute to the economic growth to which we are all committed and, as a consequence, improve export performance, this is the direction in which he might want to point them. Marine energy has the potential to create 62,400 jobs—to put that in context, the wind industry currently supports in the region of 20,000 jobs—and we have the potential in Scottish waters alone to deploy 9 GW of tidal stream and wave energy by 2050.
The opportunities for tidal stream generation come from the fact that as a brand-new industry—how often do we get to say that?—we can shape the supply chain and then export the expertise and products from that supply chain around the world. Tidal stream is not unique to Scotland or the United Kingdom; when we show that it can be done here, others will want to do it in other parts of the world. Devices that are currently in the water have produced a UK supply chain input in the region of 80%. Not many technologies are in a position to make that boast.
The vibe in the industry, if I can put it like that, is fairly positive and upbeat: there are opportunities coming down the road. However, this “overnight success” has been at least 20 years in the making. It has been a long march, and progress is never linear. We have had false dawns and disappointments, but in the last few years it has been demonstrated beyond any measure of doubt that obvious and visible demonstrations of Government support make a real difference in getting this industry towards the point of commercialisation and the opportunities that that will bring.
At the time of the fourth allocation round, the then Government committed to the first ringfenced pot for tidal stream generation. That had a massive impact, not just as a consequence of the opportunity that it provided, but as a signal that the technology was taken seriously by Government and was being given opportunity and support from Government. It is to that series of signals that we now need to look, because although we have made significant progress, we are not yet at the point of commercialisation. We do need to do a little bit more in order to get there happily.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to give leadership and clarity to the tidal sector, including by explaining whether the criteria for well developed tidal range proposals published by the last Government are being taken forward by the current Government, so that projects like the Wyre tidal barrage in my constituency will be better informed when going forward with their proposals?
Mr Carmichael
I do agree. I suspect that I do not have as much expertise as the hon. Lady in tidal barrage—or whatever we are calling it these days. Most of the interest I have developed over the years is in tidal stream, but there is never going to be a single technology or a single silver bullet here; there has to be an opportunity for all the different technologies to contribute. The USP of tidal energy, however we capture it, is of course its predictability, so it can contribute to baseload. I will discuss later how the industry is able to engage with Government, because there are parallels to be drawn with what has been done in the past for the oil and gas industry, which might now be done for renewables, particularly marine renewables.
I shall first dwell briefly on the progress we have made thus far. Orbital Marine Power, for example, now deploys the world’s most powerful tidal turbine—in Orkney, obviously. It is estimated that that device, manufactured in Dundee, has on its own created something in the region of 80 full-time equivalent jobs across the United Kingdom. Since its incorporation, Orbital has raised and deployed £84 million of capital. It won two contracts for difference in round 5, totalling £7.2 million, on top of the £7.4 million that it had been awarded in AR4. It is expected that the first power from these contracts will be collected in 2026. These are serious companies doing serious business. This is no longer a sort of aspirational, slightly hippy niche subject; these are serious businesses that require serious attention from Government and regulators.
Nova Innovation, which operates in Shetland, as it happens—I am told other island groups are available—installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound between Yell and Unst in Shetland. It has six two-bladed horizontal axis tidal stream turbines and is the largest array yet deployed. In AR6 Nova secured three 15-year contracts totalling 6 MW of tidal energy capacity. As a consequence of the last allocation round, the UK is on track to have in excess of 130 MW deployed by 2029. Nova is also involved in floating solar developments, and it is estimated that floating solar has the potential to produce 9.343 TWh in the future. That is the scale of the opportunity that presents itself.
The real catalyst of this serious and determined progress was the setting up in 2003 of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, a body that had its roots in a report of the Science and Technology Committee of this House, which was taken up and driven by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and then the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who as Deputy First Minister of Scotland saw the opportunity, got the resource and the political drive behind it, and set up EMEC, which is the facility for demonstrating and testing wave and tidal devices.
EMEC’s operations since 2003 have contributed £370 million GVA to the UK economy. EMEC’s success is due in no small measure to Neil Kermode, its director since 2005. I am not going to turn around because he is in the Gallery and I know that he will be staring daggers at me for singling him out, but Neil’s contribution to the success of that institution must not be underestimated, as it shows the difference that one person in the right place at the right time can make.
Another significant driver of progress in Orkney is Heriot-Watt University’s campus there, the International Centre for Island Technology. In recent years, its postgraduate taught courses in renewables have grown a skills base at postgraduate level which has been an important part of driving the progress we have seen. We cannot make progress without skilled people; we can get in all the investment we like, but it will only take us so far if we do not have people who are capable of using and developing it. Despite that, in 2019, the Scottish Funding Council grant scheme that had supported the tuition for these postgraduate taught courses ended. That has precipitated a fall in student numbers.
Although this issue is principally within the Scottish Government’s remit, I want to put it on the Minister’s radar, because if achieving development and deployment goals is part of UK Government policy, there must be a means of finding UK Government money for these courses. Whether it is done by sponsorship of places or some other means, the cost of 20 students a year at £9,200 each would be £920,000 over a five-year period. Think about that in the context of the numbers that I have spoken about—the potential that the sector adds to the UK economy. If we do not make this investment now, we will be penny wise but pound foolish.
I have some key asks of the Government as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, in consultation with the Marine Energy Council, Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK. The most important thing, as we head towards allocation round 7, is an increase in the ringfenced budget for marine energy. The last three consecutive ringfences for tidal stream through contracts for difference have delivered an unprecedented deployment pipeline, but the last round saw a fall in the contracted amount at a point where we really needed to build momentum for the sector. I am told by those in the industry that there is sufficient eligible capacity to ensure that there would be competition for a ringfence set at that level. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should set a £30 million ringfence for tidal and a £5 million ringfence for wave energy in this year’s round—a round, incidentally, that they described to me as “crucial”.
We also look to the Government to enable support for marine energy through GB Energy and the national wealth fund. High capital costs and unconventional risk profiles are hindering some of the progress in securing adequate finance for a move towards large-scale commercial construction. GB Energy and the national wealth fund could accelerate deployment of and embed UK content in marine energy projects. They could provide finance under commercial terms for viable projects that have secured a CfD. That is not asking them to make a particularly risky investment, but it would allow them to bring to final investment decision, and thus construction, some of those projects in this parliamentary term.
The third ask is to provide a voice for marine energy with a marine energy taskforce, which brings me back to my answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). In addition to supporting investment, both the Scottish and UK Governments have an important role to play in bringing key stakeholders together. Again, it is about sending signals. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should establish that energy taskforce to develop a strategic road map, to tackle barriers to deployment, to secure investment, to increase innovation funding and to deliver value for money.
When I was in Government, we set up a body for the oil and gas industry called PILOT. It was essentially the forum in which all the various majors, and those with any production interests in the UK continental shelf, could sit down and inform Government on the progress of their industry, and on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. That was a formal body, so that there was a degree of transparency associated with it. If PILOT could be set up for the oil and gas industry in the past, a similar body for marine renewables would be a particularly positive development. Again, it is about sending signals to the markets to give them the confidence to make the necessary investment.
We are looking for the Scottish Government—this is obviously not a point for the Minister—to prioritise marine energy in their energy strategy; for the Minister to speak to his colleagues in other Departments as we get the industrial strategy; and for both Governments to set bolder targets, which we believe would boost investor confidence. These asks do not come with particularly large price tags attached. The CfD levels would of course be a significant increase, but that is money that is already there and accounted for. Everything else is essentially about sending signals. We saw at the time of the creation of the first ringfence, at AR4, that sending these signals can be an enormously significant catalyst for investment.
There are a couple of issues that I want to put on the Minister’s radar. They do not necessarily fall under his portfolio, but I know that Ministers talk to each other. First, as the deployment of marine renewables and offshore wind continues to develop apace, there has to be some mechanism for holding the ring between renewables and other users of the sea and the seabed. The Minister knows that I have big concerns about the role that has been given to the Crown Estate Commission as owners of the seabed. I would like to think that the commission would be a body that could hold the ring, as it owns and licenses the use of the seabed, but experience tells me that it does not always work out like that. If we give the powers to the Crown Estate Commission that are anticipated in the Crown Estate Bill, which is going through the House, while retaining the obligation on it as a primary duty to maximise return to the estate, then there could be an issue. To be successful, we have to be able to bring island and coastal communities along with us, otherwise this becomes another thing that is done to those communities, rather than something in which they feel they have a role.
Finally, if we are going to deploy more resource at sea—and obviously, I think we should—we have to take the question of cable security seriously. We have to look at what happened just before Christmas, when the Russian so-called ghost fleet cut the cable going into the south of Finland. We know that Russia has had some activity, which we believe to be malign, in the UK continental shelf, so let us get ahead of the game and take that seriously.
The placing of cables on the seabed will only become more significant. I recently met Xlinks, which is bringing a significant amount of solar energy from Morocco to the United Kingdom via a subsea cable, which it is burying as it goes. It is at these points that we realise that with every opportunity there is a threat, and we must take the threats seriously. That is not within the Minister’s purview, but at the end of the day it has to be part of the way that we approach the outcomes.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring these concerns to the House, Ms Jardine. I am thankful that a good number of colleagues have stayed here on a Thursday afternoon. I appreciate their commitment, and I hope it will bear fruit.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.
I want to begin by talking about the exciting link between the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency, and Orkney and Shetland. Nova Innovation, based in Leith, has a very simple mission: to be a global leader in marine energy, delivering clean, predictable energy across the world. In 2016, it installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and ever since then the array has went from strength to strength. Three turbines were installed in 2016, a fourth in 2020, and a fifth and sixth two years ago. That installation is not just the world’s first offshore tidal array; it now has the largest number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world. In last year’s contracts for difference allocation round, Nova secured contracts to deliver 6 MW of tidal energy at the Fall of Warness site in Orkney. It is innovating at pace and is demonstrating the potential for tidal and new marine renewables to deliver energy security, and to help with the sprint to clean power.
It is essential that the Government support and guide marine renewables—first, by setting a 1 GW tidal stream target by 2035, which would send a signal to industry about their support and ambition. I am keen to hear from the Minister what consideration the Government have given to putting in place such a target.
Secondly, GB Energy could help to harness the potential for tidal power here and across the globe. Nova in my constituency has demonstrated that the technology can work, and our tides and sea mean that we have 11 GW potential domestically. If GB Energy took equity stakes in tidal stream projects, those projects could be scaled up not only to benefit from that 11 GW earlier, but to build up domestic manufacturing, domestic supply chains and to deliver jobs. I appreciate that there is smaller demand for tidal overall than for other renewable sources, but at present 8% of the tidal supply chain is in the UK.
Thirdly, we need to speed up the consent process, and I welcome the decisions taken by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in that regard. Stakeholders have expressed their dismay to me that, although Canada can secure consent and start construction within two years and France can do similar within three, the process can take up to a decade in the UK. I am concerned that if the timescales cannot improve, we will fritter away our competitive advantage not just with marine renewables but across a large number of established and innovative technologies. I appreciate that consenting is devolved to Scotland; the Minister knows that I have raised the unacceptably long process for consent decisions with the Energy Consents Unit and Marine Scotland, and I would welcome an update on the recent discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on consenting.
I hope that the Government will listen to today’s debate and fully back marine renewables, and that in the future there will be a stronger link between Edinburgh North and Leith, and Orkney and Shetland, with more tidal energy generated.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate.
As the Member for South Devon, I am proud to represent a constituency with a long and rich history of maritime activity. From the bustling port of Brixham to the naval port of Dartmouth, the sea is very much part of our identity. It is for that reason that I am here today in firm support of the development of marine renewable energy. However, progress must be pursued in a way that respects and supports our fishing industry, ensuring that these two vital sectors can thrive side by side.
The UK is a global leader in renewable energy, and marine renewables present a unique opportunity to further that leadership. The water surrounding our islands hold enormous potential. Living on wet, windy islands, would it not be great if we could put some of that weather to good use?
According to the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, tidal stream energy could provide up to 11.5 GW of capacity —following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, I think that figure is probably more now—which is equivalent to approximately 15% or more of the UK’s current electricity demand. Wave energy, though less mature technologically, offers additional capacity for long-term energy generation. These technologies, which include tidal stream turbines and oscillating wave surge converters, are capable of harnessing predictable and consistent energy, which is a crucial advantage over more intermittent renewable sources, like solar and wind.
Investing in marine renewables is not just an environmental imperative. It is a huge economic opportunity for the UK. The sector, as we have heard, could create tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions in private investment. Projects such as those we have heard about in Orkney and Shetland demonstrate the potential for large-scale deployment, with capacity to generate a substantial element of our electricity once fully operational.
The integration of marine renewables into our energy mix will not only diversify supply, but enhance our grid stability through predictable energy output. The economic benefits extend way beyond energy production. The sector could contribute billions to the UK economy annually, with supply chain opportunities for our coastal communities and the manufacturing sector alike.
As we pursue this promising future, we must not lose sight of the vital role that our fishing industry plays. Brixham, one of the UK’s most productive fishing ports, landed a record breaking £43.6 million-worth of seafood last year. That is not just an economic statistic—it represents the hard work of the fishing community and their contribution to our food security. As we navigate the transition to renewable energy, it is essential that the voices of our fishermen are heard and their expertise is valued.
Marine renewable energy projects must be carefully planned to avoid disrupting fishing grounds and marine ecosystems. That requires advanced spatial planning tools, such as geographic information systems, to identify suitable sites for development that minimise conflict with established fishing zones and sensitive habitats. Consultation with the fishing community must be a fundamental part of the development process, not an afterthought. Fishermen know the waters better than anyone and can provide invaluable insights into where installations can co-exist happily with fishing activities. With good collaboration, we can ensure that marine renewables are located in areas that minimise conflict and maximise benefit.
This approach is not just a matter of fairness. It is also a matter of practicality. Energy security and food security are two sides of the same coin. As we strive to achieve net zero and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we must also ensure that we are protecting our ability to feed the nation. The sea can provide both energy and food, but only if we manage it wisely and sustainably. It is worth noting that the development of marine renewables can also enhance marine biodiversity if designed thoughtfully, creating artificial reefs and habitats that benefit marine life.
I must, though, express some concern about the lack of clear Governmental targets for marine renewables. Neither the previous Government nor the current Government have set—yet—any specific targets for the installation of wave or tidal energy. Although the Government have committed to achieving at least 95% low carbon generation by 2030, the December 2024 clean power action plan fails to set explicit goals for marine renewables. Instead, it relegates them to a potential long-term role in decarbonisation objectives.
I believe that lack of ambition is a missed opportunity to capitalise on the UK’s vast marine resources and risks leaving us behind in the global race for renewable energy innovation. As an island nation, where the one thing we can rely on is the tide coming in and going out day after day, we should be doing more to capitalise on it. That seems more logical than shipping in solar energy from Morocco—although if we could ship in sunshine from Morocco, I would be up for that. I urge the Government to rectify the oversight by setting binding targets for the deployment of wave and tidal energy. Doing so would provide clarity and confidence for investors and developers, fostering rapid growth in this critical sector. Moreover, it would align marine renewables with the broader decarbonisation agenda, ensuring that they contribute meaningfully to our energy transition. I also call on the Government to provide long-term funding for research and development, such as the UK’s £20 million ringfenced budget for tidal stream innovation, and streamline the regulatory process to accelerate deployment. The Government must create a supportive framework for private investment, through mechanisms such as contracts for difference, to ensure market confidence, with a ringfenced budget for tidal and wave. The Government must also commit to robust engagement with the fishing industry to ensure that livelihoods are not sacrificed in the name of progress. There is room for everyone in this endeavour, but only if we take the time to plan and act responsibly.
Marine renewable energy offers a bright and sustainable future for our coastal communities and the nation as a whole, so let us seize this brilliant opportunity but do so with care, collaboration and respect for all those who depend on the sea.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate, which is of great interest to me as an MP from Cornwall and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea. I will probably replicate some points that have been made but it is telling that we are all calling for similar things, so I will say a little more about some of the industry’s asks.
Cornwall is ideally placed to play a leading role in the development of the marine renewables industries. We have 400 miles of coast, strong tides, south-westerly winds and proximity to the Celtic sea. We are in a prime location for offshore wind and tidal stream energy. The port of Falmouth in my constituency could service floating offshore wind turbines, and Truro and Falmouth is home to world-leading businesses such as Inyanga and Tugdock, which are at the forefront of marine renewables innovation.
However, the tidal and wave industries, like floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, need support from the Government and particularly ringfencing for AR7, to which I will return. As hon. Members have noted, tidal stream is a highly reliable method of energy generation because it is unaffected by weather, offers a stable energy supply and complements other more intermittent renewable sources, such as wind and solar. It also presents a number of benefits to UK jobs, supply chains and energy security. Tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content, which is a much higher percentage than for some other renewable technologies. However, tidal and wave are smaller, less developed industries than solar or fixed offshore wind. Tidal energy currently forms less than 0.01% of the UK’s electricity generation, but the UK Marine Energy Council says that it has the potential to meet over 10% of demand.
I welcome the Government’s recent clean power action plan, which recognised the potential for tidal stream and floating offshore wind to be important components of long-term decarbonisation in the UK. However, for that to happen—and if marine renewables are to follow a similar cost-reduction pathway to solar and fixed offshore wind—the marine renewables industry does need Government support.
From AR4 onwards, tidal energy has benefited from ringfencing, which led to Inyanga, based in my constituency, being awarded CfDs in AR5 and AR6 for their HydroWing technology, which will be deployed in Morlais, Wales. Previous allocation rounds show that the sector can respond successfully to a ringfence. Inyanga had the only successful pot 2 offshore project to win a CfD in AR6.
The ask of Great British Energy is to commit, say, 3% of its budget to investing in marine energy because tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content spend, which is significantly higher than for other renewable technologies. GB Energy should seek to embed and accelerate deployment of that UK content in projects installed here and around the world. It could take equity stakes, under commercial terms, in projects that have secured a CfD.
Other hon. Members have asked about a Government-industry marine energy taskforce. The purpose of that taskforce would be to bring together key players from Government, industry, regulatory and other relevant organisations to enable marine energy development—the embedding of that UK content in projects deployed here and around the world—to support the Government’s ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I have also been pushing for that kind of masterplan and leadership for floating offshore wind. Others have asked about the 2035 targets, including a 1 gigawatt tidal stream and 300 megawatts of wave energy deployment. Setting those targets will boost investor confidence and support investment in coastal communities and beyond.
The UK could also introduce innovation funding, particularly for marine energy. Between 2017 and 2022, such projects received only £17 million in innovation funding. Wave energy projects received £57 million of funding, £39 million of which came from the Scottish Government. That targeted innovation funding has been proven to reduce the overall cost associated with commercialising these emerging renewable technologies. Two tidal scheme projects in Scotland were successful in the last Horizon Europe call, which demonstrates both the importance of a close UK-EU relationship on marine energy and the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for that innovation funding.
I cannot stand here and talk about renewable energy in the sea without mentioning floating offshore wind, so I will reiterate some of the asks that that industry would have as well to kick-start floating offshore wind, particularly in the Celtic sea. Like tidal and wave energy, floating offshore wind needs a ringfenced element in the AR6. The one-size-fits-all route is disadvantaging the Celtic sea due to the comparative lack of port infrastructure, skills and wider supply chain support. We are a virgin area; unlike Scotland, we have not had oil and gas before, so we are starting from scratch.
We need technological and geographical ringfencing, CfDs for the test and demo sites in the Celtic sea, and support for stepping-stone projects such as TwinHub, which has a CfD but is facing the challenges of developing that supply chain and the now out-of-date cost of the CfD. The £1.8 billion ports fund can now be distributed quickly in a multi-port strategy that was developed, allowing ports across the region, such as Falmouth in my constituency, to work together to prepare for and benefit from the opportunities that floating offshore wind presents.
The Crown Estate Bill passed through the House recently. Those option fees could, for example, be diverted to local supply chain building. Additionally, outside of the industry, other hon. Members have mentioned that we need that strategy for the ocean as a whole. It is crucial that we have a long-term marine spatial strategy, so that everything in the ocean has its place and we balance energy generation with important industries such as fishing, and with protecting the natural environment.
Creating clear frameworks for each sector would give certainty to developers, which would help speed up the deployment of these renewables projects. Co-ordination would involve linking existing plans, such as the Crown Estate’s whole of seabed programme, the strategic spatial energy plan and DEFRA’s marine spatial prioritisation programme, ensuring that the UK harnesses the benefits of marine renewables while supporting fishing and safeguarding marine habitats.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have quickly written this speech while others were speaking, so if it is a bit general, it will be because of haste. I have just read it twice, and I thank the Lord I should be able to decipher my writing.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I have said it before, but I really do mean it: he brings many issues to Westminster Hall and the Chamber, and always with calmness, which is quite a talent. He also makes sure they are subject matter that all of us from the Gaelic nations—Northern Ireland, in my case—are right away interested in.
I have a big interest in this subject. Since I became an MP, way back in 2010, I have always been aware that Strangford lough, which is in the constituency I represent, has the potential for tidal green energy provision. There was a pilot scheme so many years ago. That was probably the wrong time, simply because the energy generated was too expensive. Things have moved on, and what was not possible way back then is possible now. That is why I wanted to speak on this issue.
The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned fishing, and I also want to reflect on that. I am a great believer that, when we move forward, as much as possible we have to bring everybody with us, although that is not always possible in this world.
I want to mention a Queen’s University Belfast marine development scheme in Portaferry. Exciting stuff is happening there, and it reinforces the ideas advanced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Strangford is being used as a test site for a groundbreaking marine energy project. That is something that I hoped to bring forward many years ago—for the record, I have not brought it forward, but I have supported bringing it forward. It has been great to see it, and to tell people about it.
Ocean Renewable Power Company Ireland and Queen’s University have announced the successful deployment and commencement of the testing of a new generation of marine hydrokinetic turbines on the Strangford lough tidal test site. This is groundbreaking and visionary, and I am particularly pleased to see it. It is a significant milestone for ORPC, because it is the first time that the company has generated electricity from one of its turbines outside of North America—that is where the innovation and excitement comes from—after 17 previous deployments in America and the USA. We are on the frontline.
The deployment in Strangford lough is the company’s first in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is part of the deployment of the X-flow project, which is led by Queen’s University. The project includes Applied Renewables Research and the Shell Technology marine renewable programme as industry partners, and is supported by the green innovation challenge fund. That fund is led by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy, and is delivered in partnership—again, partnership is how it all works—with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is another initiative that I pushed in my time as an Assembly Member, but more so as an MP here, working in conjunction with the Assembly back home.
The purpose of the deployment in Strangford lough is to collect data on turbine performance in a real tidal environment, building on laboratory testing undertaken earlier this year in another project—it never sounds great when I speak Italian, so I will not try to pronounce this; an Ulster Scot speaking Italian is a real challenge. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, I am definitely not doing it; it would be embarrassing. Suffice it to say that the company comes from Rome, in Italy—I will leave it at that. The European Commission funded the project, which is called CRIMSON—commercialisation of a recyclable and innovative manufacturing solution for an optimised novel marine turbine project. It is no secret that I am a Brexiteer, but Europe does some good things, and we have to acknowledge that this is one of them.
Carwyn Frost, who is senior lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast, says that the marine laboratory tidal test site at Strangford lough
“is a unique facility providing developers the opportunity to deploy and monitor their technology in real tidal flows.”
I have had the opportunity to experience that a few times as an MP, as well as when I was at the Assembly. At one time, people swam across Strangford lough for charity; I always wondered how anybody could swim across Strangford lough, because the tidal flows are so extreme that swimmers can start in Portaferry and end up well round the tip of the peninsula. Mr Frost went on:
“The X-Flow project will provide unique insight on the impact of turbulent flow conditions on the control of the crossflow turbine and its blade loading. The fully instrumented turbine by ORPC will provide vital data for assessing the impact of turbulent flow conditions on performance, blade loading and control.”
I want to put that on the record because I believe that the project, which is happening right on my doorstep, is incredibly exciting. I have lived in the Ards peninsula for all but four years of my life, so I feel great pride about this.
The work will facilitate condition monitoring by the Queen’s University marine team, which is committed to working in collaboration with partners. That is how it works: big business along with universities and local government. It is great to see Queen’s University leading the way, and I look forward to the conclusion of some of that research. The way forward is to energise the tidal flows at Strangford lough so that we can all gain—homes and businesses across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who are crying out for it.
I am conscious that others want to speak. I should have said, Ms Jardine, that I welcome you to the Chair. I apologise; I should have done that right away. It is lovely to see you in your place, and it is well deserved.
As an island nation with a rich history of maritime culture, we must recognise the incredible wealth of life beneath the waves and the imperative to protect it. The hon. Member for South Devon referred to fishing; I want to say a quick word about how important fishing is for my constituency of Strangford. Ours is an inland shore fleet, by and large, based in Portavogie in my constituency and further down in Ardglass and Kilkeel. Marine ecosystems, essential for not only biodiversity but the economy, are facing mounting pressures that demand urgent action. Fishermen depend on the sea for their livelihoods, and I want to support those who fish in Strangford lough and out on the Irish sea.
Northern Ireland has a close connection with the sea. We have 650 km of coastline. The sea is home to an amazing variety of marine life, some of which is found nowhere else in the world. Isn’t that great to say? It cannot be found anywhere else but Strangford lough. That reiterates what I have always said: Strangford lough is unique. Strangford is unique, and I am pleased and privileged to be the MP for the area.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is very kind.
Strangford is at the junction between significant bodies of water, and it contains a thriving commercial fishing community, primarily based on the inshore fishery. A significant number of fishermen fish out of the local fleet and there is also an important processing plant sector, tied to the inshore fishery, that produces mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps. The fishery is one of the most important in the country and local people feel passionately about it. They and their families have been fishing these waters for generations and their views are deeply rooted in tradition.
The hon. Member for South Devon put forward a case: to move forward with all our great technology and establish all the green marine energy that we can. I support that. Some people in Northern Ireland may not share my opinion, but I think it important for us to move forward. However, we also need to protect our fishing sector, and I make a special request on its behalf. What is required is a regulatory framework that is flexible, adaptable and responsive to changing conditions at sea. Unlike land-based conservation, whose ecosystems are more static, marine ecosystems are dynamic and can change year by year. We must be able to adapt our policies to the changes, ensuring that our approach to marine energy also supports our fishing sector and those who—let us be honest—vote for me. Let us make sure that we deliver for them as well.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, and I welcome you to your place. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. Given the importance of the debate, it is again disappointing to see that so few Members from His Majesty’s official Opposition are here to contribute. But I am encouraged that so many Members from the Celtic nations of the United Kingdom are represented today.
Support for the marine renewables industry demonstrates not just awareness of our developing energy system up to 2030, but foresight into how we achieve energy security in the long term. Julian Leslie, the chief engineer at the National Energy System Operator—the body responsible for advising the Government on their clean power strategy—has described the 2030 clean power target as reaching the base camp of Mount Everest. He describes the next stage, decarbonising heat and wider industry on the way to 2050, as climbing to the mountain’s peak. What that means is that the next generation of technologies, such as tidal stream and wave energy, will need to develop and proliferate deployment at scale as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on electricity.
According to the Government’s “Clean Power 2030” plan, marine renewables—tidal stream, in particular—will be an incredibly useful source of energy that, as has been mentioned, can be deployed without correlation to other energy sources, therefore acting as a predictable component of our clean energy infrastructure.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) refers to rolling the technologies out at scale. The only eligible English project that has the marine lease, environmental licence and network connection offer is in my constituency, on the Isle of Wight. Does he agree that local communities must benefit directly from projects in their areas—through direct jobs, obviously, but also through other indirect benefits?
Perran Moon
Yes, I entirely agree. Social value is an absolutely core element of a lot of these renewable opportunities; I am thinking not only of value going back into the community—including community ownership, potentially—but of the creation of good quality, highly skilled local jobs.
I echo the words of my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), in championing Inyanga Marine Energy Group, which is based in Penryn. It is developing the exact cutting-edge technologies that we will require in the form of its HydroWing structure, which produces exceptionally high and reliable yields.
I also highlight the work of Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s marine energy team, which focuses on tidal stream and is, I am proud to say, based in my constituency of Camborne and Redruth, and in Hayle. As has been mentioned, according to the Marine Energy Council tidal stream technology can meet over 10% of UK electricity demand, with the UK leading in the planned installation of over 130 MW in its seas by 2029. We must show support for the commercial development of such marine renewable projects through greater funding from Great British Energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) mentioned, and by ringfencing contracts for difference funding in AR7 later this year.
In the 20th century, the UK’s power system was dominated by coal; in the 1990s, that system evolved into the “dash for gas”. We are now pivoting towards the use of offshore and onshore wind, partnered with flexible and low-carbon dispatchable power. Generations before us in the last century would scarcely have been able to imagine what our energy system looks like now. However, I believe marine renewables represent immense potential, which we must support today to achieve the net zero goal of tomorrow.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to welcome you to your place. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing what we all surely agree is a really important debate.
Many people do not support renewables. I guess they are not here today but we occasionally hear them in the Chamber, saying things like, “What are you going to do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?” We see the answer when we look out to the sea: the tide rises and falls twice a day, every day, 365 days a year, so we can build a future on renewable energy. We must do that if we are to achieve net zero and protect our planet.
The Celtic sea has massive opportunities. I am going to discuss something that Members may not have expected: the maritime importance of Taunton, which is in the middle of Somerset. Taunton is the headquarters of the UK Hydrographic Office, which produces the Admiralty charts—famed throughout the world for being the biggest mapping system of the ocean floor around the world. It is the world leader and its charts are used by navies and merchant navies around the world. No one is quite sure why the office came to Taunton in Somerset, although it may be because it is not that near the coast; one story is that enemy bombers would therefore find it harder to find. We are very proud of that link, and of course we are only a few miles from the coasts to the north and to the south.
As the county town of Somerset, we are an important regional centre. Under the previous Labour Government, we hosted the regional assembly in Taunton and the Government office for the south-west was in Taunton because we have an equidistant position in the greater south-west region. Our transport links are excellent—it takes 99 minutes to get to Paddington in the heart of London or 30 minutes in either direction to get to the heart of Bristol or of Exeter. All those reasons make it the ideal location for the south-west office of Great British Energy; I am almost certain that the Minister will announce that in his summing up. Seriously, it is an excellent location for regional centres.
Taunton would be an ideal place to host many of the headquarters of the companies involved in the offshore industry. In the Celtic sea, we have the welcome 4.5 GW of offshore wind that has been announced. Sometimes people underestimate the scale of that; I always translate it into four and a half nuclear power stations being built in the Celtic sea—hopefully it will not take the 20 or 30 years that Hinkley seems to be taking. Generating that clean energy is vital.
As well as offshore wind, I want to put in a word for tidal stream, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) have talked about eloquently. Tidal stream is vital—we need energy from all these sources—but tidal range is as well: it generates, project for project, hundreds of times more electricity, as shown in northern France with La Rance in Saint-Malo. That was built by de Gaulle and is still generating around 60 MW of energy.
When I was working for the Government inspectorate, I was privileged to be the lead inspector on the Swansea tidal lagoon, which got its consent. In my view, it was a massive mistake of the previous Conservative Government not to fund that project; we could have had a new generation of tidal energy from this country. We have the second highest tidal range in the world—up and down by 9 metres at the maximum, which is second only to western Canada, where there is a thriving tidal range energy industry. We should be building on that for the future.
Tidal range, tidal stream and offshore wind bring big opportunities to the south-west of England. Although I recognise that Members from Cornwall may be at the sharper end of the Celtic sea than us in Taunton, there are important benefits for the whole south-west in terms of upskilling, investment in skills training and the construction industry. The Great South West regional development agency has identified energy as a key driver of the south-west economy. Government support for skills, training and research projects could be absolutely crucial to the economy of the whole south-west, and particularly my part of Somerset, with University Centre Somerset and the UK Hydrographic Office working together in my constituency. There could be some really exciting projects, looking at Horizon funding as well as skills investment. I hope the Government will support those kinds of projects and applications.
As well as getting support for skills, training and research, we need to bring the community with us. That means we need to give a lot more thought and attention to the compensation and the community support from these projects. We need reliable levels of community benefit from each project. There have been some advances on that from solar projects onshore, although my constituents in Ham would like to see more community benefit for the solar farm there.
It is less developed with wind, and we need a reliable system in which communities that will be affected by offshore wind, because of the massive onshore infrastructure, know that they will benefit in some way from that project. The industry needs to be held to account so that it clearly meets established standards of community benefits. I hope that the Minister will say something about that in his summing up.
We also need more sensible approaches to mitigation for the natural environment. Surely we cannot go on any longer with a system in which every offshore wind project comes up against a debate about whether it will kill 0.5 birds or 0.9 birds in the course of 20 years, and then people design an elaborate mitigation system for that one project. We know that we will be building offshore wind projects. We need to build them. We know what the impacts will be on wild birds and other natural species. Therefore, we need to put in the compensatory measures in advance in a strategic way. I know that the Crown Estate is beginning to look at strategic compensation, but it is far too late. We need to get on with this now. We know the impacts. We know that it is one of the biggest factors slowing down our offshore wind projects. We can look at the experience in Denmark. The Danes are building islands to support their offshore wind industry before it starts, so they know the compensation will be there.
I would like to support the points that have been made on the need for a taskforce, which would certainly be important and should encompass skills, training and research in the whole offshore energy sector, and I urge the Government to recognise the regional powerhouse that the south-west can be and is in renewable energy. We have six energy NSIP DCOs—development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects —across Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire, for example. It is a vital part of the UK economy, and Taunton lies right at the heart of it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ms Jardine. I welcome you to your first chairmanship role here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate.
With a wind-lashed coastline stretching for a grand total of 1,680 miles, Wales has an abundance of marine energy potential. This growing sector already contributes significant sums to the Welsh economy. Last financial year, the marine renewable energy sector delivered £29.9 million to the Welsh economy, and it currently sustains 429 full-time jobs. We would like the number of jobs to be way more than that, please.
Tidal stream is the largest contributor to the sector at present, and developers are set to deliver 28 MW-worth of development by 2028. That number is expected to grow with each annual auction round. For the future, it is estimated that Wales has the potential to generate up to 6 GW-worth of wave and tidal stream energy.
I have mentioned jobs. Development and installation of 1 GW alone could support 440 full-time jobs during generation—and those in communities that currently suffer deprivation. That is a theme for many Members of Parliament from what might be called the Celtic fringe, but it really matters to us. We have such potential to generate more energy for the United Kingdom in its entirety and to generate energy security, but at the same time this can be a real levelling-up prospect for communities that have suffered in low-wage economies. Particularly in relation to Wales, I could mention Holyhead; I could mention my own community of Dwyfor Meirionnydd; and I could mention Milford Haven. We should plan ahead and look at the futures of those communities, particularly somewhere like Milford Haven, which is so dependent on fossil fuel at present.
Wales is clearly poised to play a leading role in marine renewables. However, the sector is still in the early stages of development and needs Government support so that it can truly flourish. The Welsh Government have recently announced strategic resource areas for tidal stream, and I welcome that. It is a form of marine planning to designate the future availability of these areas for potential tidal stream energy projects. Of course, in Wales, as elsewhere, it is important to work with other key users of the sea, such as fishermen. There are tourism considerations as well.
This includes, just with regard to my own constituency, the sea off the Llŷn peninsula, where Swnt Enlli—Bardsey sound—has some of the strongest tidal races in the Irish sea. Proudly, Nova Innovation had a project there, but sadly, because of the lack of grid capacity, it eventually pulled out. It is exactly these problems with grid capacity that often hinder the bringing of projects to fruition in bringing their energy onshore from the sea.
Now, of course, I turn to Ynys Môn. I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who is glad to be reopening one of the berths at Holyhead. As of today, ferries are again sailing from Holyhead, which is very good news for not just Holyhead and north Wales, but the connections with Ireland. We have existing tidal stream projects there, such as the Morlais project, and we see a potential model that addresses the problem of grid connection, which might be replicated elsewhere.
Morlais came about with major investment from both the European Union and the Welsh Government, with a grid substation already developed and the environmental consents already in place—that is the important point. That provides an offering to tidal stream developers in which there is a reduced cost and risk that mean that they are sure of getting their technology into the water.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I know that the National Energy System Operator has just put forward proposals to Government on how to address the grid queue and how it should be renewed and reviewed. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need to hear from Government as soon as possible what the reorganisation of the grid queue would mean and which projects would be prioritised?
Liz Saville Roberts
When we find ourselves discussing any large-scale energy project, we come up against some of these pragmatic, practical questions. Until we have answers to those, it is difficult for us as local MPs to do more for our constituencies than promote. I have found myself in a similar situation with Trawsfynydd and small nuclear reactors; I have been in this place talking about that for 10 years and have not got past the pragmatic first points to actually see further developments.
The UK Government could use Great British Energy to invest in and develop pre-leased and consented grid connector sites for marine energy projects in Wales and elsewhere. However, the Great British Energy Bill does not make any reference to tidal stream or to marine renewable technologies, and, sadly, the Welsh Government’s announcement of tidal stream SRAs does not make any reference to GB Energy—if only those things were joined up and we had that co-working between Cardiff and London that is so vaunted. In his summing up, can the Minister set out what relationship GB Energy will have with the Welsh Government’s SRAs, because at present there seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking? I also echo the sector’s call for the Government to commit £250 million of Great British Energy’s budget to accelerate the development of and embed UK content in tidal stream projects and for a 1 GW target for deployment by 2035.
I turn to a particularly Welsh issue, although other hon. Members have touched on it—namely, the relationship or partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate, which will be crucial in the development of marine energy projects, given that it owns the sea bed to 12 nautical miles from the coast, including in Wales. It is therefore vital that Wales has full control over the Crown Estate, as is the case in Scotland, so that the people of Wales, not civil servants in Whitehall, shape the development of marine renewables to fit our nation’s needs and aspirations. That comparison between Wales and Scotland will not go away, and in a moment I will show hon. Members why. We could therefore ensure real benefits to Welsh communities, including the use of local supply chains and jobs in deprived, low-wage areas that will follow on from those projects. We could shape those with Welsh needs in mind.
Jayne Kirkham
I have a question about the Crown Estate and the devolution of it. How would that work in the Celtic sea, where Cornwall would obviously benefit a great deal from some of the floating offshore wind in other installations there?
Liz Saville Roberts
Some of the politics of Cornwall already looks to Wales for guidelines; the same question arises from Scotland regarding where the border lies with England there. None the less, from Wales’s point of view, we have suffered a long tradition of extractive industries, and that looks set to continue.
There is a fair argument for the devolvement of the Crown Estate in Wales. The only argument against it is that it would cause confusion in the intervening point, but any change causes confusion. Devolution of the Crown Estate, which would give Wales, rather than the Treasury, the power to manage local supply chains is a call from many politicians in Wales—including many Welsh Labour politicians—that will not go away.
Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved, has successfully aligned the Crown Estate with the marine planning process and sought to make use of those local supply chains. The Scottish Government also distribute the net revenue generated by the Scottish Crown Estate marine assets to coastal local authority areas—those poor areas which we all want to seek every means we can to support. That coastal community benefit amounted to £11.1 million in 2023-24. Why are we preventing that from happening in other places? Wales should be able to do the same. The Minister will no doubt say, because this is the argument we have heard before, that devolution will fragment the market and deter investment. The success of the Scottish Crown Estate emphatically proves that not to be the case.
I want to touch on the contracts for difference auction process and EU innovation funding. To date, the marine renewables industry has been set at £20 million, £10 million and £15 million ringfenced in the last three auctions. If we want to build a renewable energy industry with high levels of UK content, the level needs to be set—as the lead Member for this debate, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, has said—at £50 million for tidal stream and £5 million for wave. I am very supportive of that for this year’s renewable auction. Marine Energy Wales says that without this ringfence, Welsh tidal projects will be disadvantaged, stalling momentum and undermining the benefits already delivered by sites like Morlais.
In addition to ringfenced funding domestically, we should maximise institutional flows of funds for the sector. Leaving the European emissions trading scheme has meant that the UK no longer receives sums from the related EU innovation fund. Rejoining that scheme would help unlock further sources of funding for marine developments.
I welcome the discussion of the marine energy task force. Of course, skills are devolved to Wales. We need to make sure that the advantages work between the Welsh Government and what is being proposed here, and that there is discussion on that.
Given the weather we have today in London, we are not going to be doing much in the way of tidal stream in the Thames, but this is the sort of day in winter—grey, no wind, renewables not otherwise generating—when we should take the opportunity to bring forward further electricity supplies.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and everyone who has spoken so far in the debate.
Back in 2009 I was involved in an as yet conceptual tidal project known as the reef. It was projected to stretch from Aberthaw in south Wales to Minehead in Somerset, a distance of some 17 km. It was designed by Rupert Armstrong Evans at the behest of the University of Southampton, which asked Mr Evans to design a scheme that would be environmentally benign and would generate significant energy for the UK.
You will no doubt be aware, Ms Jardine, that the tidal difference in the Bristol channel is the second largest in the world. The idea of a tidal barrage in the Bristol channel is not new, and the location of the reef on the Aberthaw to Minehead line was first suggested in the 1930s as being the best place to generate electricity and energy from the tides in the Bristol channel.
In 2010, when the current Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was Secretary of State for the then Department of Energy and Climate Change, he announced funding for investigations of embryonic tidal technologies. Rolls-Royce and Atkins won the contract to do the study, and their work showed that a tidal scheme on the Aberthaw to Minehead route would generate per year 30.4 TW hours of electricity, significantly more than the Cardiff to Weston-super-Mare line, which was in the region of 20 TW hours per annum.
The Aberthaw to Minehead line has the added advantage that it has no mud—unlike Weston-super-Mare, as anyone who has visited Weston in the summer will know. Its seabed is rock all the way across and so has greater possibilities for locking tidal caissons holding large turbines to the sea floor. The design of the reef would allow for a maximum of 2 metres head on both the incoming and outgoing tides, which would mean that fish could safely swim through the large turbines without getting hurt. That is a big factor, and one reason for the rejection of previous tidal schemes in in the Bristol channel.
Other factors to consider are, first, that 30.4 TWh per annum is larger than the expected annual output of Hinkley Point C, which is 30.2 TWh. Secondly, a degree of energy storage from the reef would be possible.
Gideon Amos
I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point about the centrality of Somerset—in particular, the Minehead route just north of Taunton—to renewable energy. Does he accept that tidal range and tidal barrages and lagoons could make a significant contribution? As he pointed out so well, Swansea lagoon would have done up to 30 TWh, but we could do that across the UK. There could be tidal lagoons in Morecambe bay and in Cumbria, where one was proposed. That would bring investment to regions across the UK and not just benefit the south-west and Somerset.
Brian Mathew
I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which of course are true. This technology could be employed right across the United Kingdom and its amazing coastline.
A third advantage would be that ships could pass up and down the Bristol channel via large floating lock gates. Fourthly, the project could be upgraded over its life so that it would effectively be time-unlimited, even with sea level rises. A fifth point, which could well be applied to renewable schemes across the UK, is that the excess energy—or the energy that the grid cannot use at any particular time—could be diverted into the manufacture of synthetic fuels. That would be one way of dealing with the problem of what to do when we generate energy and there is no call for it. In short, this project is well worth further investigation.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his efforts to keep this issue on the agenda in Parliament. I want to reinforce the point he made about the Crown Estate Commission. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in working with communities to deliver change. The Crown Estate may own the seabed, but that does not mean the commission should be allowed to ignore the needs of others who make their living from the sea, whether through fishing, tourism or any other means. That point was picked up by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke up powerfully for the fishing industry in Brixham. The commission should also not be exempt from the duty to protect nature that other public bodies have, recognising—as we do—that the nature and climate emergencies go hand in hand.
On the wider issue, marine renewables will help us to meet our commitment to tackle the climate crisis—the single biggest challenge facing our generation.
Wera Hobhouse
My hon. Friend and I are members of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and yesterday we heard evidence from the Secretary of State. He said that the transition to net zero is the biggest opportunity for all of us, including those in the south-west, to create prosperity and the jobs we need for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Claire Young
Absolutely—it is almost as though my hon. Friend has read the next section of my speech. I was about to say that marine renewables will also boost jobs and businesses throughout the supply chain, and will be part of the solution to the energy crisis that has hit people hard in recent years.
Sadly, we are living in the shadow of the Conservatives’ failure to fully invest in renewable energy and to properly insulate our homes. The previous Conservative Government rowed back on their pledges to meet net zero and shamefully watered down policies aimed at reducing our carbon emissions. That means we need bold action now to put us back on the right course. Liberal Democrats want to see this Government step up to the plate and provide a comprehensive energy strategy designed to bring down bills, end fuel poverty, cut greenhouse gas emissions and deliver energy security.
A key part of that strategy must be marine renewable energy. I welcome the initial progress being made, with a 50% uplift in ringfenced funding support for tidal stream energy as part of the contracts for difference renewables auctions. With a significant stretch of the Severn estuary coastline in my constituency, I am keen to see the UK leading the world in tidal power. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) highlighted the opportunities in the wider south-west. Given that it is his birthday, I will not argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington today about his plans to make Taunton the centre of that enterprise. The 50% uplift is a good first step and shows that we are beginning to take the sector seriously.
However, there is so much more potential out there, if only the Government would reach out and grasp it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the parallels with the gas and oil industry, and I would like to look at wind power as an example of how these things can be done. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he made it his key priority to back renewables and managed to push through a bold climate agenda that embraced new technologies. That quadrupled the UK’s level of renewable power and made us a world leader in offshore wind energy.
The Office for National Statistics has stated that employment estimates within the low-carbon and renewable energy economy are at record levels. Because of the willingness to back British renewables, the industry is now worth an estimated £69.4 billion to the UK economy and supports thousands of jobs. The economic benefits and the need to make sure they are kept in the UK have been highlighted by many Members, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon).
It is good to hear about the important partnerships with universities, including Herriot-Watt, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, and Queen’s University Belfast, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The Government talk a lot about their drive for economic growth, and I suggest that that goes hand in hand with investing in renewable power generation. Putting a just transition front and centre allows us to not only reskill those already working in the energy industry, but upskill people to give them new opportunities around our coast. Our coastal areas have long felt left behind and forgotten about, as I know from talking to people in places such as Severn Beach in my constituency. Those areas now have the potential to become booming hubs of activity, which is why Liberal Democrats want to see marine renewables used as part of a plan to invest in them, with a dedicated skills fund to provide green skills and jobs to communities.
I would like briefly to pick up the issue of grid connections, which I have mentioned in the House in reference to other renewables and which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised today. A plan to deliver the supporting infrastructure must be part of any strategy.
Britain has long been defined by our connection with the sea that surrounds our island. We have a unique relationship with the waves, and we need to make the most of that, understanding what it looks like in the 21st century. Our marine environments are already under threat from sewage and plastic pollution. Having a dedicated marine industry strategy will allow us to carefully manage the development of our biodiverse areas out at sea. That is why we need to have new targets for marine protected areas and to mandate the Government to monitor those sites fully.
Addressing the climate crisis is about embracing opportunity and empowering communities to make the most of their surroundings. It is time that the UK stepped up as a world leader in this area, so I hope the Minister will agree to listen to our proposals, which will benefit the marine renewables sector greatly.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs, and I am sure that this is the first of many long sessions in the Chair in Westminster Hall.
Today’s debate on marine renewables has been fascinating, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. Before I go any further, I will echo his comments on EMEC, the incredibly important role it has played and Neil Kermode’s leadership over the past few years. It has delivered a world-leading technology and, indeed, makes for an inspirational visit, if anybody has the time or inclination to go north to the Orkney Islands.
It has, for the most part, been a thoroughly pleasant afternoon listening to an oral tour of some of our great coastal communities—and of Taunton and Melksham and Devizes. I have nothing against Taunton; it is just that it stood out for me. I have personal links with many of those communities, so it was a genuine pleasure to listen to the debate.
As so many people have said, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed in terms of marine energy. We are an island nation, and our history has been written by the seas. Given the potential of marine energy to help drive us towards our clean energy future, our future will be written by them too.
Energy from the sea is not a new concept in the United Kingdom, especially not to somebody who hails from Aberdeen. The UK continental shelf and the Norwegian continental shelf have been the lifeblood of the UK’s energy industry since the 1970s. Aberdeen, in the north-east of Scotland, has been the powerhouse of the European energy sector for decades. My sincere hope is that that remains so in the decades ahead.
[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has shown this afternoon, the east coast of Scotland, and particularly his constituency, is well designed for marine energy technologies, and particularly tidal. Marine energy generation in the UK covers many technologies, some of which—such as tidal and wave generation—are not yet deployed at scale and not quite at a commercial level. That also includes offshore wind, which has successfully scaled up in the United Kingdom over the past few years.
I did not want to get drawn into yet another list—I know how much the Minister enjoys my reeling off the previous Conservative Government’s successes when it comes to investment in renewable technologies—but I was prompted into it by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). I am very proud that we built the first to the fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, which are delivering power into the United Kingdom right now, that we halved our emissions and that we were the fastest cutter of emissions of any country in the G7. We are very proud of what we did, which is supporting thousands of new jobs across the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-east of England, in communities such as Grimsby and around the Humber.
The UK’s seas are home to the emerging technologies we have heard about this afternoon. Many of the technologies we will employ in the energy transition might not be fully fledged, but the previous Government were proud to announce a record £650 million of investment—for example, into the development of nuclear fusion technology, in which the UK is a world leader. We support the development of fusion and the development of technologies such as tidal, because, moving forward, we need to support all energy solutions.
As I said, the previous Government did a great deal to provide an economic framework for various technologies—especially marine energy projects—and to try to attract private sector investment through the contracts for difference scheme. In 2021, we announced that £30 million per year would be ringfenced for tidal stream projects. Allocation round 4 in 2022 made allocations to four tidal stream projects, which was a first. Allocation round 5 in 2023 is often castigated as a failed round, so obsessed are some people with wind at the expense of everything else, but it made allocations to 11 tidal projects, with capacity totalling over 50 MW. Allocation round 6, which was run under the previous Government and announced by the current Government, made allocations to six tidal stream projects, with a total capacity of 28 MW.
With the CfD mechanism, the previous Government created the conditions for new technologies such as tidal to thrive. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out at the beginning of the debate, the world’s most powerful tidal turbine was launched off the east coast of Scotland by Orbital Marine Power, an Orkney-based company. Constructed in Dundee, the 2 MW turbine capitalises on some of the strongest currents in the world. In 2024, thanks to the dogged and determined campaigning by Neil, the right hon. Gentleman and others, the then Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—now the editor of The Spectator—and I secured £3 million of new funding for EMEC, recognising the work that it does. That was in addition to having invested over £7 million between 2016 and 2022.
The question posed by many is, why bother with marine energy when we have so many other technologies we are investing in right now? We have offshore, onshore, nuclear technologies that are coming on stream, solar power and everything else. Well, it is because we must. We need to invest in all the technologies available to us in order to drive us forward into our clean energy future, to make us more energy independent and energy secure.
Sadly, there was no mention of tidal in the “Clean Power 2030” document published by the Government. There is a perception—it might not be the reality—that tidal technology has fallen through the gap. In the rush to decarbonise the energy system, the Secretary of State seems to be putting all the eggs into two baskets. It would be good if the Minister could set out that that was not the case and that the Government were as committed to tidal and wave power as they should be. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind and solar will not keep the lights on in the United Kingdom.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is criticising the lack of action on tidal, so can he explain why his Government cancelled the Swansea tidal lagoon?
Andrew Bowie
The previous Government looked at the Swansea tidal lagoon in great detail and depth, but the decision was taken before my time in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero not to proceed with it. I am informed that it was due to a combination of the cost and the reluctance of those involved to make the case that the technology would be successful. However, if it can be presented as a viable project—if the costs can be brought down and the technology can be proved to work—of course the current Government could look at it again. We should be investing in things that work and that return a benefit to the taxpayer.
Last week, the UK learned the word “Dunkelflaute”—I have probably pronounced it terribly—which expresses what happens when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. The recent cold snap illustrated just how insecure a system reliant on intermittent renewables such as solar and wind will be, so we need to invest in new baseload generation, including gas, nuclear and tidal.
Those technologies sadly got little mention in the Secretary of State’s “Clean Power 2030” action plan. There were few words about nuclear and nothing about tidal—seemingly, no plan for future generation. It is clear that a wide mix of energies will be required to ensure our energy independence and security. Offshore wind and solar are obviously essential parts of the mix, but so too will be—or at least should be—oil and gas; nuclear, large and small, with microreactors; and new and emerging technologies such as wave and tidal. The developments happening across all those technologies in this country are great.
We should support Great British and Northern Irish scientists, innovators, engineers and technicians who have the opportunity to build on the successes of the past decade, which saw Great Britain and Northern Ireland lead the world in investing in new energy generation. To echo the sentiment of other right hon. and hon. Members, we need more direction and clarity from the Government about where we are heading on this journey to more tidal and wave investment. We fully support the calls for a road map and a taskforce to drive that forward and support the industry.
I say to the Government: please do not just put all our eggs in two baskets, but invest in and support other technologies. We need all those energy sources in future. Many of the technologies will be developed and deployed around the coast, in some of the more deprived communities in this country, so the jobs and investment that they will contribute will be massively beneficial not just for our energy security but for the wider economy. If we invest now—if we spend the time and money and expend the energy—Great Britain and Northern Ireland can yet again be the beating heart of this new global industrial revolution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tempted to say that, although this debate has been great, it has gone on for so long that Ms Jardine has turned into Mr Betts, so I did not get the chance to congratulate her on her new job.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister not to comment on the benefits of that.
Michael Shanks
I won’t. Hopefully, it was not the upcoming speeches from me and the shadow Minister that drove her from Chamber. In any event, it is a delight to be here.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) not just for securing this debate and the customary way that he introduced it, but for the engagement we have had since I came into this post on this issue and many others. He is a great champion not just of marine renewables, but of Orkney and Shetland. In fact, in the last debate we had in this Chamber, he declared that God came from Orkney and Shetland. I am glad that we did not get into the theological nature of the debate this afternoon.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. I pay tribute to the various policy teams and organisations that have clearly done a very effective job of getting a consistent set of lines out to Members of Parliament; they have certainly earned their salary this week. Those are important points, and I will address each of them.
As hon. Members have said, the sector has enormous potential relating not just to energy outcomes, but to the many positive opportunities in skills, supply chains and innovation. The UK can export that innovation to the rest of the world. I will say at the very beginning that the Government are hugely supportive of marine energy, and we want to do what we can to support it.
I will start by giving some context on the Government’s position. As Members will be aware—many have raised it today—we published the “Clean Power 2030” action plan just before Christmas. That was an important step in providing some considerable detail on how the Government will deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030, which is hugely ambitious but achievable. It picks up on some of the strands that Members have raised this afternoon, including how we will deliver more effective grid connections and connections reform, as well as look at the planning system and consenting. It is about all the various things that Members have raised that hold back so much of the delivery of such projects across the country.
Clean power by 2030 is not some ideological project, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and others in the Conservative party might like to suggest. It is a critical pathway for how we deliver energy security in the long term; all our constituents have been facing a considerable cost of living crisis as a result of us not having home-grown energy security. The clean power mission is about ensuring that we not only have that energy security but tackle the climate crisis and deliver economic growth. I make no apologies for the fact that we are a Government moving at pace, because it is important that we grasp the opportunities for the implementation of both marine technologies and the many other innovative technologies that Britain can be a world leader in delivering. It is also our best opportunity to deliver cheaper energy for people across the country.
I want to pick up specifically on the point made by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the shadow Minister on the clean power action plan. It is right to say that marine renewables are not in the top lines of the pathways to clean power by 2030, because we do not think that that technology is quite at the point where it will be deployed at scale to help us to achieve that mission. That does not mean that we do not hope that projects will come onstream before 2030.
Although we are sprinting to deliver clean power by 2030, that will not be the end of the journey. By 2050, we estimate that the electricity demand in this country will have doubled, so this journey will require us to harness all possible technologies to continue to expand our energy supply over the coming decades. That is where I think marine renewables will start to play more of an important role, as they get past the commercialisation challenges and their price comes down, and as we have some more confidence in the technology.
Liz Saville Roberts
I do not know whether the Minister will touch on the Crown Estate, so I am taking the opportunity now. On the point about electricity demand doubling, there is such potential in areas such as Wales and Cornwall, if it so wishes. The concept that the Crown Estate should be so centralised in the United Kingdom works badly in the interests of not only Wales but areas such as Cornwall. What does the Minister tell his Welsh Labour colleagues about why that issue cannot be devolved, when it would make such a difference to our local economies?
Michael Shanks
I will touch on the Crown Estate later in my speech. On that specific point, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that devolving the Crown Estate is the answer, and I take issue with the suggestion that the Crown Estate’s considerations in Wales somehow come from Whitehall. I have met a number of representatives of the Crown Estate, and they are in engaged with the Welsh Government and with communities in Wales. If we can do more on that, I am very happy to reach out to the Crown Estate, although I am not directly responsible for it and it is not accountable to me. Of course, it has published a number of strategies recently and there is more coming on the long-term vision for the Celtic sea and other parts of the Crown Estate in Wales. It is about partnership work, which includes not just bringing together the Crown Estate but how we look at the planning system and consenting, as well as the strategic spatial energy plan more broadly to plan for the long term. I will come back to some of those points later.
Although marine renewables are not at the centre of that clean power action plan to 2030, they will hugely benefit from the actions that we will deliver through it, not least on grid connections. Grid connections are all about future-proofing the grid in this country so that it can meet the demand of the future, and prioritising a grid queue that has got out of control with over 700 GW waiting to connect, which is simply not deliverable.
I would like to turn to the issue of funding, but first I wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who does not look a day over 21—but that is the last time I will pander to the Lib Dems. He raised a point about Great British Energy, as did a number of other hon. Members, many of whom I cannot help but notice did not vote for it, but now want it to be headquartered in their constituencies and deliver significant amounts of funding. Great British Energy will play a role in this space. It is our first publicly owned energy champion, and it will deliver and deploy clean power across the country and help with some of the innovation and development work.
Marine renewables are exactly the kind of technology that Great British Energy might invest in at an early stage and have a significant impact on, rather than technologies that are at a more confident stage. Hon. Members may not have had the opportunity to reach out to Great British Energy—the Bill is still going through the House of Lords, so it does not technically exist yet—but the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, has had a number of meetings across the UK, has engaged on questions about a whole range of technologies and is keen to continue to do so. It will be for Great British Energy, as an independent company, to make its own investment decisions based on a whole range of factors, including the return on investment potential, but I see marine renewable technology as a potential benefit for it.
We think that tidal stream energy will play a significant role, particularly beyond 2030. As many Members raised, tidal stream will bring balancing benefits to a future electricity system that will have renewables at its heart. The balancing role that tidal can play—as a baseload, in the traditional way of thinking about the electricity system—would be important. Currently over half of the world’s tidal stream deployment is situated in UK waters. However, this Government want to go further and faster, as the technology has huge potential.
Aside from having one of the world’s best tidal resources, the UK also hosts world-leading marine energy hubs. Many hon. Members spoke about the EMEC. I have been pleased to speak to the EMEC over the last few months; the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), visited recently and I hope to get to Orkney to do the same at some point.
When we came into power, the Government took the contracts for difference option that had been started by the previous Government and increased the budget to try to get as many projects as we could over the line. That led to a 50% increase in the ringfence for tidal stream to £15 million in the last allocation round. That demonstrated our commitment to the technology and ensured that 28 MW of tidal stream was secured in allocation round 6, including 9 MW for projects based in Orkney.
Mr Carmichael
The creation of the ringfence in AR4 had an absolutely transformative impact, so my sense is that meeting the industry’s request for a much bigger ringfence in AR7 could do similar. I am not expecting the Minister to tell us today whether that is the direction of travel that the Government are intending to take—although he is welcome to—but could he at least tell us when we might get an answer on that?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. One of the things we announced before Christmas in the clean power action plan was the broad outline of where we see allocation round 7 progressing this year, alongside the clean industry bonus. We will be saying more about that in the weeks ahead when we launch the initial information on what it will look like, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is not surprised that I cannot announce anything today about what ringfences might be in place.
It is a tricky balance. The aim of the CfD and the reason that it is effective at what we want it to do is that it has to balance the deployment targets that we want to see with the critical role of delivering value for money for those who will end up paying for it—the consumers and all our constituents. Ringfences have an important role to play, but there is a danger that a ringfence could lead to us paying significantly more for a particular technology than we might want to.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being very generous. Actually, the setting of the ringfence is a process that could be significantly improved by the taskforce being set up, as that would allow the Government to understand what is going on in the industry, which improved understanding could inform decisions such as the setting of the ringfence.
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is determined to move me more quickly through my speech; I promise that I will come on to the taskforce. He is right that the more visibility we have of projects that might bid, the more aware we can be of what the sizes of ringfences and budgets for each pot in the CfD might look like. A range of factors makes that complex, such as whether projects are at final investment decision stage, or whether planning and consent are in place to allow them to bid into the auctions. There are many factors, but the visibility point is well made. On ringfencing, I hear what hon. Members have said and what has been passed to our Department over the past few months, but we will seek to balance the needs to deliver deployment and to ensure value for money when making these decisions.
A number of hon. Members raised the issues of licensing and consenting, which are at the heart of our aims for reform of the planning system. We want to continue to have a robust planning system in which communities have a voice, but we also want to move much faster in making decisions, so that projects are not held up for years on end.
Andrew Bowie
The Minister is being very generous, and I apologise for taking his time, given that I have just spoken. He talks about reforming the planning system so that projects can be built faster. Obviously, a lot of the projects we are speaking about are in Scotland. Can he update us on discussions with the Scottish Government about reform of the planning and consenting provisions in the Electricity Act 1989, which are seen by some—not by all—as an additional burden for companies seeking to develop such projects north of the border?
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s raising that point, because that is an important piece of work that we have been moving forward. With the Scottish Government, we launched a consultation, which ran for four weeks, on how the consenting process could be reformed, so that we can change the 1989 Act in a number of key areas. I think the consultation closed a couple of weeks ago; the responses are now being analysed, and we will bring forward legislation in due course.
That is a good example of partnership working with the Scottish Government on attempts to deal with some long-running issues. Across the UK, the key point is that the aim is not somehow to reduce the burden of planning where there are still opportunities for affected communities to contribute; it is about saying that it does not serve communities, developers or the Government well when decisions are held up for years on end. That is part of how we will speed these things up.
Other hon. Members mentioned the supply chain, which is incredibly important. That is why we as a Government have said that we are not agnostic about industrial policy in this country; we want manufacturing to come to these shores. It is encouraging to see that there is already significantly more UK content in tidal stream projects than in some other technologies that we have in this country. That is a real positive. I hope that we can continue that and learn from it for offshore wind and other technologies that we want to expand.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and many others asked about setting up a taskforce. I am very open minded about that, and when I met the Marine Energy Council just before Christmas to discuss this and a number of other matters, I said that. I cannot quite remember how many taskforces I am currently chairing—we do like a taskforce, and they are important —and I am extremely grateful for the expertise of those who give up their time to come into Government, to help us to shape action plans and route maps and to understand what the challenges are. I am open to the suggestion, but if we set up something like that it must have a clear purpose, and at end of it we want a set of actions that Government and others can drive forward. That is what my officials are working on, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman more about it.
On the technology point, the Government’s position is that overall the wave energy industry is at research and design phase. That is a key step on the journey to potentially achieving commercial viability, but we do not think it is quite there yet. We are aware that it has huge potential, given the nature of this country, and significant strides are being made to take it forward. My officials are regularly in touch with those in the sector and are being kept up to date on the latest developments. We hope that all these technologies will become extremely successful and the Government are happy to do whatever we can to support that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he had not had time to write a speech but then, as always, he made a very eloquent contribution. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Devon made the same point about partnership, which is critical to all of this. The coast around this country offers enormous potential in our energy future, in floating offshore wind, in which we are already a world leader in so many ways—I hope we will continue to be so—and marine renewables, in the economic programme that we have already, and particularly in fishing. The point was strongly made that this is not about competing priorities, although it might seem like that; it is about how we can bring industries together to ensure that they co-exist. We can get real strength from that.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to everyone who has spoken in the debate. If he is not able to reply to this question right away, I am happy for him to come back to me in writing. I know he is keen to engage with all the regional Administrations, and I wish to make a plea for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know it was difficult because the Assembly was not meeting, but the Assembly is back and playing the game again. Has he had the opportunity to talk to the Department for the Economy, to see how we can move forward collectively and in partnership?
Michael Shanks
That is an incredibly important point. I told the hon. Gentleman the last time we spoke on this topic that I am going to Northern Ireland soon for the next inter-ministerial working group for Energy Ministers from around the UK; I think that is in March. I hope that while I am there I have the chance to meet different organisations, because I am keen to understand how the energy system in Northern Ireland works, given the separate grid. I do not have responsibility for energy policy in Northern Ireland but I want us to work together and learn from each other.
To conclude my remarks, I am, first of all, grateful—I thought that this debate might finish at 3 o’clock and I was going to have to sum it all up in 30 seconds, but I have a little more time. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their contributions. I have come away from every energy policy debate in this place enthused by the real cross-party consensus on so much of this. There is much on which we do not agree, but on a lot of this we do. We need to hold on to that consensus because achieving the future economic and energy benefits of marine renewables will require them to outlive any particular Government. That consensus has been a strength over the past few decades and I hope it can continue. I have always said that I do not have any monopoly on wisdom on these questions and I am keen to hear and learn from projects in constituencies across the country.
It is clear that there is huge excitement in the sector. I hope that we can harness that and drive forward the development of these technologies in the future, and remove the barriers there at the moment. Those barriers will be removed even if they are not specifically barriers to marine projects, although I think marine projects will be affected by many things, such as planning and grid reform, to unlock the immense potential that we have across this country. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I hope to return to his constituency soon to see many of these projects and learn more about them. Together we can drive far more marine renewables in the UK, delivering value for money for households and harnessing the abundance of clean energy in this country.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Betts. I place on record that although, since the general election, I do not work in renewables, I still own shares in a company that does.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
That is not, strictly speaking, a point of order for the Chair, but it is relevant to the debate, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it and putting it on the record.
Mr Carmichael
I thank everybody who has attended. For the benefit of the Backbench Business Committee, who may run the rule over these things, we have had no fewer than 17 Members in the Chamber in the course of this debate, covering the length and breadth of the country. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said there was unity in the message; it was almost as if we had been briefed in these matters. This allows me to place on record my appreciation—shared by all who are engaged in this issue, I am sure—of the work of the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, and in particular, the companies that get the devices in the water. Their commitment and dedication to decarbonisation and the development of this most important sector is nothing short of inspirational. I extend my gratitude to them and everyone who has contributed today.
We are not using the full amount of time that we have been allocated, so I am off to sign up the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a Duolingo course in Italian. We may benefit from that in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.
Gas Shipper Obligation Consultation
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Today the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is publishing a consultation on the design of a gas shipper obligation. The Government intend for the gas shipper obligation to be the long-term funding mechanism for hydrogen production business model payments to initial hydrogen production projects and related costs. Decisions on funding for future hydrogen production business model projects will consider consumer affordability, value for money and fairness.
We are working to rapidly increase the roll-out of home-grown, clean energy. Publication of this consultation demonstrates this Government’s commitment to developing a thriving and world-leading UK hydrogen sector. Low-carbon hydrogen will play an important role in supporting the delivery of our clean energy superpower and growth missions, as a key enabler of a low-carbon and renewables-based energy system. It can make our energy system more flexible, resilient, and independent, and could lead to billions of pounds of savings by 2050. The Government are committed to leaving no community behind by investing in a new era for the clean energy industry and supporting good, skilled jobs as the sector matures. Low-carbon hydrogen provides opportunities for UK companies and workers, reigniting our industrial heartlands by investing in the industries of the future.
I will deposit a copy of “Funding mechanism for the Hydrogen Production Business Model” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS367]
Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Grand Committee takes note of the report from the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report 2024 (HC 228).
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, noble Lords know well that extensive and complex work is required to restore and preserve the Palace for future generations. I suspect, too, that noble Lords share my frustration that we are not further forward than we are. What I intend to highlight as I open this debate is the work undertaken, which is set out in the most recent annual report, and the path towards decision-making.
Most notably, the R&R client board, composed of the two House commissions, agreed and published the strategic case report, which sets out the future direction of the programme. Published in March 2024, the R&R strategic case sets out the three delivery options for how to restore this historic Palace, which the client board agreed should be developed in further detail.
The recommendations of the client board were informed by the extensive work of the R&R programme board in 2023. The programme board considered carefully 36 combinations of scope and delivery approaches to provide a shortlist for how R&R might be delivered. This was judged against a range of criteria, including value for money, health and safety implications, likely disruption to the work of Parliament and lasting benefits, including to accessibility and sustainability. This shortlisting process and the recommendations of the programme board informed the client board’s final decision regarding which delivery options should be developed into fully costed proposals. It is expected that this work will be presented by the end of this year to the Houses to make a decision on the preferred way forward.
The client board agreed to the development of a “full decant” option and a “continued presence” option, as recommended by the programme board, and requested that a further delivery option of a rolling sequenced programme of works to deliver “enhanced maintenance and improvement” also be developed.
Under the “full decant” option, both Houses would leave the Palace and relocate nearby on a temporary basis while the majority of the works are completed. The House of Commons Chamber would be prioritised for return to the Palace. The preferred location for temporary decant of the House of Lords would be the nearby QEII conference centre building for approximately 11 years, with continuing use of the existing southern estate—namely, Millbank House, Fielden House and Old Palace Yard.
The “continued presence” option involves the House of Commons Chamber and essential support functions remaining in the Palace throughout the works. The House of Lords would move out of the Palace for approximately 17 years until the works are complete, again with the QEII conference centre being the preferred venue. Other House of Commons functions currently based in the Palace would be relocated elsewhere on the existing House of Commons estate.
Finally, the “enhanced maintenance and improvement” option would be delivered as part of a rolling, sequenced programme of works. As far as possible, this option would be delivered in a business-as-usual environment, although up to 30% of the Palace may be decanted at any one time. As the client board commissioned detailed work on this option at a later stage in the shortlisting process last year, the timeline for EMI is still being worked through and will be disclosed in the costed proposals, alongside other comparative information.
Noble Lords will wish to know what improvements we can expect to see in the Palace following the R&R works. The client board agreed that a “reasonably ambitious” scope be adopted for the R&R works. This would see improvements to areas such as health and safety, including to fire safety and addressing asbestos; renewal of mechanical, electrical and other services—perhaps this week I should say heating; building fabric conservation; security protection measures; and accessibility. This includes improving audibility and increasing step-free access from 12% within the Palace at present to approximately 70%, with the highest step-free access provided in the most visited and used areas of the building.
This scope was agreed by the R&R client board because it would deliver significant improvements to the Palace for those who work in and visit it, while representing best value for money for taxpayers. These three options are being developed in detail over the coming months by the R&R delivery authority and Strategic Estates. Once this work is complete, all three options will be assessed by the programme and client board. These options will be costed and presented by the end of this year to enable, as I said, informed decisions by the Houses and a genuine choice on the preferred way forward.
Turning to the contents of the 2024 annual progress report, I will first note the expenditure. The annual report sets out the financial performance and expenditure of the R&R programme. In the 2023-24 financial year, the delivery authority expenditure amounted to £75 million, with a further £5 million of expenditure by Parliament’s R&R client team.
In addition to supporting the development and assessment of options considered by the programme board, which I have outlined, activities last year included continued work on complex surveys to the Palace, which are helping to shape the detailed plans for design and construction work. This is enabling the Houses to develop the most accurate building information record of the Palace’s condition that has ever existed and will support maintenance of the Palace.
In 2023-24, 24,500 hours of intrusive survey work was completed, which included eight bore-holes, bringing the total to more than 63,000 hours of intrusive surveys being completed. The deepest of the bore-holes completed last year was 84 metres—275 feet in old money. To put that in another context, the Elizabeth Tower is 96 metres tall. That bore-hole was the deepest to date conducted by the R&R programme and will allow surveyors for the delivery authority to understand further the ground conditions, archaeology and other useful design parameters ahead of the future works.
Archaeological discoveries have included sections of the ancient river walls and piles from the Charles Barry construction. The delivery authority, working with Parliament’s heritage and collections team, also completed its audit of the approximately 13,000 collections objects—paintings, sculptures, furniture, decorative arts and other unique and important objects—to consider how these can best be managed during the R&R programme.
The concept designs for the recommended outcome level for the Palace restoration works and the outline design for House of Lords temporary accommodation also progressed in the last year.
Engagement and communications activity supported the development of the strategic case and informed decision-making by the R&R political boards with the parliamentary community and external experts, and engagement with industry and professional sectors across the UK.
Tours of the Palace basements and the historic Cloister Court continue to be made available to Members and staff. More than 80 Peers have taken this tour since April 2022. I suspect all noble Lords present have undertaken the tour, but I recommend it wholeheartedly. It captures and makes one understand the challenges, and indeed the opportunities, of restoration. Noble Lords can sign up by contacting the R&R client team. One-to-one briefings can also be arranged with R&R officials to discuss the programme in more detail.
Engagement about the programme has not been confined to Westminster. As set out in the annual report, more than 250 representatives of supply chains and small businesses, and local officials in all four nations of the UK, have been met with to highlight future opportunities that the R&R programme may provide to businesses across the UK. It is perhaps a good reminder that this programme can have benefits all across the United Kingdom. Over 50% of the value of contracts awarded by the delivery authority has been to companies based outside London and the south-east.
I hope that what I have sought to outline demonstrates that there has been tangible progress—politically, with the agreement of the strategic case and the three options taken forward for development, and at the technical level to assess in much greater detail the condition of the Palace and develop approaches for how the building could be restored and renewed.
Noble Lords will want assurances that the expenditure spent on the programme has been necessary. Expenditure for the client team and delivery authority is scrutinised in various ways. The client team, as a joint parliamentary department funded by both Houses, is subject to the scrutiny processes faced by the budgets of both Houses’ administrations, such as the Finance Committees of each House. The annual estimate for the independent delivery authority is scrutinised by the client team, the programme board—including its sub-board, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and previously the noble Lord, Lord Morse, both of whom I am pleased to see participating in today’s debate—and the client board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are also members. Finally, there is the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, of which I am a member, receiving advice from the Treasury before it is laid in the House of Commons. The programme also continues to draw on outside, independent expertise to provide assurance on plans. This will help to ensure that costed proposals brought forward are robust, providing confidence to both Houses in the information presented.
While we prepare to take a decision on R&R, work on the Palace is not standing still. Parliamentary teams continue to move forward with projects to ensure the safety of the Palace, and all who work within it, before the R&R works commence. This includes plans to repair the Lords Chamber roof; the Victoria Tower programme, which will commence this year alongside wider stonework conservation repairs; and mechanical, electrical, public health and fire safety replacement of life-expired services to ensure the continued operation of the Palace until the start of R&R.
This explains the direction of the programme and the work undertaken over the last year. I continue to emphasise the responsibility that we all have, as custodians of this historic Palace, for the decisions we will need to make on the way forward. The ongoing work that I have outlined will enable the Houses to make the significant decision on the way forward for the programme based on evidence, and—I emphasise this—to make progress. I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords today. It is a subject on which all of us in this Room and well beyond have our concerns, we are putting in place now what will, I hope, provide us with some lasting solutions. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the Senior Deputy Speaker. I put on record my thanks to him and all those on the two commissions, the programme board for its work and the client team. I apologise to the Committee because I will be saying nothing that I have not said before, and therefore nothing original, but there is nothing new about that in our House. I recommend again that people read Mr Barry’s War, because it is instrumental in understanding the nightmare of getting any kind of renovation of this place and what happened in 1834 and beyond. I fear that we are on the same trajectory today, although perhaps not of 160 years or whatever it is.
I would like to say two things this afternoon. First, I appreciate the email that went out two days ago to request comments and engagement from Members of both Houses; reinforcing that has been very helpful. Secondly, the reason we are here now is the way in which we have had stop/start and not just hiccups but complete reversals. I was very interested in what the Senior Deputy Speaker had to say about the bore-hole. “Bore” is a very good word in these circumstances because we appear now to be doing things that have been done previously. We appear to be covering ground that I thought had been covered by the sponsor body in the early days following the 2019 Act. I thought we went over quite a lot of the ground in the original joint scrutiny committee of 2018, on which I had the genuine pleasure of serving. I thought it was going to be the most unhappy period of my life in politics, but it turned out to be fascinating.
Then, of course, we had the debate on the 2019 Act. I just want to reinforce that we have an Act of Parliament. When I have talked to those working on this programme, past and present, it has struck me that the Act of Parliament is the last thing people turn to. If we are to change elements of that Act, we should bring forward legislation to do so rather than presume that we can override it; I will come back to that in a moment. It is not easy. I do not underestimate for a minute the difficulty that people have gone through. The decision was taken back in February 2022 to change the formula and therefore to change the personnel, many of whom had lived with the programme for quite a long time and had become experts in the challenges. Those recruited to the client team and the new programme board were therefore people coming into it new.
Of course, at the moment we are faced with more than half the House of Commons being new Members from July last year and, as a consequence, coming at this issue fresh. That brings a wholly new challenge. One of the benefits of the House of Lords, of which there are many, is some degree of continuity. We in this House are in the position of having voted on more than one occasion on the options—because the options really have not changed over this past eight and a half years, have they? The options that have been spelt out this afternoon are full decant, which is by far the most economic and practical option; partial decant, which means that, whatever happens, the House of Lords decants; or a muddle over something like 48 years in trying to do this piecemeal. We have been doing piecemeal for several decades.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for indicating the costs and expenditure that are necessary to keep the building and Parliament functioning but lack transparency. He mentioned the word “transparency”, for which I am grateful, but, like others, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has been doing his best to try to get into some of the detail on how decisions are made and who actually makes them in the end. I know that, theoretically, the commissions do, but the Peers’ Entrance fiasco—it has been a fiasco, with the kind of money we have spent on it—is an example of the way in which minds have been changed over the years.
If we can, we must make some progress in 2025 on either reaffirming or changing the decision—but determining it with a manageable timetable, with commitment from both Houses and without interference by single individuals who do not like a particular programme, timetable or outcome and have, over the past three years, grossly interfered with making progress. Let us speak a language that we all understand in saying that that has happened, and try to address the future.
The political consequences of the decisions made are never talked about. Particularly in this House, we need to understand the decisions that will be made by Members about whether they stay on as active Peers and work through the consequences that will have for planning the decant and the office, administrative and support systems that will be required, the political consequences for the balance of groups in our House, and the nature of how we plan for that in a way that we have not done so far. Reducing the numbers in this House, which I am totally in favour of, requires us to take account of personal decisions that will be made once people know what the true timetable will be, even if they believe it is likely to slip.
My final point is, as ever, about access. I welcome very strongly in the introduction this afternoon the commitment to reach 70% access into and within the Palace of Westminster. That is a substantial improvement on previous commitments. It is not what was expected in the 2019 Act, when we envisaged between 80% and 90% access, but it is progress.
I want to reinforce that with new members of the client team and new people brought into the delivery authority, it is really important that they understand that it is about not just restoration but renewal. That was spelled out in the Act after considerable negotiations across groups and with Ministers at the time, who were extremely helpful in understanding that we are thinking of 50, 100 or 200 years ahead, not just the immediate future.
My final final point is: why do we keep on rolling up the total cost in a way that frightens everyone to death? It frightens parliamentarians, it frightens the public and it is a gift to the media. Why do we not talk about the annualised expenditure over the period of time we are talking about? If we had that, people would understand the nature of the investment and the possibilities of managing it within very tight budgets —and whatever the future might hold, they will continue to be very tight—and they might understand that we will then have the kind of ambition that occurred when Notre-Dame, or at least a substantial part of the interior, burned down. The ambition of the French was to make sure that they did a thorough and tremendous job of both restoration and renewal, and they did it in a timescale at which we can only be amazed. We have a history in this country of failing to be able to deliver major projects. This one should be an exemplar. It should be one where we get the costings right to begin with and get the timetable realistic. With artificial intelligence and the use of new technology, we can do things now that we could not even have envisaged back in 2016. It is time to move on from the sterile debates that we have had and to look to the future.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with whom I have had many encounters over the years. I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for a characteristically thorough, rigorous, courteous and careful report, but decisions have to be made. It is now just on 10 years, and we cannot faff about any longer. We cannot kick it into the long grass, hope an election will come along, conceal or deceive. It is not going to work. We have to make decisions, and we have to make brave decisions.
I was reflecting on those infrastructure projects that many of us have been involved in. Very few people who come into politics know anything about project management or infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, does because he was leader of Sheffield City Council and knew a lot about this. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Morse, knows a great deal about this area, but many of us came as innocents to the subject.
We have all been bruised and burned in the bonfire of public opinion and hostility, and we have all had to make impossible decisions. I suppose my first one was after there had been 29 reports into why London had too many hospitals, all not very good. It needed to have fewer, better hospitals—it needed critical mass—and they needed to integrate with the universities. I just knew that I had to make this decision. Sir Bernard Tomlinson came along and helped on it. He could not believe the hostility and viciousness of people in the public sector. My former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, used to say that the charm of a board is often in inverse proportion to the virtue of its project. The BAT board was charming, but the Great Ormond Street board was often very difficult indeed. As many in health will know, people can get very emotional. But I made the decisions, and I was not going to back off them.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I commend the noble Baroness on what she is saying. Perhaps she will recall that on this issue—perhaps not on others—I backed her to the hilt as the shadow Health Secretary, and nearly lost my place on the shadow Cabinet as a consequence but was praised enormously by Tony Blair. I thank her for that.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
That has made my day.
People do notice. Various vice-chancellors kept writing and saying, “We’ve got a new project or development, and we wouldn’t have had that without the decision”. This is not supposed to be a vain speech in any way; I am just trying to gird us up to make the decisions. No more paralysis by analysis—it is time for action, not options. We know the options; we do not want to know them.
I will touch on one or two other examples. There were terrible rows about the British Library—which is now an iconic, world-famous library—with rage that it had overspent, overrun and so on. Gloriously, at the Millennium Commission I was charged with all sorts of projects. For example, there was rage about the Portsmouth millennium tower, which was going to cost £32 million but actually cost nearly £40 million. It opened five years after the millennium; what a disgrace. I was getting a fierce kicking by the media on this one, and I needed to go and look at my sources. So I thought, “Well, the Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805, and Nelson’s Column wasn’t unveiled until 1843—and the price had doubled”. So I felt I was not alone. These matters are almost inevitable.
But what is best practice? We cannot talk just about all these problems. Who has done this spectacularly well? I must declare all my interests from my professional life. The 2012 Olympics were an excellent example of project delivery and management. I say this to the politicians: appreciate that, of all those who campaigned for the Olympics, none of them was on the implementation team. This is one of the dilemmas of government. You campaign in opposition, but in government you have to implement, and they are totally different skills. Most people, when they come into government, think that a press notice is an implementation plan. You have a 10-year programme, as a Minister, to work out that this is not actually the same activity at all.
I decided that the Olympics were a very good example. What was their advantage? They had a deadline: a decision had to be made. Otherwise, we would be humiliated in public. Of course, this was Notre-Dame’s great advantage, in a sense: a crisis mobilises people, so action had to be taken and taken fast. It is difficult for us to create that sort of timescale.
Money is always tight: there is never enough money. What the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said was interesting. You must not be entirely duplicitous, because that just generates the rage and cynicism of the public. You can modify scope. Some of the ideas for the redevelopment or refurbishment of Parliament are thrilling. Somebody who helps me was talking about the US congressional visitor centre—a wonderful, state-of-the-art centre. We should take the opportunity to make this a great centre of education, tourism and so forth.
Personally, I am for the decant and am very in favour of Portcullis House for the Commons, but I am not an expert, I am not on any of the committees, and I hope I will not be serving on any of them. I remember going around with Michael Hopkins when he first finished the design—I was a Heritage Minister—and it is a thrilling location. But I am sure we have to move—we cannot do it in half-measures.
The real issue is to have a good client. A former Permanent Secretary used to do a lot of the funding of the renovation of some of the royal palaces, and it was quite difficult at that stage to get not only the lead members of the Royal Family but some of the junior members to realise that if you have a contract, every time you modify it, tinker with it or change it, that is money down the drain. You have to make your decision, stick with it and get on with it, and that of course is what we have to do.
I so admire the committee. Michael, the chairman, is a really excellent man, as we know, and his team are excellent. But poor them, having to deal with parliamentarians, because parliamentarians cannot help but think in five-year terms, and they are particularly vulnerable to getting a kicking from public opinion and so on. I am very sympathetic, and I greatly admire all those who have taken on this huge responsibility. I have looked at their backgrounds. They are obviously extremely competent, capable people, and let us hope they can stay the course and not be driven to frustration by all of us. In short, I admire all those who have put so much into this already, but it cannot go on; we now have to make decisions at the earliest opportunity.
I have a small point that I know noble Lords will appreciate. As I understand it, the renewal and restoration of Parliament requires quite a large working area, and I think Victoria Tower Gardens is the area they will be looking for. That is surely the final nail in the coffin of the ridiculous Holocaust memorial museum, which is an utter waste of public money. It should shoot off to the Imperial War Museum or somewhere else. This is another excellent argument in that department.
I will leave noble Lords with the comments of that Anglo-Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke—words that I often used to refer to:
“Those who carry on great public schemes must be proof against the most fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults, and, worst of all, the presumptuous judgements of the ignorant upon their designs”.
In my humble opinion, courage, tenacity and decision-making are required.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we are at last now reaching the critical decision-making phase in relation to the restoration and renewal of this building. I should say up front that although I am currently a member and deputy chair of the R&R programme board, and chair of its sub-board, I am speaking today on my own behalf, not on behalf of any of those bodies. I think we all share the frustration that this seems to be taking a very long time, but I want to try to strike a slightly more optimistic note, at least looking forward.
Although many noble Lords have the impression that not much has been happening over the last few years since the delivery authority was established, that is not correct. This is a very significant project, and an awful lot of work has been done to ensure that we are able to make the right decision later this year. I have been critical, and remain critical to an extent, of the amount that the delivery authority has spent or is spending—and perhaps slightly of how it has been spent. To refer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about whether we are duplicating bore-holes and things, I do not think we are, but for various reasons they have happened slightly later in the process than would have been good. They seem to be getting there now, which is good.
There is no doubt at all that a lot of extremely valuable work has been carried out. Importantly, huge expertise and a lot of very deep knowledge about the building have been created. I think we all know all too well that starting a project of this nature without that detailed and deep knowledge is a recipe for disaster.
In addition, over the last few years the governance of the project has changed and is—in my view, anyway—working rather better. The two Houses are working much more closely together and are better, if not perfectly, aligned. In particular, our in-house Strategic Estates team, which knows the building well over the history, is much more involved, which is positive. The delivery authority and Strategic Estates are now working really quite closely together and we seem to have reduced the “them and us” mentality that I think quite seriously dogged the project in its earlier days.
We will make the decision as to how we renew the Palace later this year, with the two Houses making the final decision after it has been recommended by the client board, which is the two commissions working together. It is the process to make that decision that I want to speak about a little. As we heard, three possible options are now being worked on. These are the original “full decant” option, the variation of that option where the Commons would retain a continued presence in the Palace and the Lords would decant, and the newer and slightly less mature option that has become known as “enhanced maintenance and improvement” or EMI, where the project would be phased over a longer period. But let us be brutally honest: all three options will take many years. None of them is quick. I suspect that none of us in this Room is likely, even on the shortest decant process, to come back into this building in our time.
Historically, there has been a bit of a tendency for people to support one or other option, in effect to prejudge the outcome before the output from all the work carried out by the experts over the last few years has been presented. I have argued before that the debate had become rather Brexity, with decanters in one camp and non-decanters in another, so I urge noble Lords to be open-minded. We have not yet seen the findings of all the work that has been carried out, including the expected timeframes, costs, impact of safety and security or levels of disruption.
What is important is that we make the right decision—the one that will stick. The decision should be taken only once we have seen those findings and plans. Anything else would be based not on evidence but on just our own gut feel. The other criticism of politicians, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, is that we are all slightly guilty of becoming armchair experts on things. We need to trust the experts who have been working so hard in recent years, so I hope noble Lords will be open-minded and park any judgment until they have seen the evidence and what is actually proposed.
I also want to comment briefly on the third option, the so-called, and perhaps badly named, “enhanced maintenance and improvement” option. It is sometimes described by some Members—I think we have heard it already today—as kicking the can down the road or the “do nothing” option. Someone suggested to me a few days ago that it just means muddling along as we have been to date. I hope I can assure noble Lords that that really is not the case. All three options are being scoped as far as possible to achieve the same levels of outcome as far as safety, accessibility and so on are concerned.
On accessibility, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that the accessibility and inclusion aspects of this are absolutely front and centre of the appraisal process that we are going through for all three. The difference between them is only how the work would be carried out and over what timeframe.
Noble Lords may remember that we were told in the past that because the building’s services are a single set of services, serving the whole building, it would be possible to do this work only in a single stage and therefore the “full decant” option was the only realistic way forward. But following the work that has been done, it is clear that that is not necessarily the case. There appear to be ways of breaking this up and phasing the work over a longer period, which would potentially reduce the requirement for expensive and disruptive decants.
That is not to prejudge the outcome. I have no idea at this stage which will be the better option: “full decant” may well be the right way to go, or it may not. I want to reassure noble Lords that all three options will be appraised fully and that all three aim to attain the same level of outcome. All will be appraised against the same criteria, which include, among other things, fire protection, health and safety and security, accessibility and inclusion, as I have just mentioned, business continuity and disruption during the process, value for money—very important—timescale, the impact on the heritage of the building and the environmental and social value elements.
We are at a critical point. We must make a decision this year. We must make the right decision that will stick and will save this iconic building for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, just mentioned, noble Lords will have received an email recently from the chair of the programme board, Judith Cummins, and from me, encouraging them to engage with the process during this critical next few months. I want to use this opportunity to encourage noble Lords who have not yet done so to take up the opportunity for the tours and the one-to-one sessions with the R&R team. Most importantly, I again urge noble Lords not to prejudge the outcome before the evidence has been provided, to be open-minded and to have trust in the experts who are doing the work. That should make it more likely that we make the right decision for the building and for Parliament.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for his very clear annunciation of the report. It is tempting to look backwards, to dwell on the sorry story of complete failure of political will and the shocking neglect of our heritage. To an extent, it is inevitable that this debate will feel a bit like Groundhog Day. However, I will concentrate on the political sell, on health and safety, and on the risk to our working relationships in this building as it continues to deteriorate.
This morning, a friend and neighbour in Peckham asked me what I was working on. I said, “Well, Parliament’s falling down and it’s going to cost gazillions”. She said, “Well, there’s only two buildings that matter—the Tower of London and Parliament. Tell them to get on with it, or I’ll come down and sort them”. I thought that was quite a good reaction from somebody who had not thought very much about the issue.
This reflects what the report says about public support. The same public have little or no confidence in politicians. The symbolism is important. Although I take what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and will try to be as open-minded as I can, not being an expert, a total decant would be a signal that we embrace that symbolism. I make a plea to the client board that the narrower issues of finance, architecture and complexity should not swamp that message that we are protecting our heritage. One of the reasons why people are very often disenchanted with politicians is the short-termism and the feeling that they are managing decline rather than protecting our heritage. This is a very good opportunity to try to turn that around.
Of course there will be grumbles about money; frankly, that will happen whatever we do. I have to say that my heart sank when I read that the client board had asked for work on the third option. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, this work will prove me wrong. However, what happens if there is a disaster in the meantime? I assume that there are contingency plans, but it will mean us being forced to take drastic action rather than controlling events. I still believe that this could happen in this building, which is so fraught with difficulties—not just leaks and security issues and all the stuff going on in the basement. This really could happen. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, can reassure us that there are contingency plans. I am not asking what they are.
When I chaired the former Information Committee 10 years ago, I visited the archives in the Victoria Tower. I could not believe that we were storing our national assets in such an inappropriate building. This has been going on for so much longer than the 10 years that was referred to. Last year, I fell in the Committee Corridor on the first floor because there was a hole under the carpet. It turned out that the metal covers for computer wiring had worked loose and had moved, and repairs had to be done all along that corridor. Members will have noticed the different strips of carpet that have appeared there. Although I went down like a sack of potatoes, fortunately I am well padded and suffered no harm, except perhaps for a dent in the dignity area. However, what might have happened if someone with a stick was walking along, or someone suffering from osteoporosis? It could have been a life-changing experience.
I believe that when work starts on the basement area, it will be a horror story—I fully expect to find Peter Cushing and Vincent Price down there. Bear in mind that the “pipes and wires” referred to on page 24 of the report stretch from Westminster Bridge to Victoria Gardens and will be a continuous process. That is where I find it difficult to find a patchwork approach, or option three, but I am still striving to keep an open mind.
Fifteen years ago, I prepared a report for the then Government on fatalities in the construction industry. Noble Lords might ask what on earth is the relevance of that here. I spent a lot of time on building sites and refurbishment areas, and refurbishment is the area where most accidents take place. It does not take a lot of intelligence to know that you do not leave the family in the house when you are fixing the foundations. Health and safety and access, as has already been said, are vitally important issues, and that includes the workers on site both now and in the future. I believe that it is unfair on our maintenance staff that we expect them to make do and mend in increasingly challenging conditions, and construction workers should be enabled to get on with their job in a controlled environment, not with hundreds of busy people milling around.
My final point is on a more domestic issue, perhaps a sensitive one. It is vitally important and harder to describe. It is the relationship between us as politicians and the administration. As the building throws up more and more problems, the administration does its best to keep the show on the road, and Members, and possibly the leadership, become more and more stressed, anxious and grumpy about the developments or the lack of developments. I believe that there are real dangers here with regard to the working relationship that we have and the understanding, not least because we have this not very well defined area of who is responsible for running what and where the power lies. No matter how much it is written down as joint responsibility, joint boards, joint programmes, this, that and the other, it is not the clearest possible management system that any chief executive officer would welcome if they were taking over an organisation. The longer we allow this to continue—someone actually mentioned 74 years to me as one of the possible options—the less effective we will be as an institution and the more difficult it will be to change the culture of our organisation.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I realise that as a chartered accountant, my remarks will be quite different to those of some of the other speakers, and I apologise for that in advance. Noble Lords have already had a very clear exposition of the project from the Senior Deputy Speaker and my noble friend Lord Vaux. We have three options to look at, and I am planning to focus primarily on one of them. The others have been covered very well, but I will just say a bit more about the EMI—enhanced maintenance and improvement—option. I have no preference about which option is selected, but I think that it is the one that is possibly the most difficult to understand at this stage, and it needs to be understood. I will make a few remarks only on that subject. All the projects will take a significant time—we have heard that—but it is generally expected that this enhanced maintenance and improvement project will take much longer. That is the first point.
From this, there are more possibilities, or probabilities, for changes in scope to occur during the project because, if you are talking about a project going on for decades and decades, what is wanted will change. People have to understand that. Therefore, we are not talking about a certain prediction of what will in fact be in scope of the project. That will change, or is highly likely to change, perhaps because of inflation, which is higher than we provided for—of course, we are providing for it—and because of changes in information and technology that are almost certain to happen, given the rate of change, as well as because of changes in standards on safety and accessibility. We take those into account, but they are highly likely to change.
From my experience of being involved in major projects, I can say that one of the features of these types of changes is that they all involve additional costs. I have never yet heard somebody running a project run into my room and say, “Look, good news: we’ve changed the scope of the project and we’re cutting a quarter off the cost”. That is just never going to happen. The cost will go only one way: upwards, and quite substantially so. There is already a substantial existing repairs and renewals programme running in the Palace, estimated at £1,045,000 a year—no, a week; I wish it were a year. That is a very substantial sum of money.
It is important to realise that it will be difficult to distinguish this new expenditure on enhanced maintenance and improvement from the existing activity, and I am concerned about that. As we go forward, in future, will we really be able to keep these streams of activity, happening on the same site, clearly separated? I do not doubt that we have plans to do that, but it will be challenging, I suspect. We need to think about that very carefully and make sure that we do not find costs sliding from one category to another because it is managerially convenient at that moment in time. This is not something I am making up, by the way. There are current experiences where you can see that sort of thing happening. So, if we are going to go for this approach, we will need to go very strongly indeed in terms of financial control at a level that we do not always accomplish at the present time, frankly.
The reason we are considering EMI alongside the other options, which were there much earlier, is that a significant number of Members were not attracted to decanting. They made their views clearly known. Therefore, we found ourselves with Members who told us that they were prepared to accept inconvenience and delay as a price for staying in the Palace. But, having contracted to pay that price, will they continue to want to pay it once we get into the project? I am sorry but there is such a thing as renegotiation of a contract, and there are plenty of Members who are perfectly capable of renegotiating this one. I just remark to noble Lords that, if this approach were to be agreed, we may find that there is more negotiation and more change in the project.
Finally, there is a risk that this approach may be regarded as kicking the can down the road, as regards substantial expenditure at a time when the public finances are under extraordinary pressure. It is not just ordinary pressure right now; it is extraordinary pressure. Therefore, we must recognise that, although there may be no kicking the can down the road, the temptation when we actually come to vote may be quite strong. It is worth watching out for that.
My conclusion is that, if we select EMI, those initials may come to mean “enhanced money invested” instead of “enhanced maintenance and improvement”—that is quite possible. That is my little bit of poetry for today. We need to exercise vigilance if we go down this route. I am not saying that we cannot do it, but—I am repeating myself—it will require a quality of vigilance and control that we do not always exhibit. Therefore, we need to do better on that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morse, who set out the scene wisely on how we manage a future that will undoubtedly change.
I thank the committee, the staff and the contractors for their work on this marathon of marathons. I also thank ParliAble for advocating for disabled staff and parliamentarians. I am particularly grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had with an architect and some of the staff to discuss disability access in the proposed committee rooms and Lords Chamber. I will return to disability access as my principal point in a minute.
First, though, I was for a decade senior bursar of first one and then a second Cambridge college, both of which had listed buildings. Partial decants or, worse, the “muddling through” option, are financially irresponsible and utterly impractical—I have tried them. We are finding the current works difficult, but that is nothing to these two options. So, frankly, for both the public purse and the smooth running of both Houses of Parliament, option 1, the full decant, is the only sensible option.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to say that costs should be annualised. Cambridge college bursars discussed this matter regularly in my day. The older colleges thought that 100 years minimum was probably quite a wise move. Indeed, when we were discussing chapel repairs, the kinsman of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, George Reid, senior bursar of St John’s, turned to the bursar of Emmanuel, founded merely in the 17th century, and said, “You modern post-Reformation colleges”. This period of time that we are considering is absolutely vital for us. We are not building for the next 50 years—indeed, if we go for the “muddling through” option, it will not be done in 50 years—but perhaps we are following Barry and doing it for the next 200 years.
Turning to accessibility, I want to start with the bullet point on accessibility on page 13, which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to. It mentions
“an average enhancement from the current 12% step free access to circa 60% across the Palace and greater coverage in public areas”.
The improvements to the visitor routes are really helpful, because the public have found it very difficult. But I am concerned that only 60% step-free access—the detail of what that means is unspecified—will still mean that parts of the Palace will be no-go areas or that there will be equally bad alternative routes. I use these daily, as do my other colleagues in wheelchairs, and they are long, slow and sometimes reliant on other people’s intervention. For example, when I wish to go into one of the W committee rooms off Westminster Hall, I have to go to the stair lift and find a member of staff, who has to ring the member of staff with the key, who then has to come back, unlock the stair lift and turn it on for me. I have to repeat the same when the meeting I am attending has finished. On one occasion, it took half an hour to find someone, so effectively I missed the meeting. I know that in theory that should not happen, but it does.
The ministerial corridors immediately behind the Speaker’s end of the House of Commons are also inaccessible because the lift is behind a stone arch and you cannot get a wheelchair through it. If you go the long way around, because of the way the stairs work, you have to leave your wheelchair on a landing from the wheelchair-accessible lift and go upstairs, which is fine for those who can do it. I understand from the 60% figure that some of these things will not be dealt with, and that concerns me.
As I have already mentioned, we hope that the fully restored Palace will last 200 years, and it is absolutely vital that the vast majority of the Palace is accessible—fully accessible, including step-free. I have already mentioned the tourist route being more accessible, but why, oh why, are the two lifts by the Commons cafeteria linked when one of them is too small for wheelchairs? By the way, the same is true in Portcullis House: the only way to get to the lower ground if you are coming from the top floor is to get into the next lift, go down to the ground floor, get out and then call the lift to go to the lower ground floor. That sort of practicality is something that gets lost in mechanical design because it is convenient to have two lifts side by side that operate together. The problem is that, when I am going from Portcullis House back into this building to vote, I can miss the vote. So, I am really grateful that the House still allows me to vote remotely, because otherwise it would be hit and miss. I cannot use the escalator; I get completely stuck. I am making this point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would make similar, or perhaps different, points about wheelchair users. We cannot use the building as it stands now in the same way as everybody else, and most people are not aware of those issues, which is completely understandable.
Security now means that heavy doors are shut when tourists are going through. Normally, in any other building, you would hold them back with electric magnets, or you would have a pass reader and they would open automatically. I am told that that will not happen, partly for heritage reasons and partly for security reasons. Because of my condition, I cannot open the heavy doors. I have had to ask permission to have the doors just outside here from Peers’ Lobby into this corridor held open for 10 minutes after the House rises because otherwise I literally cannot get out without somebody opening those doors. I really hope that the committee will look at the disability issues in the day-to-day life of different people. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would have many points about how he and his guide dog have to navigate the building.
I move to committee rooms and the Chambers, including this Moses Room, in the future. This space and the space opposite are the only places that wheelchairs can fit in this Room. We cannot get into the back row, we cannot get down to the top end, so if we were Ministers or shadow Ministers, we could not participate, we cannot get out at the back and once we are in place, we block everybody because they cannot get past the wheelchairs. I know that work on the Moses Room is planned, and I am really grateful, but it is the mindset for the design of the future that I am most concerned about.
I am particularly concerned about the Lords Chamber. I thank the Lord Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Black Rod for listening to my concerns and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I am really grateful; it was much appreciated. Politicians want to sit with their groups. Even Cross-Benchers would describe themselves as politicians, although they are not in a political party. It is good that, unlike the Commons, our House has what my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester describes as the “mobility Bench”—the nobility on the mobility Bench.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in the Chamber the other day that she found it very difficult sitting beside me when I was being a Front-Bencher because people immediately assumed that she was in the same party as me. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I sit beside each other the whole time, and we quite often have to sit beside each other and argue completely different points. That changes the dynamic of how the politics work. It is not like the European Parliament or other modern ones where you may even be seated alphabetically. In our House, it really matters.
I was very disappointed that when the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I met the people to look at the plans no disabled politicians had been talked to before they were drawn up. In the plans that we saw, we could not get our wheelchairs around the new committee rooms planned on the main committee room corridor. There is no facility for a Minister or shadow Minister from the main opposition party to speak at the Dispatch Box because you cannot get a wheelchair in there. There will be some tip-up seats, which is good, but that will still mean that some people who are not in the main parties will not be able to sit with their colleagues. I do not believe that this matter is yet being addressed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, we are now reaching the key decision-making point. Nearly 200 years ago, Peers and MPs would have been carried upstairs, in or out of their bath chairs, to get into the Chamber. Today, many disabled Peers and staff still find the Palace seriously problematic to navigate and participate in, including not being able to fulfil their roles politically. To put it at its simplest, do we really want a disabled parliamentarian in 150 years’ time to face not being able to speak from the Dispatch Box? I hope these issues can be readdressed.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. With her customary clarity and passion, she raised a number of interesting issues that I hope very much are paid attention to as these three options are worked up. We had two interesting speeches from my noble friends Lord Vaux and Lord Morse. Apart from saying that I agree with what they said, I hope that everyone in the Room understands how much we owe these two, who have been using their skills to bear down on the costs. The costs that they have identified and saved run into the millions, and we owe them an enormous amount of gratitude for putting in a lot of work. They have recently swapped jobs: my noble friend Lord Vaux was the chair of the Finance Committee and went off to be chair of the sub-group. They swapped jobs to be able to have continuity and to continue this vital phase.
The four of us are sitting here because the other person to whom we owe a lot is the noble Lord, Lord Best, who we will hear from shortly. He was on the sponsor body in some of the very tough years early on and particularly over Covid, when he was still turning up to all the meetings there. We owe him a lot. I wanted to record that first.
I refer to my register of interests, particularly my shareholding in Hiscox Group, which is if not the largest, one of the largest insurers of heritage buildings and assets in Europe. This was an area of my responsibility for many years. I will return in a moment to some comments about risk in the project, but I want to be yet another person underlining the critical importance of arriving, this year, at a decision between the three remaining options and starting the process of implementing that decision.
As we have already heard from the Senior Deputy Speaker and others, and as is summarised in the report that we are discussing, the annual cost of the delivery authority, the budgeted bit, is more than £80 million. That is an enormous amount of money. It is a tap that is wide open and pouring public money away. If we do not reach a decision, the tap will not be shut off. It is extremely important, therefore, that we move from the choosing part of this project to the implementation phase. I am coming on to the large number of moving parts that are going on.
Coming back to risk, apart from turning off the tap there is a risk problem in the building. There are two types of risk with a building such as this. There is the catastrophic risk—a major fire wiping out one-third of the building or something like that—and there is the attritional risk. These are the small things. In her wonderful speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred to an attritional risk going on inside this building. In recent years, the catastrophic risk has been patrolled by a series of people who we probably do not know, although I do now know them. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I had a very interesting meeting with them. They have been doing very clever things in the roof of this building and all around the building to patrol the catastrophic risk. I fully accept that the catastrophic risk is much less now than it was five or 10 years ago. That is a great achievement.
However, the attritional risks have been rising, just as they do in an old motor car. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, about her attritional risk. We experienced the attritional risk of the heating problems this week. We have experienced the attritional risk of the electrical problems this week. There are many other attritional risks. There have been numerous plumbing attritional risks, with big chunks of the building no longer there. This attritional risk continues to rise. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I were looking at some figures when we were discussing this. They indicated that there is a relentless rise in the level of attritional risk. Eventually, you can get a concatenation of attritional risks which mean that you would have a serious interruption in the ability to use this building. That is a second reason, apart from the money tap, for making sure that we achieve a resolution on which of the three options. I am pretty even-handed among the options and happy to go with whatever looks sensible when things come out, but we must have a choice.
Moving on to some practical issues that have come up, the struggle has been to get all three options to the same level of development so that all Members of our House and the other place can look at things in a comparable way, a bit like when you are buying an Amazon product, and say that having looked at them all comparably, “The best one is this one”. It is a mixture of all sorts of things. What the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was talking about is one of the things that is terribly important as we begin look at them. Money is obviously another thing.
The third option—the EMI option—is being worked up by Strategic Estates, whereas the first two options are being worked up by the delivery authority. As we have already heard, Strategic Estates started that particular race several hundred yards behind the other runners, so there has been considerable concern, I would say, among the commission and the programme board that this option will not be worked up well enough. There has been an awful lot of pencil in the back for the poor old Clerk of the Parliaments. In fact, in December, he was asked yet again at the commission meeting; he has given us very good assurance that that option will be worked up on time so that we can compare all three options together. That was an important thing to say.
There is one inelegance going on at the moment of which we all need to be aware: for two of the options, and possibly even for the third option, we will need the Queen Elizabeth II building. To be able to assess that in the way the options are worked up—in fact, for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well—we need to have our people go into that building and conduct a series of investigations. At the moment, it has not been possible for us to do that. It is a roadblock. I can tell the Committee that the House of Lords team—I shall come on to what that might mean as my last point—is very focused on trying to unblock this inelegance because it is, I suppose, one thing that could prevent all these options arriving on time. We need to do that because we need to know that we will be able to occupy the building and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be able to be with us next door as well.
I come to the team. The team in the House of Lords is pretty good in that, obviously, there is the commission and our chair, the Lord Speaker, and the management board and its chair, the Clerk of the Parliaments. In fact, there was a meeting between those two bodies only yesterday. I can say that we work well together. We might disagree on some things—indeed, we do—but that is healthy. If I reported that we did not, noble Lords would be suspicious, but we are a focused and cohesive team, particularly on this issue. That has not necessarily always been the case but it is something that all the people who are part of that team are very focused on maintaining because, in our bit of this very complicated thing, it is an important feature.
The poor old House of Commons team has a whole lot of brand-new Members, of course, but it is well aware of the necessity of behaving like a team. I know from talking to one of the members of that team that they are working hard at trying to make sure that they, too, are a good team. However, it will be vital for these two teams, at the end of the process, to work together respectfully and agree on one of the options so that that option can be put as the preferred option to both Houses. It will then be important that those Houses are led to the same place because it would be very difficult if the Houses came to different views; in fact, it would be back to square one. This is something where there are an awful lot of moving parts, but no one should underestimate the determination of the House of Lords team to make sure that we get there in the end.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the Convenor of the Cross Benches—the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—who does such a great job for all of us Cross-Benchers. As he mentioned, I was a member of the board of the R&R sponsor body for its full existence, and, three years ago, I acted as the Lords spokesperson in presenting a similar report to the one introduced by the Senior Deputy Speaker today. Back then, I reported substantial progress toward bringing forward costed alternatives for restoring and renewing the Palace and noted that a decision by both Houses would be needed in the not-too-distant future. That all sounds rather familiar today.
At that time, the choices before us were between only the first two of the three options now being scrutinised by the delivery authority on behalf of all of us. In essence, our choices were between a “full decant” option for both Houses and a “continued presence” option for the House of Commons. Now, the Strategic Estates team is adding the third option of “enhanced maintenance and improvement”—I must get used to using “EMI” for this. The view back then, in November 2021, was that the second option—the continued presence of the Commons in the Palace throughout the works, first in one Chamber and then in the other—would be a very unwise proposition. It would greatly extend the period of building works, during which the public would not be able to visit the Palace—Parliament sees 1.25 million visitors a year—and would mean the Commons having to operate in the midst of probably the largest restoration project in the world, facing all the hazards of extra security risks, fire risks, asbestos, noise, dust and vibration. Further, since the underground plumbing and power would be out of action, temporary systems and generators would need to run in the courtyards, occupying space also needed by the contractors.
I suspect that these concerns about the Commons occupying the Palace throughout the restoration programme remain valid, but I look forward to hearing how this “continued presence” option has been developed. I will try to keep an open mind on this one, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but I want to raise one fundamental issue surrounding the third option: “enhanced maintenance and improvement”. Our sponsor body board was informed that a
“rolling, sequenced programme of works”,
requiring only minimal relocation, was not viable because a “make do and mend” programme could not tackle the half-mile of continuous jumbled pipes, cables, sewage systems and other horrors that lie beneath us. Many of your Lordships will have visited this scary scene and will understand that replacing all this outdated and hazardous chaos will be a huge undertaking; that echoes the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. My question, therefore, is: what has changed to overcome this fundamental blockage to any continuous, ongoing repairs and improvement programme? How can this absolute prohibition on both Houses continuing to operate within the Palace, while the basement has been transformed, now be resolved?
In conclusion, I express complete sympathy with those grappling with the same issues that haunted us back in the early 2020s. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, estimated that such maintenance and improvements, which take decades, mean that extra costs will arise. He expressed concerns from a financial perspective. We were convinced by the much more straightforward argument that it was simply impossible to undertake that extensive improvement of the basement without decanting all, or at least half, of us for a time. I would be delighted by any words of reassurance—I am encouraged by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—that the seemingly insuperable problems in choosing a programme of ongoing maintenance works only can be overcome. I look forward to any response that the Senior Deputy Speaker can bring us.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, before I address the report, will noble Lords allow me to digress a little? My interest in this building and, subsequently, R&R came about when I was a member of your Lordships’ Finance Committee. There were two incidents while I was a member that made me realise: there are some fundamental issues that we are all going to have to overcome. The first was when we were looking at Big Ben and the very significant overrun on the budget. I forget the exact figures; I think that the original budget was £24 million and that we finished up at about £80 million.
One of the questions we asked was: why are there such overruns on things such as the stonework? We thought that these were relatively straightforward matters to be investigated. Why had they not been using things such as cherry-pickers to look behind the stone to see whether water had ingressed and there was decay? We were told that cherry-pickers could not be used because of the peregrines nesting on the tower. When it was pointed out that peregrines nest for only three months of the year—so, what was wrong with the other nine months?—we did not get an answer. We realised that perhaps a little more work could be done in that regard.
The second incident was to do with Westminster Hall. I was up on the roof talking to the workmen there. Noble Lords may recall that the cupola was damaged by a bomb during the Second World War. They were trying to extract it or work on it, and it became a much more complex issue than they had appreciated. They had to take gas bottles up on to the roof but, in order to comply with health and safety regulations, they had to take the gas bottles down off the roof at the end of every working day. This meant that, for a variety of reasons, the gas bottles were being used for only two hours during the eight-hour day. When we asked whether it was possible to have an exemption so that they could be kept up there, the answer was no. Again, I found myself thinking, “We’re going to need a certain amount of change in our working practice in the whole Palace”.
This goes back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about Notre-Dame. I went there about 18 months ago, and was there at 10 pm. Behind the hoardings I could hear the noise of all the workmen, who were working 24 hours a day. When R&R came about, the suggestion was made by the Finance Committee that it might be possible to see whether we could have workmen on site here 24 hours a day, but that was pooh-poohed. It was out of the question; it was not going to happen. I wonder why. There is something generally wrong with our approach.
Let me come back to Notre-Dame for a second. A senior military man was given that role because it was seen as a major logistical exercise. Again, there is probably a lesson there for us—I will come back to that in a second on the actual report. It is also heartening to know that the senior carpenter, who was using medieval tools to do the axe work on the central part of the spire, was an Englishman. That is rather gratifying. I am sorry for digressing too much.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am really enjoying this. Forgive me but I have to conclude, after only 10 years—well, nine and a half years—in your Lordships’ House and 28 years down the Corridor, that the default position in the Palace of Westminster is always to say no.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I extend my thanks to the Senior Deputy Speaker and his office for the time they spent with me following my Question for Written Answer on this subject; I worded my Question loosely but they were most helpful in ensuring that I was provided with all the information I sought.
I congratulate all concerned on the annual progress report before us today. It is clearly presented and provides most of the details likely to be asked about by Members of both Houses, including a layman such as me. There are three particular questions that I would like to ask. The first relates to funds expended, which have been mentioned many times already this afternoon. I hugely appreciate and applaud the work undertaken over many years by the four Peers sitting in front of me.
The subject of R&R has been discussed in one guise or another since 2016, when substantial costs started being incurred. When I submitted a Written Question in July 2022, I was told that the costs paid for by the Lords since 2014 were then £58 million, made up of staff costs of £7 million and contractors’ costs of £51 million. I was also told that the then Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body and the then restoration and renewal delivery authority had run up costs of £212 million for the two years between 2020 and 2022, which included £33 million in salary costs and £151 million in contractors’ costs. I have now been told, in a Written Answer dated 8 January, that the investment to date in the R&R programme totals £377 million, with a further £91 million authorised for the current financial year. To date, therefore, Parliament—or, rather, the taxpayer—has incurred actual forecast costs of approximately £450 million, a sum of money that is almost impossible to comprehend.
What do we have to show for this? Under “Key Milestones” on page 28 of the report, we are told that R&R surveys are ongoing, as are early and enabling works design and decant plans. All these were in train when your Lordships previously voted for and agreed to a full decant. We are also told that the strategic plan is published again, and the budget is approved again. Since the Palace design options are ongoing and neither costed proposals nor an invitation to tender for the works has been initiated, does it not seem that the budget is optimistic, it being so located in the report without a very heavy qualification?
Unless the Executive in the Commons commit to initiating the plan, we are going around in circles, albeit ever-deceasing ones. Given the current Government’s self-imposed budget restraints, is there a realistic possibility of this initiation happening? I and many others had hoped that the fire at Notre-Dame in Paris would have prompted the then Government into action, since we know that this building is a fire hazard and that if it was any other building in the country, it would be closed as being unsafe. If authority for R&R is agreed, does the current composition of the management team and its structure lend itself to a senior industrialist at its head? That is what would be needed for there to be any chance of R&R being executed on time or on budget, unless we follow the French example.
Would, for example, Sir Alastair Morton, favoured by Margaret Thatcher on Eurotunnel and later John Prescott on Railtrack, consider that he could work with the delivery board’s expenditure, scrutinised by R&R client teams, House finance teams, the delivery authority board, the R&R programme board, the R&R client board and the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission? Can the Senior Deputy Speaker indicate how this structure can be made sufficiently commercial such that the plan can be enacted when a positive vote for full R&R comes about?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to follow such a display of expertise and service to the House as has been displayed in the debate this afternoon. My only experience in construction was, as head of my Oxford college, bringing in a building that then cost £12 million on time and within budget. It was a five-year programme. The only serious problem we faced was that towards the end of the five years, with 100 builders working on site every day, one girl student complained to me that one builder had wolf-whistled at her.
In a similar debate in 2022, I expressed alarm at the delays that this project has suffered and called for an urgent start. If a full decant is needed, that is what we should accept. We need to earn the gratitude of future generations rather than their dismay that we let things degenerate to the level that is apparent now. This project has undergone change after change in governance, without penalties for failure and delay, and with some ambiguity in who is to take responsibility. The decision about decant that should have been taken years ago is still not taken. This is all well known. I add that if we are looking for a pain-free way to reduce the numbers in your Lordships’ House, a full decant to the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre is the best possible way one can think of. I am very surprised that the Leader of the House has not taken this up.
My main message today is quite different. I wish to bring up the question of the elephant in the room, or rather the scaffolding in the gardens—a difficult issue that R&R has so far shied away from. That is the impact of building a Holocaust memorial and underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, which will either render R&R impossible or make it more difficult and expensive. If the memorial and underground centre are built—and, of course, I hope that they will not be, as planned—and are built before R&R, they will get in the way. If they are built afterwards or during, it is impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded —right up to its boundaries—by all the paraphernalia that will accompany R&R. Instead of reverence and contemplation, there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, materials and a jetty, with trucks roaring by and unloading around Millbank.
There will be three projects ongoing, including the memorial, that conflict with each other—all of them centred on Victoria Tower Gardens. One is the repair of Victoria Tower itself, delayed, I read, by some error in the procurement process, but now expected to start imminently and run for at least five years. It is not strictly an R&R project, but I raise it because its repair will need some occupation of Victoria Tower Gardens. All the proposals for restoration and renewal will involve the use of a chunk of Victoria Tower Gardens as the main area for keeping all the equipment, access to the Palace and so on. Two of the proposals for repair involve tunnels under the Palace going into Victoria Tower Gardens, with great upheaval—remembering also that the so-called learning centre attached to the memorial will also be underground. It brings to mind the Channel Tunnel excitement, when the team starting in France and the team starting here eventually met exactly in the middle. The restoration and renewal works will reach nearly as far as the Buxton memorial, and the Holocaust memorial will reach up to the Buxton memorial from the other end.
The current plan—I express my gratitude to the thoughtful presentation given by my noble friend Lord Vaux to the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill—indicates that almost half the area of Victoria Tower Gardens will be needed for the full duration of the works programme, which could last for 30 years or more. Work is unlikely to start until 2029, and the Holocaust memorial may or may not be under construction then. The planning permission needed for R&R will be more difficult to obtain if a memorial is built or planned to be built. Nothing of the gardens will remain open once all these works are under way, contrary to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, which prohibited building in Victoria Tower Gardens—the very Act that the Government now propose to remove to make room for a Holocaust memorial. If a memorial is built, there will still be an obligation under that 1900 Act to keep the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens open for the public, and it is impossible to see how that can be achieved. I would welcome the Senior Deputy Speaker’s view on that.
If the memorial is built, it will damage the ability to get planning permission and may cause a need for further amendment of the 1900 Act. It will restrict the ability of the restoration and renewal to use the gardens as it might wish to, including early work to build a jetty and the tunnels that I mentioned. If both projects are undertaken, there will be no gardens left, and the atmosphere that might be conducive to a memorial will be destroyed. There will also be an impact on Millbank traffic, with buses of visitors to the memorial potentially conflicting with lorries of building works, even before R&R gets properly under way.
There is a simple solution. R&R is of course of great importance to the nation, to the work of government, to the dignity of Parliament and to the needs of future generations. It must, sooner rather than later, be allowed to go ahead as efficiently as possible. So the memorial, and in particular the underground learning centre, must either be moved to a more peaceful location or delayed until R&R is completed. The stubbornness behind the memorial project is hard to understand. It can now be seen to be adverse to the national interest, in addition to all its other flaws. We must get on with R&R and bring to an end the costly indecision and fire risks, et cetera, that we face now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness; I agree with every word she said. I worked on the Channel Tunnel as an engineer for 15 years under Sir Alastair Morton, and I have to tell her that we did meet in the middle. We had a nice party, but we did meet in the middle, which was just as well.
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for this report. It is very useful, but some of the comments from other noble Lords have put it into context. I will say just a few words about the issues of fire and evacuation, which again I have been following for some time. I have to challenge the report, where it says on page 6:
“Our most important responsibility is making sure that the Parliamentary estate continues to be a safe place for the thousands of people who work in it”.
I would challenge “continues”, and I shall come back to that.
I have worked on fire issues in tunnels—the Channel Tunnel and Swiss tunnels—and I try to follow some of the awful fires that we have had since then in the UK and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, mentioned Notre-Dame, and I also remember putting down a Question about how the Government or the chairs of the committees, or whoever, will stop the same thing happening here. I got a very long Answer that said, “It won’t happen here because we’ve sorted out the risks and the evacuation”.
I believe that one of the problems in this building is evacuation. One of the answers I got a few years ago was deeply worrying. Some of us were thinking, “If there’s a fire on the committee floor, somewhere in the centre between the Lords bit and the Commons bit, and it involved the people in the committee rooms at the Lords end of it being evacuated but they could not use the main staircase because that was blocked, how would they evacuate?” The answer was that there are two staircases on the Lords side, as we all know, where one person goes down at a time. I could not even help people in wheelchairs—they would not answer that question. But there could be 500 people in those rooms, and how would they get down these stairs, with or without guidance?
I wonder how many noble Lords who are lucky enough to have offices in this building have thought about what would happen if their main staircase were blocked by fire or something else. That is quite a worry too because there is no other way out. They would probably find that a fire engine could not get to the outside and, if it did, the ladder would not be long enough, and all that. So we have some serious risks.
What really worries me about the evacuation, particularly on the first floor, was that I was told that somebody in the House of Commons, probably the Speaker, said that they could not have a proper evacuation with real people who might be going to committee rooms because that would delay the business of the House. In other words, they did it with staff. Most staff here are pretty agile—they probably have to be to get around this place—but they did it with them a few years ago because they could not do it with real members of the public. That is a really serious issue. If we get 50 people in a committee room and there is a fire, it is not going to look good. So I hope something can be done about that in the short term.
My suggestion in one of my several meetings with the Senior Deputy Speaker was that they should install more sprinklers—or mists. Mists is the latest way of putting out fires. I was basically told—of course, he did not do it, but he got his specialists in—that you cannot really do that until you have finished all the building work, then you install all the mists or the sprinklers when the building is nearly finished. The obvious question is: what happens if the building does not get finished because it burns down before you have even put them in? Why do not you put them in first? My question today to the Senior Deputy Speaker is, if there is work being done on the roof of the Chamber, what about having some mist in there, or anywhere else? That is just one idea. The idea that we leave it all until the end confirms to me that we do not have a particularly safe place to work.
Looking at the alternatives, I favour the total decant. I am sure that we have to. Several noble Lords have talked about the problem of cost overruns on HS2 and other major projects. I can name Hinkley Point, Crossrail and a few other ones. The one thing that these projects and many others have in common is that they seem to provide very large and expensive palaces for their temporary workers. They might be four or five storeys high, and they will be fully air conditioned, obviously, probably with lifts and everything else. They last for however long the project lasts and they are taken down. I wonder whether we would not actually be better off starting from a clean, flat piece of land that does not include Victoria Tower Gardens—because that is a that is a garden, as the noble Baroness said—and build a temporary building in there, or several temporary buildings. One thing that I do not think many noble Lords have spoken about is the importance of the House of Lords and the House of Commons operations being close. I personally go in there quite often, and I am sure a lot of other noble Lords do too. I think of going from QEII and crossing several roads to the Department of Health building, which I think is proposed at the moment. It has the advantage that it is also listed, so it is a “We can adapt that listed building, but we are not going to destroy this one” kind of thing. It is still listed.
A flat area for a temporary building could look extremely nice somewhere. I would favour Horse Guards Parade. I think we could probably do without marching the Army once a year for a few years, but other noble Lords may have different views about that. A new temporary building for the two Houses close to each other would be worth looking at. It is much easier, as contractors will tell you, to build a new building, a temporary one on a flat site with the services close by, than trying to adapt something, even if it is QEII or another building. By the time we have gone into it and decided how much adaption needs doing for our perfection, I think we should be better off looking at another site which is close to here but, at the moment, free from other interference.
I think I have probably covered enough ground now to explain why I would like to challenge, if you like, the report saying that it continues to be a safe place. I think that in addition to taking it forward, and I hope we do take it forward as far as possible, we should see some proper evidence that the precautions that can be done at the moment are being done and are not being delayed due to further complaints from the Speaker of the House of Commons, or whoever.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to end this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Indeed, it does feel like Groundhog Day. We have all, I think, been here before. In September 2016 when the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster published a report setting out the options for R&R and in January 2018, a full decant, I think, was agreed. In 2019, we passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, and a somewhat less grey-bearded Earl of Devon gave his second speech on the Floor of the House in the Second Reading debate, enthusiastically embracing the full decant. I suggested that your Lordships might choose to go on a progress around the nations during our forced absence from Westminster.
A full decant was recommended again in 2021, then it seems that politics got involved. Confidence in the strategic governance evaporated, the House of Commons Commission insisted on replacing the sponsor body, and progress has stalled, as we all know, leaving the long-term status of this precious and much-beloved Palace perilously unresolved. Some important essential stabilisation works have progressed, and further studies have been commissioned, but it is now January 2025 and we have noticeably regressed from the bold and positive tones of those early years. As a hereditary Member of your Lordships’ House, I am shortly to leave Parliament for good, and a project that I warmly embraced on arrival here has got absolutely nowhere. This is disappointing.
The annual progress report we are now debating lauds the publication of the R&R strategic case and the fact that further work will now be undertaken to develop the three options outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner—the full decant, continuous presence or enhanced maintenance—to that ensure that Members of both Houses are provided with the detail they need to support informed decisions. Those informed decisions were taken years ago and the full decant was agreed, but Parliament has been twiddling its governance thumbs as this world heritage site crumbles around our ears.
I was prompted to speak today by a question that I posed on the Floor of the House earlier this week, regarding Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. I did not get a clear answer from the DCMS Minister about whether there was any danger that the Palace of Westminster will be added to that register in the near future—and I wonder whether anyone knows. When we were debating R&R back in 2019, there was a very clear message that time was of the essence, that the Palace was in imminent danger of catastrophic failure and collapse, and that we were being asked to work in conditions that posed a very real threat to the health and safety of ourselves, our guests and our staff. Is that still the case, or were we crying wolf back then? By overstating that imminent danger, has the force of the argument been lost, or are we simply to be grateful for the heroic efforts of our maintenance and fire protection staff that a disaster has not yet struck? It is important that we know.
I do not mean to criticise those tireless individuals who have dedicated themselves to R&R over the years. I admire the fortitude of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Vaux, whom I know personally, in taking on the challenges inherent in this leviathan of a project, as I admire all those involved. However, the final implications of our dithering are eye-watering: £280.1 million in the last three years alone is a stratospheric and vulgar amount of money to spend on making no progress. Can anyone identify the total cost of Parliament’s lack of decision-making? The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, put it at £450 million, so I thank him for that. That is the actual expenditure on R&R, but what about the increased cost of completing the works, given the passage of time and inflation? Are we really getting value for money and setting a good example as a decision-making body? Are we really appropriate stewards of our nation’s most important heritage? At a time when every Treasury Minister at the Dispatch Box bemoans the £22 billion black hole, are we right to be pouring yet more resources into this disastrous project?
By way of comparison, Historic Houses, of which I am a member, represents 1,450 privately held historic properties. Many of those, including my own home, face similar problems to the Palace of Westminster, with creaking Victorian infrastructure in well-loved and oft-used listed heritage structures at the heart of their communities. No private owner would be permitted to dither as we have. Indeed, these debates make me feel much better about the state of my home. Those 1,450 properties collectively have a repairs backlog of some £2 billion, which has often seemed like a vast sum, until you realise that Parliament has spent a quarter of that sum in considering R&R and making no progress. That is a quarter of the sum of 1,400 historic properties around our country that we have spent on this one building, making no decision.
One of the repeated refrains in the annual progress report is the effort being made to inform, educate and engage. Of course, the irony is that, given the passage of time, many of the Members of Parliament engaged over recent years are no longer here, given the huge turnover at the last election. A lot of that education money is therefore wasted. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, identifies that nearly half of those in the other place are new to Westminster. Given that it was the House of Commons Commission that derailed our previously settled intention to resolve by decant, what particular efforts are being made to inform Parliament’s new Members of the R&R programme, and are they really engaged? It may be that so many new Members will give us some fresh insights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for highlighting the importance of archaeology. I very much identified in the Second Reading debate the essential opportunity that we have, in conducting R&R, to understand a little better the history of this Palace and our Parliament. I was upset to learn, in my early investigations, that the archaeological part of R&R was to be minimised; I hope that that can be turned around.
Finally, given my pending departure from this Palace as a hereditary, I offer once again a plea to those considering the accessibility of the restored and renewed Palace. As I stated back in 2019, accessibility is not just physical accessibility, although the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made clear the importance of physical accessibility. Can we please also consider the accessibility of the stories that we tell in the imagery that we display? We are removing hereditaries from the House because the hereditary principle is not thought to reflect the values of modern Britain. Accordingly, row on row of Christian white men’s heraldic devices, as we see all around us in this House, are surely not accessible to the diverse population that we aspire to serve. I remember being told back in 2019 that one of the triumphs of R&R will be that, when your Lordships return to the House, be it in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, Members will not notice any difference. That is a horrifying thought. The Palace not only needs an upgrade in its utilities and infrastructure—it desperately needs an upgrade in its aesthetic and iconography. I hope that your Lordships will be brave enough to embrace that when us hereditaries are ultimately gone and this programme finally gets under way. I wish you all luck.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am grateful to the Senior Deputy Speaker for allowing me to slip into the gap. I was not planning to speak, but I do so after the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who wondered what the new Members—and, dare I say, some of the younger Members—felt. Being one of the new and one of the younger Members, I will just say that I have taken the opportunity to participate in the R&R tour of the dungeon, and I am glad that I did, because it was a real eye-opener. But I am surprised and disappointed that only 80 Members out of the 800 in our cohort have done so. There is a challenge there—how are we going to get that number up? Unless we get more than 10% going into the basement, we will never be able to have the evidence-based approach.
I have been very impressed by the work that has been done to repair the roof and other things too, but in business your first loss is often your best loss, and there is a nettle to be grasped here. When you go down to the basement, it is obvious that you cannot have half a steam pipe. It is like being pregnant. You cannot be half pregnant; you are either pregnant or you are not—not that I would know, but my wife tells me. Furthermore, the Cloister Court is clearly a wasted opportunity; it is something that we should be celebrating.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that going forward the building should not just be as it is today. In the summer I went to the US Capitol and Congress. When you go into the committee rooms, there is positive air pressure; air is filtered and secured. They have places to sit and work in IT—and, guess what, it is warm in the winter. We should learn from that; it should not be just as it is today—we should be looking to improve matters. We cannot wish away some of the practical constraints, such as the raft foundation. If we are going to drill a tunnel to have better facilities and better steam, you cannot have half a tunnel—you have to do it all.
In essence, I am very attracted to the idea of a full decant. When you examine the evidence, you can see that it is unarguable that it is the best way—quicker, cheaper and more certain, and the faster we start, the quicker we will get back. As one of the younger Members, I am quite interested in coming back when it is done, in my lifetime, rather than it taking a very long period of time that will see us all out.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the phrase I used when I began about sharing frustration has been articulated in one way or another by all noble Lords. At the root of this is responsibility but also our profound concern about a building that symbolises so much of which we should be so proud in our country. I underline that I acknowledge the force of your Lordships’ contributions. It underscores the significance of what we are all about in seeking to preserve, restore and renew this iconic symbol of our democracy.
I was reminded of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the dilemmas of Powderham when I got the stats about the size and complexity of the Palace: 34 acres, 1,100 rooms, 65 different floor levels, 100-plus staircases and the whole building sharing the same water, power, heating and sewage systems, many of which are more than 50 years old and have, as we know from experience, reached the end of their lifespan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the pipes. We have hundreds of miles of pipes and cables needing replacement and interconnecting voids and ventilation shafts adding to the complexity of removing services and managing asbestos. I was intrigued that we have not referred to this as much as we should. I am very mindful that, particularly following the bomb in the House of Commons, in the House of Commons area of the Palace there is a far greater preponderance of asbestos because it was part of the building material of the time. Therefore, different parts of the Palace will have different complexities.
The other thing that we have all acknowledged is with all the options that I have articulated and that noble Lords have rightly expressed, as I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it is inevitable that everyone already has their own preference. A lot of it is rooted in us having been round this before. However, if we use this year for good will, all the options will represent a multi-billion-pound, multi-year investment. We know that these options will amount to significant costs. I hope that those monitoring our dialogue today will note that I did like a concept from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I have often thought about the discussion that we have to have with the nation regarding the cost of this work. I like the concept of annualising the expenditure. These are eye-watering sums, but if we annualised them over that period, we could contrast them better with some of the investments that we undertake on behalf of the nation.
I should also say that my understanding is that in the polling that has been undertaken the vast majority of people in this country wish to see this building restored and renewed. One of the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was “courage”. I also agree with “tenacity”, “action” and “decision-making”, but we should have the courage as the responsible people of our generation to make the right decision.
From the outset, I acknowledge the work that has been done. We have noble Lords who, on our behalf, have been in these meetings over the years. They are assembled on the front row: the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Vaux and Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. All have made a profound difference in their analysis of doing things better.
I was very struck by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Mr Barry’s War must be a compulsory read. For anyone who has not read it, this comes alive. People went mad at that time, so let us not get into that territory, but it shows how we should be cautious of parliamentarians in how we embark upon our dialogue on what is a major building work.
A number of points were raised about surveys. I am not aware of any survey being duplicatory but I understand that we now have had 880 locations surveyed to date, including 353 House of Lords internal spaces and 80 House of Lords external spaces. I also thought, particularly with regard to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, about the survey information now being mapped out digitally to create a 3-D digital model. That now replaces thousands of individual drawings and files. That picks up on how we use the changing technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned air quality. Looking at my notes, one of the surveys and the emerging findings include analysis of air quality to understand levels and concentrations of air pollutants for different areas of the Palace to inform future ventilation designs.
I also was struck by some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, raised about, in effect, benchmarking and the London Olympics. In fact, the programme has benchmarked programme costs across other major UK construction projects such as the London Olympics, Manchester Town Hall, the King’s Cross regeneration, Crossrail et cetera. Delivery costs when looked at per square metre are broadly comparable, for instance, to the redevelopment of the Canadian Parliament.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Deech, raised the question of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. It is not my place or in my ability to express an opinion on the Bill itself today, but I can acknowledge that all three R&R delivery options require use of part of Victoria Tower Gardens. The precise use differs slightly over the three options. Parliamentary authorities are in contact with government, given the proximity to the Parliamentary Estate of the Holocaust memorial, on how this can be managed. However, I am very mindful of what many noble Lords have said about the matter.
I turn to the issue of health and safety. Again, this is a very substantial area. I was particularly struck by some of the points made on health and safety and the points on fire raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Clerk of the Parliaments as corporate officer for the House of Lords is responsible for the safety of those within the House. The corporate officer must be assured that the Palace is safe to ensure the obligations and duty of safety to staff and visitors are met. I know that the Clerk takes his responsibilities very seriously and works closely with colleagues across Parliament with the Clerk of the House of Commons, who also has that responsibility to review and monitor health and safety. Their view is that the House is safe. The Clerks issued a joint safety pledge in May last year, and Parliament published a new health and safety strategy in December.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised safety concerns about EMI. Both Houses and corporate officers are committed to ensuring the absolute safety of all, whatever the option. When we come to look at these decisions, with the partiality that I understand we all will have, so far as this year’s work goes, we need to have a thorough, detailed analysis of the three options. For whatever reason they have been decided on, we have to go back in a bit of history, which I do not think is valuable today. The rigour with which these three options will have to be considered by the Houses is obviously supremely important, including things such as accessibility during construction, how that might ever be performed, and how we can be safely accommodated in that option. All those are going to have to be, and will be, considered.
However, the absolute priority in any of the options that require a continuance is the safety of those who work and visit here. That is where the House’s administrations continue to focus on improving the safety culture and processes to ensure that all are safe at all times. Because it is timely, I also want to refer to fire, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a very important feature. Any noble Lord here who has not undertaken the annual fire training should do so; I must say, the figures are not great in many of the groups. It is our responsibility to organise ourselves to undertake that training.
The fire safety improvement works were a major programme that ran from 2012 to 2021. Interestingly, picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the installation of a high-pressure water mist system throughout the basement was part of that. The mist system controls and prevents fire spreading from the basement. Recent upgrades have also improved the life safety aspect. Part of that work has been the compartmentation of the Palace so that we can ensure that we get people out. There is also the installation of a wet riser in the Victoria Tower and a dry riser and sprinklers in the Elizabeth Tower. So the authorities are looking at all aspects of innovation. I will take the point back about the roof and any other areas. As we are undertaking this work, fire safety is of supreme importance. A lot of that work was done prior to R&R, keeping people safe. However, part of R&R is also keeping the building safe, which is where we have continuing challenges.
Accessibility was rightly raised quite strongly in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, outlined some of the situations where we simply must address how we can do things better for people who are part of the parliamentary community and visitors across the Parliamentary Estate. It is very important, not only in the statute but in terms of the work that is going on, to ensure that we have step-free access improved from the current 12% to about 70% across the Palace, with much higher coverage in key and public spaces. This is an area where work is needed both now and in the design of the temporary accommodation because, whatever option is decided on at varying points, temporary accommodation will be needed. I am sending a message to everyone involved in the design and consideration. There have been some one-to-one meetings with Members but, if any noble Lord has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with officials here, I would warmly welcome such a meeting.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, although I am very grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had, my point was that it came after the design process rather than us being talked to beforehand. Accessibility and disability will not be the only specialist areas. People do not know what they do not know. It is not clear. I make again the point about the political nature of some of our work meaning us operating in different ways. Outsiders just do not understand it.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Baroness has outlined where we have been at fault in the past and now. We should be doing far more preliminary consideration before we get to a point where we can start. There have been a number of recent examples where I have expressed my own view, asking: why on earth was this not considered from that accessibility point of view at the very beginning? Rather than saying we have done rather well, we could have done even better. So I understand that and I agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Morse, was very open about costs. Obviously he brings enormous experience to these matters, and how fortunate we are. I was very struck by one of the areas that may, I hope, be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. The National Audit Office examines, certifies and reports on the delivery authority’s annual statement of accounts. The NAO also undertaken two value-for-money audits of the R&R programme, to date feeding into the Public Accounts Committee inquiries. The noble Lord referred to the additional £91 million which has been approved for the delivery authority and the R&R client team. For the sake of completeness, one should also include the £6 million forecast to be spent this financial year by Strategic Estates to develop the EMI option. I thought it was important that there was a complete picture of where we are at with those costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, also spoke about EMI. I reiterate that all the options will be measured against the same criteria. Health and safety, and building fabric conservation—which involves the critical work needed to the basement—are areas where there is a complete understanding that both Houses need this with as much of a comparator as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made an important point. Much of the work of the client team is with the considerable new membership in the other place. This is a major exercise in familiarising Members of Parliament who have come afresh with the challenges of this Palace and how we restore and renew it in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, referred to commercial expertise—I am somewhat looking at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, here, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morse, from before. That is precisely why the four external members of the programme board, with their own experience of major programmes and commercial prowess of making value for money, which is of the top order, are with the parliamentary team. Commercial expertise is much better entrenched now.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised access to and involvement in the QEII design plans. Again, this is an area we need to be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said we should have a new site or whatever. I am nervous of this—I am going off-script as it were—but I know that a lot of work went into considering a range of sites and locations. After many millions of pounds were spent on consideration of alternative and temporary accommodation, the QEII, for a variety of reasons, was considered to be the optimum site for us to remove ourselves to. However, I take the point, and all of what has been said today will be considered.
The noble Earl referred to the QEII Centre. It is obviously important that, with the delivery authority leading on the design work for QEII, we re-engage on any future design—particularly, from my point of view as Chairman of Committees and Senior Deputy Speaker, on having the best technology that we can for our committee rooms, for instance, and ensuring that accessibility is absolutely entrenched in the design. All of these are areas that I personally think we should look at very strongly.
I will conclude, given the time, by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I will look at Hansard because there may be some areas of detail that I can respond to. I have tried to cover some of the guts of what we are all about. All I can say is that this year will be very busy. I hope it will be a productive year because I am prepared to say that, if we do not make the right decision, we will all be responsible.
Undersea Internet Cables
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the cutting of undersea internet cables in the Baltic Sea in November 2024.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Vallance stated on 3 December 2024, we continue to work closely with international partners following the breakage of subsea telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea on 17 and 18 November 2024. We must let those investigations run their course.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that on Christmas Day, the “Eagle S”, a Cook Islands-registered vessel and part of the Russian shadow oil tanker fleet, cut more cables in the Baltic Sea. I am delighted that the Finnish coastguard authorities arrested that vessel while it was still in international waters and brought it to port. Do the UK Government applaud the Finnish authorities’ reaction to that, as I do, and would they act similarly in UK coastal waters?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, we are keen to support any country which supports international law and freedom of navigation, and Finland acted appropriately. As a member of JEF, we work very closely with Finland. The noble Lord will know—no doubt this will come up in many of the questions that follow—that the UK Government are leading a number of Joint Expeditionary Force operations. Operation Nordic Warden, for example, involves operations with respect to the Baltic. NATO is taking action with Baltic Sentry. All of us are acting more robustly with respect to the threats, as we see them, in the Baltic Sea and beyond, to ensure that we protect critical underwater infrastructure.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, NATO’s launch of Operation Baltic Protector and the other initiatives the Minister has mentioned are to be welcomed, but of course, the threats to our undersea infrastructure extend far beyond the Baltic and one or two isolated areas. What action is being taken to extend this initiative to a more comprehensive approach to our vulnerabilities? What discussions are being had to ensure that the actions of the military are fully co-ordinated with civilian investment in redundancy and resilience to ensure that we have a properly comprehensive approach to this very dangerous situation?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The need for greater resilience across government is something that the Government are taking up. We understand the need for all departments, not just the Ministry of Defence, to take action on resilience. The noble and gallant Lord will also have seen that the Ministry of Defence has taken action on other threats that have occurred in other areas, including the channel and the North Sea. We expect further attention to be given in the defence review to what resources and capabilities are needed to ensure we deal with what is an increasing and emerging threat.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will participate remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with undersea internet cable interference presenting only the latest challenge to security, along with threats to energy supply, banking, telecommunications, shipping and other potential use of viruses, should traditional defence chief responses, based on naval and military interventions, remain the main strategies in response? Should we not be reprofiling our expenditure towards nuclear deployments, defence satellite communications, selective sanctions enforcement, political exchange through dialogue and old-fashioned negotiations in conflict zones? The military option, costing billions in Ukraine, has hardly been a success.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To deal with the last part of the question first, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in Kyiv pursuing what has been a cross-government—and across all parties in majority—defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine and what that means for the rest of Europe and beyond. With respect to the other points that my noble friend made, he is right to draw attention to the increasing threats to critical underwater infrastructure. The military option is one option that we need to use. I say that because, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before in answer to, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, we must deter people from doing things in the first place. The use of maritime assets and underwater drones, the actions of the Joint Expeditionary Force and those of NATO are key to protecting these vital cable links on which much of our livelihoods, data, telecommunications, energy and so on depend. Military resource is one way in which we have to deal with that.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, in light of recent concerns over security of undersea communication cables and the involvement of foreign state actors in potential sabotage, how do the Government plan to balance their intention to reset relations with China while addressing the risk posed by Chinese entities to our critical infrastructure?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government’s position with respect to China, as I have said on many occasions, is to co-operate, to compete and to challenge. Those are the three strands of the policy. The Ministry of Defence will challenge China, where appropriate or necessary, to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected, whether that is to do with critical underwater infrastructure or with other areas in the world where the rights of navigation and free passage are threatened. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for that, not alone but with our allies, and we will challenge China where necessary to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, how are we dealing with the threat to transatlantic undersea cables from hostile actors? Around 75% of the cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish sea waters. However, in a recent response to me on the Floor of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, seemed to suggest that the task of protecting these cables is carried out by a single ship which, with respect, does not sound remotely credible. As an esteemed Defence Minister, can the noble Lord advise me of what arrangements are actually in place to safeguard these cables serving the British Isles and how much of the bill is being paid by the Irish Government?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will leave what the Irish Government pay for to the Irish Government. Regarding the protection of critical underwater infrastructure, the UK has a large number of assets. The noble Lord of course points to the maritime assets that we make available, some of which we cannot discuss openly, but we also have surveillance aircraft and other means of protection. We will see in the defence review further suggestions as to what we might do in that respect. Let us make no mistake about it: one of the key functions of the Government is to protect the underwater infrastructure on which our livelihoods and prosperity depend. We will do that. It is not only about dealing with things when they happen but about deterring people from doing them in the first place. The Government will take the action necessary to achieve that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, undersea energy cables are being targeted by the Russian shadow fleet. My understanding is that all three power cables between the Baltic and Nordic countries were targeted last week. Undersea gas pipelines and electricity interconnectors are a critical part of our energy security, both now and— even more—as we transition to net zero. What actions are we taking with allies to deter, monitor and protect our undersea energy infrastructure?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
A lot of action is taking place. I have pointed to the work of the Joint Expeditionary Force that has taken place, and we have mentioned the maritime assets that have been deployed to protect infrastructure. We have seen the announcement of Operation Nordic Warden, which is another JEF initiative and is run from Northwood. We are applying artificial intelligence to some of the information that comes into there to predict the ships that may threaten those undersea cables. Alongside that, Secretary-General Rutte of NATO recently announced Baltic Sentry. There is a lot of work going on to deal with this. Do we have to give it greater priority? Of course we do. Ten years ago, we were not talking about the threat to undersea cables in the way that we are now. It is another way in which the threats to this country are changing and transforming. The defence of our realm needs to change and transform to meet those threats, which is what we are seeking to do.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the principal response to this threat in the Baltic is coming from NATO. May I press the Minister a little further on the contribution that United Kingdom naval assets are making to that endeavour? In particular, the planned multi-role support ship was always intended to be an important contributor to that. May I ask for a report on progress on that important new addition to the fleet?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I understand the noble Baroness rightly and she is talking about the provision of a second additional ship to support and augment the ship “Proteus”, that will be part of the defence review. On the other assets that she talks about with respect to the Baltic, she will know that in December 2023, under the previous Government, a huge maritime collection of ships across NATO and JEF was sent to the Baltic, including UK maritime assets and UK surveillance aircraft. There was a further initiative in June 2024, again under the previous Government, and just recently we have had the announcement of Operation Nordic Warden, as I have said. All the way along, there have been significant UK contributions.
Another thing that is important, since we are often questioned about this, is that it is not only the contribution that we make in terms of our assets but the thought leadership, co-ordinating power and other leadership potential that the UK provides. Let us remember that it was in 2014, under the previous Government, that JEF was set up under UK leadership. It has worked particularly well. We should sometimes recognise what this country contributes to the defence of the world as well as some the challenges that face us.
Online Safety
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for online safety posed by small, high-risk online platforms, such as 8Chan.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government are extremely concerned about the impact of small but risky services that host hateful and harmful content. The Online Safety Act will require such services to remove illegal content and, where relevant, protect children from legal but harmful material. Ofcom has established a Small but Risky supervision task force in recognition of their unique risks. The regulator will identify, manage and enforce against such services where they fail to comply with their duties.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but will he set out whether the Government expect Ofcom to take enforcement action against small but high-harm sites that are identified as problems? Have they made an assessment of the likely timescales for enforcement action, including the use of service disruption measures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that important question. Where there is evidence of non-compliance, Ofcom has set out that it will move quickly to enforcement, and that action will follow in spring this year, because companies will have had three months to get their positions sorted out—I think that 16 March is the date by which they have to do it. Ofcom will be able to apply fines, including global levies, and it will be able to apply to the courts for business disruption measures and have the flexibility to submit these applications urgently.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is somewhat baffling. Given the amendment to the Bill as it passed through the House, as a result of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, it was quite clear that high-risk smaller platforms would be included in category 1 and bear all the consequences. Yet, despite the Secretary of State’s concerns, which were expressed in a letter last September, the Government have not insisted that Ofcom include those platforms in category 1. What does that mean? Why are the Government not taking proper legal advice and insisting that these smaller, high-risk platforms bear all the duties of category 1 services?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Category 1, in the way that the Bill was ultimately approved, was for large sites with many users. The possibility remains that this threshold can be amended. It is worth remembering that category 1 imposes two additional duties: a duty that the company must apply its service agreements properly and a duty that users can make it possible for themselves not to see certain things. For many of the small and harmful sites, those things would not apply anyway, because users have gone there deliberately to see what is there, but the full force of the Act applies to those small companies, which is why there is a special task force to make sure that that is applied properly.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, Ofcom’s illegal harms code states that it has removed some of the code’s measures from smaller sites, due to evidence that they were not proportionate, but it is not clear which measures have been removed and why. Can the Minister provide further detail on which small sites are impacted and what measures they will not be required to follow?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My understanding of this is that the Online Safety Act applies to all small companies and nobody is exempt. The things that would not apply would be the specific things in category 1, or indeed in category 2A and 2B, which are to do with the ability to apply and monitor a service contract, and the ability to ensure that users can exempt themselves from seeing certain activities. Those would not apply, but everything else does apply, including all the force of the Act in terms of the application to illegal content and the priority harms that have been identified.
Lord Markham (Con)
I must admit that, probably like many noble Lords, I had to do a bit of research into 8chan and the others as part of this. In fact, I got a bit worried that I might get into trouble doing it on House of Lords servers. What I saw was that, before 8chan, there was 2chan and then 4chan, and 8chan is now 8kun. It is like whack-a-mole: while we can try to do all the technical moves, it is very difficult. So, coming at it from the other end of the telescope, the user end, I think we have done a lot of good things about getting messaging out about anti-fraud and I wonder whether there are things we can learn from that, to educate and equip young people, teachers and parents so that they are aware, and attacking it from that end as well.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord does not get caught out from his search terms. Of course, he is absolutely right that part of this is about education and making people aware of what is there. I suspect that, as this gets introduced over the course of this year and enforcement starts, awareness will rise, and it will be incredibly important to include education as well.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister kindly tell the House how the Government can ensure that the people who are putting their dates of birth online are actually the people who are putting their dates of birth online? How do we ensure that accuracy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I am not able to give him a technical answer on exactly how that is done. There are verification systems in place to ensure that, and indeed there are more detailed verification systems coming online in terms of children’s ages. That is something that Ofcom is pursuing, but I will find a more detailed answer for him.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly mentioned children in his initial Answer, and we all want to protect children primarily, but will he also recognise the harm that can be done to vulnerable adults? I think particularly of those with addiction problems, eating disorders and people with learning disabilities, who are not as safe online as we are. Can he say whether the Government have made an assessment of the different types of harms that are on these smaller sites that fall outside the regulations? Have they broken down this type of harm by distinct categories and will they make this information available?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The so-called Small but Risky task force that was set up in response to an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and the CEO of Ofcom is undertaking a review of all the risks of these small units. I do not know the detail of whether it has broken it down into the categories suggested by the noble Baroness but I think that is an extremely good idea and I hope it will do it, because it is an important activity.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, having recognised the Herculean task that Parliament has given Ofcom in terms of regulating platforms—Ofcom is set to become probably the world’s most formidable regulator in this space, with commensurate expertise—I will trot out a quick cliché and say, let us not allow the best to be the enemy of the good but support Ofcom as it navigates this very complex environment. Picking up what the Minister mentioned earlier about education, can he update the House on Ofcom’s plans for what is clunkingly called “media literacy”, because prevention is better than cure and the more we can educate children, and indeed adults, on the perils of the internet and how to navigate it safely, the better it will be? It seems almost to be a bit of an orphan within Ofcom’s responsibilities.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is right that Ofcom has a very large task ahead of it. It is a very professional organisation and one that takes all its duties very seriously. I cannot comment in detail on what it is doing on the media side, but I know that that is part of what it intends to do. I will pick up on something else he said: the urgency now is to get this implemented and the danger is that we add lots of things to it now. We must get on and do this. It is very important to get this working. We know that the enforcement starts just after March and that the new codes for children will come out in early summer. Getting this moving is the key priority, and working out how to stop the really unacceptable activity that goes on on some of these sites.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister sensitive to the dangers to free speech of overfetishising online safety and to the censorship recently admitted to by the head of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg? This is all under the cloak of Governments demanding the clamping down on online harms. Are the Government advising Ofcom to ensure that any overzealousness, however well intentioned, should be reined in for the protection of free speech in a democratic society?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Well, the issue of Meta is one for the US. It applies there and not here. The rules of the Online Safety Act apply across all companies and we expect all companies to adhere to them. They are carefully calibrated and designed to ensure the safety of users and to protect them from sometimes disgraceful content.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reform the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to strengthen its independence, powers and accountability.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent)
My Lords, the Government are committed to building the confidence of victims and families in the work of the commission and to making timely progress so that they can obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. To do this, the Government are engaging with all parties to help determine what provisions should be included in primary legislation to reform the commission, as outlined in the Secretary of State’s Statement to the Commons on 4 December 2024, which I repeated to this House.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. We are aware that 90% of the killings that took place during what are known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland were caused by terrorists, many of whom emanated from the Republic of Ireland. What are the Minister and the Government doing to try to engage with the Republic of Ireland? As we have heard from both the former Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland’s proposals for dealing with those killings that emanated from that country have been very weak. Will the Minister also give an undertaking that no former security force members who served in Northern Ireland will be excluded from serving as investigators in the ICRIR?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and for his service with the UDR in Northern Ireland and as a politician. With regard to our engagement with the Government of Ireland, as co-guarantors of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we are working closely with the current and incoming Governments of Ireland to ensure that their role in dealing with legacy cases is recognised. We are looking to engage with them as key stakeholders as part of our new plans for legacy, which, as the noble Lord knows are in development. He will be aware that there are currently no prohibitions on investigators for ICRIR and I would not expect there to be any.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Prime Minister promised that the Government would stop Gerry Adams receiving any compensation. Why, then, in July, did they so abruptly drop the appeal against the High Court judgment on the amendments I made to the legacy Bill that would have achieved just that and which Labour supported at the time? Was the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland consulted before that decision was taken? Until publication yesterday of the Policy Exchange paper, what proposals of their own were the Government actively working on to remedy this situation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think it would be helpful for people to appreciate what the Prime Minister actually said yesterday, which is that the legacy Act was
“unfit, not least because it gave immunity to hundreds of terrorists and was not supported by victims in Northern Ireland—nor, I believe, by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Court found it unlawful … We will put in place a better framework. We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 324.]
The objective in Sections 46 and 47 was right, which is why my party supported it in opposition. The method has been found to be unlawful and we are looking at every option for engagement. The noble Lord may be interested to look at the comments of the High Court. Although we did not appeal, the court chose to comment and suggested that we would have failed in our appeal. I have the exact wording which I will send to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister provide your Lordships’ House with an update on the progress of the remedial order and of repealing the legacy legislation, which, as she rightly said, was opposed by political parties in Northern Ireland? Will she indicate that this new process will lead to the end of collusive behaviour on all sides, a root and branch review of ICRIR, and a commitment to the standards of legacy which were agreed by parties and by both Governments at the Stormont House talks in 2015?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. On 4 December, the Secretary of State laid a proposal for a draft remedial order in Parliament. This is the first step in correcting the mistakes of the previous Government’s approach and in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as was in our manifesto. The remedial order must sit in both Houses for two periods of 60 days to allow for proper scrutiny of the draft and for proper representations to be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has a key role in the process. It has already launched a call for evidence, which is due to close on Monday. The Secretary of State’s Statement, which I repeated in this House, also announced plans for primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. This will include provisions to reinstate legacy inquests halted by the Act, and to reform and strengthen the independent commission.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister a little more on the timing of the primary legislation? It is important to get this legislation right, but does she accept that this continued legal uncertainty on legacy issues is serving nobody in Northern Ireland well? Will she commit, for example, to bringing forward the new legislation, including a comprehensive reform of ICRIR, by the next anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in April?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. Let us be clear—this is about the victims of the Troubles and giving their families and those still affected by the Troubles the answers they so desperately need. Too many people have had to wait for too long. The Government are engaging with all parties in a spirit of openness to deliver on the promise of the Good Friday agreement, as well as on the Stormont House agreement. We will bring forward draft legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I belong to one of the families of those victims. Does the Minister accept that resolute action must be taken to deal with the legacy of the past? Without it, former soldiers will continue to find themselves in court, facing vexatious claims, while prominent terrorists such as Gerry Adams will fill their pockets with British taxpayers’ money to the horror of innocent victims and to the shame of this Government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have already touched on that last point and how we will deal with it. On next steps and protecting veterans, both the pain of those victims and the fear and concern of our military community need to be established. I put on record and declare my interest as an honorary officer of the Royal Navy and part of the defence family. It is clear that we need to act to protect veterans. Any veteran who needs to go through legal proceedings will receive welfare and, where appropriate, legal support. I am pleased that, last month, the Secretary of State announced the appointment of David Johnstone as the new Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. This will ensure that veterans’ voices across Northern Ireland will continue to have a strong advocate to support them.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government have decided to hold a public inquiry into the Pat Finucane case, rather than pass it to ICRIR, which the Secretary of State said was exceptional. A judge has now ordered a public inquiry into the death of Sean Brown, which, I am glad to say, is being appealed. Will the Government commit to a policy of there being no more public inquiries into legacy issues and legislate to this effect?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government have enormous sympathy for those killed, injured or bereaved as a result of the Troubles. I may be putting words into the noble Baroness’s mouth, but I assure your Lordships’ House that there is no hierarchy of pain or injustice. The Pat Finucane inquiry was agreed in the Weston Park agreement in 2001 and again in 2004 as part of a series of public inquiries. There is a public inquiry into Patrick Finucane because of the unique circumstances there. Noble Lords will appreciate that court proceedings on Sean Brown are happening today, so I cannot comment on that, but the Secretary of State has made clear his confidence in ICRIR as a vehicle for inquiries. That is why we are doing everything we can to secure confidence and make sure that it is the appropriate vehicle.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, to be clear and to reinforce what the Minister said, there was a concrete agreement 20 years ago that the British Government would have a public inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder. As one who was party to that agreement as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, before moving on to other positions, I am very glad that the Government have finally honoured it. It is a matter of honour when you explicitly carry out an agreement, not once but twice, that you eventually do something about it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, not for his question but for his work in helping secure and continue peace in Northern Ireland. We are where we are today because of his work and that of many others in this Chamber. We are very grateful for the work he did as one of the signatories to the Weston Park agreement.
Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in moving asylum seekers from accommodation in hotels.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are committed to reducing hotel use through reform of the asylum system, including streamlining asylum processing and establishing the Border Security Command to tackle people-smuggling gangs at source. In the year ending September 2024, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, down 36% from September 2023.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that reply. Labour’s manifesto said that it would
“end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds”.
That must be right, as hotels are an expensive and inappropriate solution, but it will be a challenge for the Government as, since July, there are 5,000 more asylum seekers in hotels than there were and all the 35,000 the Minister has just mentioned are likely to get leave to remain. Responsibility currently rests with the Home Office, but do we not need a much more joined-up approach with local government if we are to reduce dependency on hotels, not least because a hotel costs £145 a day per person, whereas so-called dispersed accommodation costs less than 1/10th of that, at £14 a day? Should we not transfer responsibility for asylum seekers in hotels from the Home Office to local authorities, together with the funds, saving public money and enabling those in the hotels to be more integrated with local services when they leave them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is a fair gentleman and I understand the challenge we face with hotel accommodation. He will know that, although hotel numbers are stable now, the Government have a manifesto commitment and in March we will close a further nine hotels. He raises local authorities. Around 252 local authorities had dispersed accommodation in January 2024 and 176 did in April 2022. We have increased the number of local authorities that have it. He is right that we need to discuss and consult with them, but ultimately the integrity of the asylum system depends on the Home Office having oversight of it. We want to progress the matters he has raised in a sensible and efficient way, but we have to retain responsibility.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Young, raises a good point. He talks about the challenge. Will the Minister remind us who gave the present Government that challenge? Who created it for us? Did the noble Lord and many of his colleagues make these positive and helpful suggestions over the last 14 years?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say that in 2015 no hotels were housing asylum seekers. That figure rose to 400 at its peak just over a year ago. It has now dropped considerably. For the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, the failure to control borders and sea crossings led to these daily costs to the taxpayer and legitimate asylum seekers using that asylum accommodation. That is a failure of political management and we are determined to address it.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may well recall the response he gave me when we discussed the proposal for allowing asylum seekers to work, thereby not only reducing the need for accommodation but dramatically reducing the budget. He said that it was a policy idea. Given that, what consideration have the Government and his department given to reducing the demand for accommodation through allowing people to work? If they have not already done so, when will they?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think I recall answering that it was a policy submission that we would reflect on. The important point for the Government is to do three things: first, speed up agreement on asylum claims to ensure that people with genuine asylum claims have a right to live here, and, presumably, will subsequently wish to work here; secondly, put in place Border Force control to stop illegal migration and gangmasters subverting the asylum system; and, thirdly, ensure that we reduce the asylum accommodation that we have, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young—cost and efficiency—and look at dispersed accommodation in the meantime. I will keep the policy suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord German, on the table as part of the contributions to discussions on how we achieve those three objectives.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that a few months ago University College London and ECPAT issued a report on the position of asylum-seeking children in these hotels. They found that dozens of children had been kidnapped by criminal gangs from hotels run by the Home Office; 440 children had gone missing, 144 had not been found and 118 were still unaccounted for. Is the noble Lord engaging with ECPAT and University College London about their report and can he update us on the figures—and, if not, can he write to us? Is he aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is engaging with the Home Office on this issue? I know him well enough to know that he will take a personal interest, but I hope he will commit today to doing so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will update the noble Lord in due course. As a rough estimate from memory, around 90 children are still unaccounted for. The importance of safeguarding in asylum accommodation is critical. It is ultimately the responsibility of the local authority where those children are placed. However, I take on board his suggestions and concerns; I will look into them and write to him. It is key to ensure that the safeguarding of unaccompanied children and accompanied children who are at risk is paramount.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, whether it is a local authority or the Home Office, there is the difficulty for families who are moved around too much that the children lose their education and friends. It is very dislocating and destabilising. Can we have some continuity and awareness of that difficulty?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is vital, as my noble friend says, that we ensure continuity. The key point is that we get people out of asylum hotels and into dispersed accommodation as quickly as possible and, ultimately, speed up the asylum system so that people have a decision on whether they can stay or have to leave. If they can stay, that stability is there and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned, they can contribute to work and potentially help fill some of the labour shortages this country faces.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto there was an announcement that new measures to clear the asylum backlog would be taken, through caseworkers, returns and the enforcement unit. It also pledged to hire 1,000 new staff for this unit. What progress has been made on this and how many staff have been hired?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I remind the House that there were no hotels in 2015 and 400 when the noble Lord was in office. We are recruiting those 1,000 staff and have improved the return rate, the assessment rate and the efficiency rate. Although I do not have the numbers in this brief, I have them in another brief; I will send them to him and put them in the Library, and he will see improvements over when he had tenure over this job.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, what would be the downside of allowing asylum seekers to work? Why is this idea just still sitting on the table rather than being urgently agreed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful and I realise that this is a live discussion point. The downside of asylum seekers working is that sometimes asylum claims are not upheld or found to be fraudulent and sometimes people have to be returned. Sometimes, therefore, asylum seekers could be put in positions whereby they are undertaking work they have no legal right to do. I understand that is a difficult issue, but the Government are committed to trying to resolve it by processing asylum claims as speedily as possible so that people can be legitimised or, in the case of non-legitimisation, returned to a place of safety elsewhere.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Government are trying to get all parties to collaborate on social care, when the policies emerge, and given the difficulties we have across the board with immigration and the suggestions that we need some new policy approaches, should we not attempt to bring all the parties together to try to get some movement and commonality to deal with the whole range of topics that face us, which none of us have been successful in addressing properly so far?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have an immigration White Paper due to be published shortly and I hope that all parties and Members can contribute to the discussion around that.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, is it not correct that the people of this country are concerned ultimately with having people removed who are shown to be illegally here? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when I was the Minister and the Conservative Party was in Government, we concentrated considerable resources on doing just that. I think the people of this country were very happy with that approach.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the current Government have removed in excess of 16,000 people who have no right to live in this country since we came to office in July last year, and we will continue to do that, but the key to removing people is the speed of assessment, which, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requires individuals employed to assess, test and determine. That is what this Government are focusing on: removals, speeding up assessment, and in the meantime, to go back to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Young, trying to find a way to save the taxpayer money on the costs associated with that temporary period when no determination has been made.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
Foot and Mouth Disease
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests, including as a dairy farmer who remembers well the terror and isolation experienced by all livestock farmers during the last foot and mouth outbreak. Can the Minister explain to the House what lessons have been learned and what would be done differently, were this dreadful disease to reach our shores, to prevent a repeat of that terror and the awful scenes of burning carcasses that tormented our entire country?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The noble Lord is right when he says that the mounds of burning carcasses tormented our country. I do not think any of us who were around at the time will ever forget that. He asks about lessons learned. In addition to regularly exercising our disease response capabilities, lessons identified reviews are undertaken at the end of any outbreak in order to identify and evaluate where improvements to disease response capability processes and organisational structures for managing an outbreak of exotic notifiable disease can be made. This is something we always do.
Following both the 2001 and 2007 foot and mouth outbreaks, extensive inquiries and reviews were undertaken. That led to some critical changes coming in, including, for example, the introduction of a ban on swill feeding, standstill periods for cattle, sheep and goats of six days and 20 days for pigs, and improvements in livestock traceability. These were all implemented in response to the recommendations of those lessons identified reviews and they are critical in order to prevent infection—in the case of swill feeding bans, for example—because we need to minimise any implications of the disease coming to this country again.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the last time we had a countrywide outbreak of foot and mouth, it was devastating to both the farming community and the rural economy, as tourism-dependent businesses were badly hit. I commend the Government for their swift action to prevent German meat products entering the country. Biosecurity is vital for the protection of farmers and to maintain public health standards. A veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is essential. Do the Government have a timetable for signing such an agreement?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot provide the noble Baroness with any specific dates on those agreements at present. All I can say to her at this stage is that it is very much a government priority and we are working closely with the EU to make progress as best we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Government have imposed a blanket ban on all livestock products coming from Germany to England, Wales and Scotland but it is a much narrower ban in respect of Northern Ireland, where the ban applies only to a restricted zone around where the outbreak took place. Can she comment on that, and say whether she and her colleagues have been in touch with her counterparts in the Irish Republic?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are of course regularly in touch with our counterparts across all the devolved Governments, and the Governments in Germany and the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is subject to the EU import rules, which is why it is not included in the ban we brought in yesterday. This includes regionalisation requirements and is set out in EU legislation. Northern Ireland is protected from the disease coming in through being included in the EU ban, so Northern Ireland is as protected as the rest of Great Britain through those measures. The noble Lord can be certain that the EU would not want to see any spread of this disease to any other part of the European Union, and that includes the Republic of Ireland and, through the way the regulations are currently set up, Northern Ireland as well. I met yesterday with politicians from Northern Ireland and reassured them that we are as serious about stopping the disease entering Northern Ireland as we are in respect of any other part of the UK.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I congratulate Defra on the decisive action it has taken. I, too, have memories of the former outbreaks, travelling with my father to farms where what happened was devastating. Part of the risk comes from illegal movements of cattle and meat products. What additional briefing and support has been given to border and police forces to try to protect against this? Also, are there any additional resources for the mental health and well-being of our farming community, who will find this a huge threat to their livelihood?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We meet very regularly with the port health authorities, which are of course responsible for managing any illegal imports into this country. Dover has picked up more illegal meat imports recently than at any other time, so the authorities are clearly doing an excellent job. Of course, we work very closely with them and with APHA to ensure they have what they need to manage any imports. There are issues around the mental health of farmers across many areas. It has been a struggle for them over many years, and the Government and Defra offer support in that regard.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I wish the Minister well in this situation. As Animal Health Minister, I announced to Parliament what we thought was the first case of foot and mouth in February 2001. In fact, we later found that there were already probably 78 other cases in the country. That leads me to the conclusion that you do not have a lot of time to plan or to implement when you have the first case. What contingencies have been made, and what consideration has been given to vaccination, particularly ring vaccination? We had not developed plans for that, but it could have changed the progress of the disease.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks and is in line with international standards of best practice for controlling the disease. Alongside culling and immediate movement controls, we are now looking at deploying vaccination as a control option. In order to achieve that, we now have a vaccine bank for a range of foot and mouth disease stereotypes.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is a highly infectious disease and no respecter of borders. The illegal meat trade has already been referred to. Is the Minister satisfied that limiting these restrictions entirely to Germany is appropriate, rather than also including its bordering countries?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is probably helpful to explain the disease outbreak in Germany, in order to put it in context. The German authorities have put in place strict controls to prevent onward spread, and they are currently investigating the circumstances of the outbreak. They have put in very strict controls already: the herd at the infected premises and all susceptible farmed livestock within a kilometre of the premises have been culled; there is a three-kilometre protection zone and a 10-kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the infected premises, out of which no susceptible animals can move; and clinical examination, sampling and testing of susceptible animals in the zone is under way.
It is also important to point out that at the moment, it is just one incident and there have been no further incidents. Our Chief Veterinary Officer is in close contact with the German chief veterinary officer so that, if we get any further information, we can act accordingly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in offering sympathy today to all the farmers who are fearing a repeat of the previous disastrous events. As the German Animal Welfare Foundation said, we are seeing a continual stream of animal diseases breaking out around the world, due to
“industrial farming and a globalised trade in live animals”.
Is this not a sad further reminder of the fragility of our global food system, which has huge implications for food and economic security, welfare and human health?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to point out that our animal welfare and husbandry standards are very high compared to many other countries. One role we can play is to encourage other nations to follow the example of our animal husbandry standards. Also, we have very clear controls at our borders to ensure that the meat that comes into our country is of a standard we would expect.
Local Government Reorganisation
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, what local residents want from their local council are good quality services at a reasonable cost, however it is organised. When the Conservatives took control of Harlow Council in 2021, they cut council tax, and have kept it frozen ever since. Under this Government’s new local government funding formula, Harlow will lose approximately 30% of its grant funding next year. Why is the Government’s new formula punishing councils that are keeping taxes down and providing better value for money for taxpayers in their area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I find it astonishing to hear the party opposite challenging us on funding issues in local government, when it has punished the whole of local government for 14 years in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness about what the public want from their local government services. They are not worried about the overheads of additional councils; they want to see good public services at local level and good value for money. That is what the devolution and local government reorganisation programme is all about.
The review of the funding formula will happen as we go into the spending review in the spring, and is there to make sure that funding is directed where the need is greatest. That will be what we set out to do. It is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and we will continue to do so. Let us not take any lessons in that from the party that has starved local government and brought it to its knees over 14 years.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats do not accept the assumptions behind Labour’s following the Conservative imposition of directly elected mayors and larger councils across England. It is easier to impose yet another reorganisation than to address tax reforms, public service limitations and trust in democracy. Distant mayors cannot revive local democracy, and cancelling elections will deepen public mistrust. Given that this reorganisation is intended to save money, have the Government factored in the costs, such as redundancy payments, movements of staff and buildings, etcetera? What plans do the Government have to strengthen the role of really local town and parish councils, in which it will still be possible for ordinary voters to get to know their local representatives and for representatives to know their voters?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord. I believe that creating councils that can deliver good public services at local level is vital. We have seen from the areas that already have mayors that they have been able to take a strategic approach to delivering vital strategic assets that drive the local economy in their area, which will improve the lives of their residents. On the question he raised about funding, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that there would be a one-off reorganisation cost of around £400 million, but that there would be billions of pounds-worth of savings to the public purse over subsequent years, which could be reinvested in delivering the services that people are looking for.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, the White Paper suggests that the optimum size for a unitary authority is a population of about 500,000. Can I get her assurance that those unitary authorities that are working effectively and efficiently, and providing good local services, and which may be short of 500,000 in their population, will not be unnecessarily disrupted? Furthermore, over the years I have seen so many different optimum sizes being recommended for the provision of local government services. Will she place in the Library the basis of the calculation that the Government have made that leads them to the conclusion that 500,000 is the right figure?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his important question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify some of the misunderstanding around the number that has been given. It was in our manifesto that we would pursue a devolution agenda, and for many months after the Government were elected we were pushed to give an optimum number for the size of a council. Of course, when we did so, everyone said, “Not that number; that’s not the right number.” There is some flexibility around it. The important thing in the whole of this process is that the size, geography and demography of the units created make sense for people. We can be flexible around the numbers, but the number of 500,000 was intended to set out what we feel would be around the right size for the economies of scale and to deliver effective services at local level in a way that gives value for money.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister please inform the House of any work the Government have done on what the practical implications might be of this local government reorganisation on their encouraging plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament? Will this reorganisation help speed up the delivery of these homes or, in practice, slow the whole process down? Can the Minister give us a clue as to how this will work in practice as public sector staff look for new jobs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The intention is that this will help with the delivery of both growth and new homes. The intention, as set out quite clearly in the White Paper, is for mayors to have powers over strategic planning—not the local planning that local authorities currently do—so that they can work with the constituent councils in their areas to set out plans for housing. The noble Lord referred to issues of planning. We have put in a significant sum of money to improve the capacity for planning authorities as we take forward the programme of delivering 1.5 million homes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. On Monday, in Grand Committee, the Minister stated that
“we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. GC 200.]
Can she confirm that it is the Government’s intention to oblige all county and district areas to unitise?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The process of local government reorganisation will do that. We want to move at a pace that is right for the local authorities concerned. That is why we have set out a four-track approach, depending on where people are with their readiness to go forward. We believe that unitary councils can lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability, enabling politicians to focus on delivering for their residents. Generally speaking, as I said earlier, residents do not care about structures; they just want good public services, delivered at value for money.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, it looks as if the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025-26 will disadvantage rural areas, with the removal of the rural services delivery grant making the situation even worse. What steps are being taken to ensure that the needs of rural communities are being considered in the devolution process and that the strategic policy approaches developed by the combined authorities meet the specific needs of service delivery in our rural communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and for his continued interest in rural communities. We believe that part of the process of devolution will mean that the people who are taking the decisions for rural communities will be people who have skin in the game in those rural areas; that is very important. Places with a significant rural population will, on average, receive an increase of around 5% in their core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase. The rural service delivery grant does not properly account for need, and a large number of predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right, and a sign that we need to allocate funding more effectively. We are keen to hear about rural councils, as well as others, as we go through the spending review, so that we can work on what would work best for them in the new funding system.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, no doubt the Minister will be aware of the eye-watering debts of over £2 billion left to the people of Woking by their former Conservative council. What is the level of risk to other local authorities if they are merged with Woking? What analysis have the Government undertaken of chronic failures of financial management, such as Woking, and the likely impact on reorganisations if the Government fail to find a way to resolve a debt of this nature?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that there are councils that may be in scope for this programme which have significant debt. We are working through a programme with those councils—Woking is one of them and Thurrock is another. It should not be for people outside those areas to pick up that debt. This is not helped by the fact that our Government have inherited a broken local audit system. For the financial year 2022-23, just 1% of audited accounts were published by the original deadline. That is not good enough. We are working on fixing that, and we will be working through a process with the councils concerned.
Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement in this space, and I start with an apology. When I agreed to speak to this, I was told it would be first business after Questions, and I am afraid I have to leave for a flight midway through, so I apologise to noble Lords and hope that they understand. My colleague will be here all the way through.
As I say, we welcome the Statement and we welcome the Matt Clifford plan, which my noble friend Lord Camrose kicked off when he was leading these efforts in government, so we see this as a positive step forward. As Health Minister during that time, I saw first-hand the potential of AI, how it can really transform our services and how the UK really does have the potential for a leadership role.
Matt Clifford's plan, we believe, is right that the role of the Government in this is really to establish the foundations for growth: namely, making sure we have an AI-skilled workforce, the computing power, the energy needs to drive that computing power and the right regulatory framework. Then we use the assets we have, such as the data, to create the right datasets and use our public sector to help the rollout in many of them. I will focus my comments and questions on how we are going to make sure that those things happen.
Turning to the first one, the AI-skilled workforce, I must admit that when I read in the report that 5,000 AI jobs were being created in this, like most of us, I thought “5,000—that is great.” Then you realise that, actually, 4,500 of those are in construction and only 500 are in AI itself, and you start to get worried that maybe this is a bit style over substance. I am very keen to understand from the Minister here what we are specifically doing in this space. I am mindful, for instance, that we talk about having government develop training for the universities with a delivery or reporting date of autumn 2027. We all know how quickly AI is moving in this space, and we are saying we are just going to have the training in place for the universities to give these courses in two and a half years’ time. I think we all know that, in two and a half years’ time, the world will have moved on massively from that, and no doubt the training will be out of place. I hope the Minister can come back on that and give us some reassurances that we will actually have an accelerated process—I am afraid this will be a bit of a recurring theme.
On computing power, my noble friend Lord Camrose, when he was in government, had secured an £800 million commitment to build a supercomputer in Culham. Now I read, in the Government’s action plan, that they will
“start to develop the business case process”
for an AI computer. Unfortunately, like many noble Lords, I know what that means: a Treasury business case process, so you are talking about a year and a half to two years, at least. All I can guarantee is that, if you take that length of time to produce a business plan, whatever you were planning in terms of a supercomputer will be superseded by advancements and events. What is the Minister doing to streamline that business plan process and get action on this front so that we can get that new supercomputer fast?
On energy, we all accept there is a desperate need for energy; again, that is laid down in the action plan. The Government’s answer to that is to set up an AI energy quango. I think most of us would say that we need to set out what our energy needs require, but then surely it is up to the network or GB Energy to fulfil that. Why do we need another quango and another layer of bureaucracy? What powers is that quango going to have if it will not be commissioning these facilities, which I assume GB Energy will do?
On regulation and governance, the regulatory framework is another very important part of the foundation. I know the Government have plans for an AI Bill, but what is the timeline for it? Again—this is a recurrent theme—it needs to be quick so we can keep up with events.
Moving on to AI datasets, I know that this is something that the Minister is very keen on in the health space, as am I, being the former Health Minister responsible for this area. We have the best health data in the world; the beauty of having a National Health Service is that we have data on primary and secondary care going back to the Second World War. We have data coming in from the UK Biobank and other sources, such as retina scans from opticians which, we are hearing, can be used for stroke detection or maybe the early warning signs of dementia. There are fantastic opportunities for this, and we can already see its applications around the health service today. We have been doing the research with focus groups to bring the public with us on the use of their healthcare data. We have the potential to create the UK Silicon Valley in the life sciences on the back of the data that we have. We had in place a data for R&D programme, which was looking to utilise and create datasets in the health space. Could the Minister update us on where we are with that, and whether it is going to be his focus? As we discussed, that is something I would be very happy to work on together.
The last part of the foundations is to use the assets that we have in the public sector as a rollout plan for that and, again, health is a perfect place for this. We have seen brilliant applications already in cancer treatment and in overprescriptions; there are possibilities with the NHS app, which is really taking off, and to use AI in the 111 service to help triage; these are all fantastic opportunities. We put in place an NHS productivity plan which was very AI driven and AI heavy. Could the Minister update us on the AI productivity plan for the NHS and what progress we are making on it?
To conclude, we are very positive about the opportunities AI provides to transform the whole country’s economy and public services in ways that we cannot even imagine. However, it is businesses that need to drive this. It is the role of the Government to set the foundations to allow business to deliver; it is not the role of quangos, which are not going to deliver it. This area will need a Minister to drive it through and make it happen. Is the Minister the one who will do that? If he is, I give him all our support and wish him the best of luck with it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome this plan, perhaps with rather less baggage than the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State invoked Babbage, Lovelace, Turing, the pioneering age of steam and even the white heat of the technological revolution, but at its core there is an important set of proposals with great potential. However, it is a wish list rather than a plan at present.
I particularly welcome the language in the plan around regulation, particularly where it refers to regulation assisting innovation, which is a change of tone. However, the plan and Statement raise many questions. In particular, how will the Government ensure that AI development mitigates risks beyond just safety to ensure responsible AI development and adoption, especially given the fact that a great deal of UK development will involve open-source applications?
On the question of the introduction of AI into the public sector, the Government are enormously enthusiastic. But, given their public sector digital transformation agenda, why are the Government watering down citizens’ rights in automated decision-making in the Data (Use and Access) Bill?
We welcome the recognition of the need to get the economic benefits for the UK from public sector data which may be used to develop AI models. What can the Minister tell us at this stage about what the national data library will look like? It is not clear that the Government yet know whether it will involve primary or secondary legislation or whatever. The plan and response also talk about “sovereign compute”, but what about sovereign cloud capability? The police cannot even find a supplier that guarantees its records will be stored in the UK.
While the focus on UK training is welcome, we must go beyond high-level skills. Not only are the tech companies calling out for technical skills, but AI is also shaping workplaces, services and lives. Will the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, have a role in advising on this? Do the changes to funding and delivery expected for skills boot camps contribute to all of this?
On the question of energy requirements for the new data centres, will the new AI energy council be tasked with ensuring that they will have their own renewable energy sources? How will their location be decided, alongside that of the new AI growth centres?
The plan cannot be game-changing without public investment. It is about delivery, too, especially by the new sovereign data office; it cannot all be done with private sector investment. Where is the public money coming from, and over what timescale? An investment plan for compute is apparently to be married to the spending review; how does a 10-year timescale fit with this? I am very pleased that a clear role is identified for the Alan Turing Institute, but it is not yet clear what level of financial support it will get, alongside university research, exacompute capacity, and the British Business Bank in the spin-out/start-up pipeline support. What will the funding for the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult and the design and manufacturing ecosystem consist of?
The major negative in the plan for many of us, as the Minister already knows, is the failure to understand that our creative industries need to be able to derive benefits from their material used for training large language models. The plan ominously recommended reforming,
“the UK text and data mining regime so that it is at least as competitive as the EU”,
and the Government have stacked the cards in the consultation over this. We on these Benches and the creative industries will be fighting tooth and nail any new text and data mining exemption requiring opt-out.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, I anticipated that this Statement would attract interest from Members of this House, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Clement-Jones, for their comments and their broad welcoming of the report. I will try to respond to as many points as I can, but first I will reiterate the importance of this announcement.
Through the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan and the Government’s response, we are signalling that our ambition is high when it comes to embracing the opportunities presented by AI. This is a plan to exploit the economic growth that AI will bring and to drive forward the Government’s plan for change. Training the UK’s workforce is a key part of the plan, and there are steps with clear timelines as to when we will do that. I will come back to training a little later.
We need to diffuse AI technology across the economy and public services for better productivity and opportunity, and embrace the transformational impact it is going to have on everyday lives, from health and education to business and government services.
As has rightly been pointed out, AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace. That is why you will see in this response very tight timelines for actions. The one that was picked out on training, which is 2027, is only one part of the response; you will see that Skills England is due to report very shortly with the first phase of its recommendations and will follow that in autumn with further work. So most of the timelines are very tight, recognising the challenge that the pace of advancement in AI brings.
The benefits extend far beyond economic growth. It is the catalyst that we need for a public service revolution, including, of course, in the NHS. It will drive growth and innovation and deliver better outcomes for citizens. It also lies at the heart of two important missions for the Government: kick-starting economic growth and delivering an NHS fit for the future. By investing in AI now, we are ensuring that the UK is prepared to harness the transformational potential that undoubtedly exists. This will improve the quality and delivery of public services. The plan is a way to do that with real speed and ambition.
The issue of regulation has been raised and there is no doubt that the regulatory environment will be critical in driving trust and capitalising on the technology offers that arise. By bringing forward the recommendations in the plan, we will continue to support the AI Safety Institute and further develop the AI assurance ecosystem, including the small companies that will arise as a result, to increase trust in and adoption of AI.
The Government are committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened. Part of this is the role of the regulatory innovation office. The vast majority of AI should be regulated at the point of use by the expert regulators, but some relates to fast-evolving technology. That is why we will continue to deliver on manifesto commitments by placing binding requirements on the developers of the most powerful AI models. Those commitments will build on the work that has already been done at the Seoul and Bletchley AI safety summits and will be part of strengthening the role of the AI Safety Institute. This issue of making sure that we get the safety side of this right as we develop opportunities is of course key.
The question of copyright was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I know that this is an extremely hot issue at the moment, which will be discussed many times over the next few days and weeks. The Government have issued a consultation, in which there are three principles: the owners of copyright should have control; there should be a mechanism to allow access to data to enable companies to develop their models in the UK, rather than elsewhere in the world; and, critically, there must be transparency. Where does the data flow and how can you work out the input from the output? Those three areas are a key part of the consultation and the consultation is crucial. We have a session planned for next week to go through this in some detail, and I invite and welcome all noble Lords to it, because getting this right will be important for the country. I look forward to discussing those proposals over the next few days and weeks.
Delivering the AI Opportunities Action Plan will require a whole-of-government effort. We are starting that work immediately to deliver on the commitments, build the foundations for AI growth, drive adoption across the economy and build UK capability. We are already expecting initial updates on a series of actions by this spring. For instance, DSIT will explore options for growing the domestic AI safety market and will provide a public update on this by spring this year.
Turning to some of the very specific points, I completely agree that training is crucial and we have to get it right. There are several recommendations and, as I said, the earliest will give a readout this spring. I do understand that this is not something that can wait until 2027; it has to start immediately.
It is important to lay out for the House the situation with compute. This spring, there will be access to two new major compute facilities for AI: Dawn in Cambridge and Isambard-AI in Bristol. When fully active this year, they will increase the AI compute facility something like thirtyfold, instantly. Those are the types of compute infrastructure that are needed. It is AI-specific compute infrastructure. It is not the case that the plan for the future starts now; it is happening now and those compute infrastructures will be used by academia, SMEs and others over the course of the year and beyond. The plan beyond that is to increase the compute infrastructure twentyfold by 2030. That requires a 10-year plan and for us to think into the future about what will be needed for us to be at the forefront of this. Exascale of course is different; it is being looked at as part of that, but it is not the same.
On energy, the noble Lord recognises that one of the most difficult things in government is to join up across departments. That is why it is important.
The national data library will be essential. I welcome the offer of help on health from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and I will certainly take him up on that; this is an important area to look at. Noble Lords will be hearing much more about the national data library over the next few months. I completely agree that, as we develop this technology, we will need to ensure that citizens’ rights are properly protected. That is something that we will continue to discuss as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, among other issues.
Funding will be picked up; it is a fully funded programme, but then we will need to go into a spending review, as Governments always have to.
I will wrap up there to leave plenty of time for others to ask questions, but I hope that I have addressed some of the initial questions.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the Communications and Digital Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, I am pleased to welcome the AI Opportunities Action Plan, with the exception of the recommendation that relates to copyright. We will come back to that. It is important to emphasise the extent to which change will be necessary to deliver on this plan. In particular, the Government have to acknowledge a change in mindset across Whitehall and the public sector.
Perhaps I could ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that the action plan benefits UK start-ups and scale-ups and does not entrench market dominance by the established players in this area.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her input to date and on the important copyright issue. The question of market dominance is important. It is worth reflecting that Matt Clifford is an entrepreneur who deals with start-ups; the report is very strong on start-ups and what needs to be done to make sure that they are part of this, including what regulatory change needs to take place to encourage start-ups to do this. At the moment, it is quite difficult for them to navigate the system, including procurement. Government procurement is notoriously difficult for start-ups, and many of the specific aims of the plan pull that together to allow start-ups to access government procurement plans.
So there are very clear ambitions here to make this about growing an ecosystem of companies in this country, while recognising that many of the existing major companies, with which we will also have to work, are not here. Driving this forward will be a key task for DSIT right the way across government. It will need all-of-government activity, as outlined in the report.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the national data library, which is very welcome, but data in the library needs to be safe and its use carefully thought through. What role does the Minister think public interest thresholds should play in deciding what data is collected and how it should be used?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Noble Lords will hear much more about the national data library over the coming months, but it is important to recognise that data is valuable only if it is collected well, curated properly and is interoperable and accessible. We need to ensure that it is properly protected, both for individual privacy, which is the point the noble Lord raises, and to make sure that we get the appropriate valuation of the data and that that value flows back into the UK and into public services. These will all be key features of the national data library.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but I draw my noble friend’s attention to the element which refers to the “immense” energy used by this new technology. Is the AI energy council already in the process of estimating the quantity of energy required, and am I right in thinking that the data centres will be placed around the country in locations that enable them to have access to sufficient energy for them to work?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. The energy issue is crucial for any plan for AI, and that is why the energy council is being set up. It is precisely why Culham is the first place identified; it has a significant energy supply already. We anticipate that the centres will be based around the country in places where there is renewable energy or where other sources of energy can be accessed easily in order to provide the power the centres require. It is also important that the council looks at the overall environmental impact, which will be part of this.
On energy consumption, it is known what is required for a single data centre and, as we need multiple data centres, the type and amount we will require is known. It is crucial that this is done on top of everything else that the energy is required for. This is a big and difficult problem, but we can already see an answer to it with the first identification of a site for the AI growth zone.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out the register. I welcome the plan; it has 50 excellent recommendations, but does the Minister not agree that to bring these to life we need an arrowhead focus from government on broad AI legislation—much broader than what is currently planned—that includes an AI authority that is agile, nimbly focused and horizontally applicable; AI-responsible officers; the protection of creatives; and right-sized regulation that is good for citizens, innovators and consumers, in order to deliver according to the fundamental truth that these are our data, our decisions and our AI futures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I certainly agree that it is a significant challenge, and I add one other thing. The challenge is not only one of regulation of procurement and making sure that we have the data systems correct; it is one of making sure that we actually deliver, rather than talking about it. Delivery will be key, and we need a proper mechanism to deliver this in the form of a mission with real delivery outcomes. That is why I was pleased to see that we have very tight timelines on all the recommendations in the report. We must make sure that that happens and, as we do so, that we bring in the other necessary controls and actions to propel every part of this, from funding start-ups right the way through to procurement, and, as the noble Lord said, ensuring that we look after the privacy and autonomy of the data.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the importance of the data collected being interoperable and very reliable. With that mind, what discussions has he had with the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland to ensure that data such as NHS data is collected in a fashion that is comparable and therefore usable?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Clearly, this is a UK-wide issue. I am pleased that Scotland has been at the forefront of data in health for many years and has done an extremely good job of getting that into the right place. As we develop the national data library, these questions of data collection, interoperability, curation—which is incredibly important—and systems to ensure privacy and protection will be discussed widely right across the UK. We need to make sure that everything is interoperable, otherwise we will undo the value that we are creating.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s focus on delivery, which is vital if we are to make an impact in AI. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Holmes that legislation is the last thing we need. The coalition Government’s experience with the Government Digital Service was to find that we made rapid progress before powers were devolved down to individual departments, which then did everything in their power to make sure that nothing worked. While the Minister focuses on the delivery of the AI action plan, could he sort out the confusing quango landscape that now exists after 14 years of endless initiatives, and perhaps have a central function which relentlessly pushes through this excellent plan?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord very much. I will not add to his comments about the 14 years of endless initiatives, but it is crucial that when we do something such as this, we do it properly. Obviously, my experience was in setting up the Vaccine Taskforce to do just that, and this is the same sort of problem. We have to get everybody across government working on this; there is a big delivery task. Delivery should be our focus and we should keep holding ourselves to account for timelines and deliverables.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, Monday’s Statement on the AI Opportunities Action Plan highlighted the Government’s ambitious vision on AI adoption across the UK, and I welcome it. While the plan outlines significant investment and initiatives to boost AI infrastructure and capabilities, there are concerns about how SMEs will fare in this rapidly evolving landscape, which is largely dominated by the big tech companies. Recent data shows that only 25% of SMEs are currently using AI, despite 42% of them wishing to use it to increase their productivity. However, these small companies often lack the resources and the expertise to fully benefit from AI adoption. What specific measures will be implemented to protect SMEs from being squeezed out by the larger AI companies, and how will the Government facilitate meaningful collaborations between SMEs and the AI giants to foster the innovations and maintain a diverse, competitive AI infrastructure?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. There are two different aspects to his SME question—the SME use of AI, and the AI SMEs—and both are dealt with in the report, I think. Many of the recommendations indicate what would be done, but I will outline some of the points on SMEs for AI. There is an important join-up task to be undertaken, which is part of what this plan does: the things we fund at the beginning of the process, such as grants from Innovate UK to get companies off the ground, to supporting that funding through BBB and beyond, linking to regulation to make it as simple as we can to enable innovation, and linking in turn to procurement to ensure that there are procurement signals to allow these companies to get the investment to grow and to scale into the companies they could be.
On the adoption side, there is a specific group working on adoption of AI technologies across the UK and a report is due out by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the National Technology Adviser on adoption of technologies more broadly, which is about ensuring that we get uptake of new technologies in companies. We know that we have a long tail of companies that do not do that in the UK, and it will be an important part of making sure that the entire economy benefits.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister has noted that the Statement he has given us has a certain flavour of the 1960s about it, with the talk of harnessing the “white heat” of revolution, and all that, but from the point of view of those of us who went through that period, it might be helpful to know one or two of the things that went wrong, because it did not end terribly happily the last time we had this revolution of white heat. The problem then was that the Government’s PR people became a little too enthusiastic, and the Minister might discourage them today from phrases about seizing the future, embracing this, that and the other, and other generalities, of which there were plenty last time, but none of them led to the results that people wanted.
There is a repeat of the old fallacy that the Government deliver growth. It does not. We know that the Government can facilitate growth and can stop growth, and certainly that has happened in the past, but the idea that the Government alone are somehow going to lead, rather than develop entirely new relationships with the private sector as the digital age demands, is one that needs to be examined carefully before the Government rush into more mistakes.
There is another problem, which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, reminded me of—it was not quite so intense then but it is intense now. This whole revolution and the data centres demand enormous amounts of electricity—far more than seems to be planned by the energy department. It talks about 200 gigawatts, moving up from 65 gigawatts, but data centres can drink whole communities’ electricity, just like that. The Statement mentioned 500 megawatts, but we are really talking about gigawatts of a kind for which no planning is in place at the moment. Can we be assured that the SMR side of the Government’s energy transition gets a push? Will the Minister talk to the energy people and tell them that, unless they bring forward the SMR revolution, which is going on in many other countries, and go slow on the white elephant technologies such as Sizewell C—
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I will finish my sentence.
Unless that is done, we will not get the necessary electricity to drive through this revolution. Obviously one welcomes it, but there are many snags ahead.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his enthusiasm for the white heat of SMRs, which is an important point. There is a very clear set of recommendations, from an entrepreneur who understands how to set up and run companies. The approach is one of ensuring that there is funding for start-ups, innovation, regulatory clearance and a procurement pool, which are exactly the types of things that will deliver growth. They are facilitators of growth, because the noble Lord is right that growth comes from the private sector. That is what must be supported and that is what this plan aims to do.
On the power supply, I have already said that the join-up between DSIT and DESNZ in the energy council is exactly the right approach to make sure that we get a joined-up government approach to this. I suspect that it will require SMRs, among other approaches to getting energy in the right place.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention The AI Mirror, a book by Shannon Vallor, who holds a chair at the Edinburgh Futures Institute. It makes the crucial point that generative so-called artificial intelligence is not intelligent or creative but only reflects back to us—hence the mirror metaphor—what we have previously created. Will the Government acknowledge that one of the great risks of the explosion in the use of AI is stagnation—a building in and entrenching of the discrimination, racism and inequalities that already exist across our public and private systems, as was infamously demonstrated in Australia in the Robodebt scandal?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
It is important to recognise that there is more than one type of AI, including generative AI and specific models. It is the case that AI is very dependent on the data put in, and there are risks of bias being entrenched. That is an important safety issue that must be looked at and that we must be aware of. On whether it is intelligent, the answer is that we are not in the era of general artificial intelligence but at an earlier stage. These are not yet fully intelligent machines. Whether they get to that and over what time period is something of an unknown, but we are in an era where we can do pretty remarkable things, and we should harness that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there has been a tendency for high-tech and research investment to go overwhelmingly to the south and east of England in recent decades. I want to underline the regional dimension of AI. The supercomputer was going to be in Edinburgh, which has an excellent computing faculty and a large element of highly trained people. Leeds and Manchester also have useful workforces already trained for this. The renewable energy and the water—which I understand is necessary to cool these computers—is much more easily available in the north and west of the United Kingdom than in the south and east. Can the Minister ensure, to the best of his ability, that we do not yet again have facilities built in the south and east of England, thus increasing the pressure on housing and everything else in the south and east and leaving the north and west in poverty?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I absolutely assure the noble Lord that he will see growth zones in those areas. They will not be concentrated in the south-east. The reason the first one happened to be in Culham was to do with the immediacy of potential private sector interaction and the power supply. On the compute facility in Edinburgh, ARCHER2, the very important computer there, will be extended to the end of 2026, and we are looking actively at what happens next. I reiterate that that computer is not primarily about AI, although it will have AI capabilities.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of this side.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I reassure my noble friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches that he should not worry too much about this. In September, I spent a significant amount of time in Ayrshire, in the company of a representative of one of the largest asset managers in the world. They were looking for a site in Ayrshire, thankfully, for what has become known as critical compute infrastructure. I was in the company of the local Member of Parliament, who was very keen to get this infrastructure there. In the first conversation we had with this investor, it was clear that access to energy was the most important factor as to whether we got this substantial investment. It was equally clear that global competition for this sort of investment was going to be dependent on the comparative rollout of newer advanced reactors.
We have a particular problem with this in Scotland. The current Scottish National Government are in opposition to building new nuclear power stations. When they were in coalition with the Scottish Greens, the position of the Scottish Greens was that there was nothing safe or secure about nuclear power. The point is that the new advanced reactors are much safer than they were. Will the Government, and the Minister in particular, come to Scotland to talk to SNP politicians and explain that this nuclear power is much safer, and that investment in it will bring this sort of investment into the country, so that we will not be left behind?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I reiterate that SMRs are part of the solution to this: they have lower core power and lower pressure, use a large fraction of coolant, and have safety advantages over traditional approaches. That will be made clear. That is why the AI energy council is so important, to make sure that this is properly thought-through and that we get these in the right place to support the data centres that are required.
Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we appreciate the Statement from His Majesty’s Government. As the Minister in the other place said, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have launched a consultation on the resale of live event tickets. That consultation will consider a cap on the price of ticket resales, increasing the regulation of ticket resale websites and apps, and strengthening consumer protections.
All noble Lords will be aware that the resale market plays an important role in supporting artists, fans and venues. Authorised resellers can provide a safe and secure way to transfer unwanted or unusable tickets, which ensures that seats are not left empty at venues and that those who cannot attend events any more are not left out of pocket. This is a mechanism which would seem to be sensible and which we can all support.
Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition, when in government, launched a review of secondary ticketing, led by Professor Michael Waterson, in 2016. We passed the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018, which banned ticket touts from using automated software to avoid security measures designed to help fans see their favourite musicians and sports teams at a fair price.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 required resellers to inform buyers of the true price of tickets, which should allow fans to make informed and educated decisions on what they choose to purchase. Much was done to protect fans and supporters from unfair practices in secondary ticket markets. Although protecting consumers from bad practice and exploitation is critically important, we should also remember that secondary ticket markets are not new and are no different from other types of secondary market that exist in many different sectors.
The consultation proposals announced in the Minister’s Statement in the other place consider imposing price caps on secondary ticketing. This may, prima facie, sound like an attractive proposal but His Majesty’s Official Opposition are concerned about this increasing the likelihood of a black market emerging. Price caps in other countries have been known to lead to shortages in the availability of goods subject to them and tickets are no different. That view has been supported by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which has warned:
“Draconian regulation, targeting only the secondary market, will only mean more tickets changing hands in informal settings without the same protections that exist in proper marketplaces”.
Rob Wilson, a professor of applied sport finance, has said:
“There is little doubt that a cap on resale prices will lead to an explosion of underground activity as punters seek market value for their purchases and the flexibility to buy and sell when and how they wish”.
If the proposal for a cap on secondary ticket prices were introduced, what safeguards and extra precautions would the Government take to prevent a rise in scammers and black market ticket reselling?
Another concern we have is the proposal for a ticket resale cap. The issues with such a policy were very well evident at the Paris Olympics, where the restrictions on the resale of tickets meant that many event venues had empty seats. This not only impacted the Olympic venues themselves but meant that many fans could not participate and enjoy seeing their nation compete in a sport that they love following.
This is not the right time to go back over the national insurance contributions debate, but one has only to read Hansard to see that many noble Lords are greatly concerned about the impact that measure will have on the live music and sporting industries. At a time when these sectors already face potential negative headwinds, many of the proposals in this consultation could have further significant and detrimental effects on the venues, not to mention on the fans.
We very much hope that the Government will proceed with a measured approach and carefully consider how such proposals as outlined in this consultation will affect music, sporting venues and, crucially, those who derive so much fun and enjoyment from attending these events.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, unlike the Conservatives, with their somewhat lukewarm response, we on these Benches very strongly welcome the Statement, not least because it is a clear promise of action. We welcome the words of the Minister in the other place, Chris Bryant, that
“the House should be in no doubt that we intend to act”.
To date, there has been too little action to address concerns that have been raised over very many years. Twenty years ago, in the other place, I asked the then Labour Government what they planned to do about widespread concerns about ticket touting. I waited until 2006 to get an answer, which was to call on the industry to find a voluntary solution to ticket touting. After four so-called summit meetings, very little was achieved.
More recently, the same voluntary approach was adopted by the then Conservative Government, who said in response to the CMA’s report and recommendations in 2021:
“The Government believes in the power of competitive markets to give consumers choice and flexibility”,
and concluded that
“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.
The voluntary approach has not worked.
There have, of course, been some improvements over the years—measures restricting the use of bots have been referred to already—but overall, Governments of all persuasions have failed to seriously address these issues, despite the growing concerns of fans, artists, event promoters, live venues and many others. With the Government doing little, many in both Houses have pressed for action. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who, together with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, has doggedly raised concerns and, more importantly, offered solutions to the ticketing and touting issues that are now at last being covered in the consultation.
It is no wonder that the Statement—a statement of intended action—is so widely welcomed, including on these Benches. That is, of course, hardly surprising, since we supported amendments covering many of the points in the consultation paper during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The FanFair Alliance, which also deserves praise for its dogged campaigning on these issues, has gone so far as to say that the suggested measures “are potentially game-changing”.
The Statement sets out the issues to be addressed very clearly, but while it illustrates the Government’s intended direction of travel, I would have preferred, and wished for, greater clarity about some of the preferred options. I hope the Minister will provide more detail. What is the preferred limit on resale price? Are the Government in favour of a licensing system for resale platforms? Will they prohibit platforms from allowing sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller can legally procure from the primary market? Will they make platforms strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites?
There are two further issues. Not included in this consultation is dynamic pricing, which is to be consulted on separately. Although I welcome that it is only in relation to the live events sector, I regret that it is not part of the main consultation. Surely it would have been better for implementation if the two were considered alongside each other with the outcomes forming one plan of reform. Can the Minister explain why they are not? Given that we know that the separate consultation is to last 12 months, can she tell us when it will start and how the two consultations will work together?
Finally, it is obvious that there is little point in new legislation unless it is rigorously enforced, but despite existing regulation on bots, for example, we know that there are still cases of them being used. We need tougher enforcement in this area. There are continuing concerns about the black market and even about our ability to deal with touts operating outside the UK. Can the Minister say a little more about plans for enforcement of both existing legislation and the new legislation that will arise following the consultation? Does she accept that a licensing system for resale platforms will be a great help in that enforcement procedure? Is she aware that various bodies, such as the CMA, will be involved? Trading standards departments will certainly be involved, yet in recent years there has been a significant drop in the number of available qualified trading standards officers right across the country.
Trading standards and other enforcement bodies will require additional resources, including to recruit new staff to take on additional responsibilities. What assurances are there that funds will be provided to meet these additional needs? Will the new burdens principle apply, for example?
Our current ticketing market is not working for fans, and voluntary measures will not solve the problems. We have waited too long for action, so we welcome the Statement and the promise of action. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, as has been noted by the noble Lords, Lord Effingham and Lord Foster of Bath, on Friday, 10 January, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on live events and the resale of tickets, and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live event sector. Tackling the resale market was a manifesto pledge and I am grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, noting and reminding us of the work over many years by Members of your Lordships’ House. I am also grateful for the broad support for these measures from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and for the support of the Opposition—albeit caveated—from the noble Lord, Lord Effingham. I hope I can respond to the noble Lord’s concerns as I go through my speech.
The UK has a world-leading live events sector, which is the heartbeat of the UK’s cultural and economic landscape. It employs, as noble Lords will be aware, over 200,000 people and contributes to local economies and communities up and down the country. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences, uniting communities up and down the country. However, too many fans are still missing out on opportunities to experience these live events, because ticket marketing, as noble Lords will be aware, is not working for fans.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, that a well-functioning ticket resale market can and will play an important role in redistributing tickets between genuine fans. Far too often, however, we see tickets being listed on the resale market at extortionate prices—many times the original price in the primary market—which removes tickets from the ability of legitimate fans to buy. It is not a question of legitimate fans buying tickets they cannot use and needing to get their money back by reselling their tickets; what we are talking about here, and we need to be clear about this, is the work of organised touts—big business buying up tickets in bulk on the primary market, solely to sell on to fans at hugely inflated prices.
These people are not only denying true fans the opportunity to buy tickets on the primary market, they are pocketing any profit for themselves. Very little of the additional revenue goes to the live music sector. This Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair, exploitative practices in the secondary ticketing market. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector.
We have launched this consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. The consultation outlines a range of options to address problems in the resale market, including a statutory price cap on ticket resales, a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets individual resellers can list, and new requirements on platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites. We also want to understand whether there is scope for the primary market to do more to prevent touts getting hold of tickets in the first place.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on whether the Government have a preference on where that price cap would land, we are open through the consultation to hearing from a range of stakeholders and we do not have a preference on that. The noble Lord, Lord Effingham, suggested that it is possible that the price cap could lead to an increase in unregulated activities, scams and a potential increase in black-market sales. We have launched a consultation to learn from the experience of other countries introducing measures such as price caps on the resale of tickets. The ticket marketing is broken for fans, in our view; doing nothing is not an option. The measures will be intended to ensure that revenue flows to the sector, including the venues and artists, and not to the touts.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about enforcement. I absolutely recognise the importance of enforcement of consumer protection legislation, and the consultation seeks views and proposals to make this more effective for ticket resale. In many areas, there are successful enforcement measures taking place. For example, in May last year, following an investigation by trading standards, notwithstanding the point the noble Lord made about trading standards officers, four people were sentenced to a combined total of six years and five months in prison, with substantial fines, for criminal activity in relation to ticket touting. Prosecutions such as these send a message to the ticket touts. We hope the consultation will allow us to strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection legislation, as well as making it more difficult for touts to operate.
There were a number of other questions the noble Lord raised to which I do not have the answer now, but I will write to him. There was a question around dynamic pricing more generally. For our live events industry to be successful and sustainable over the long term, we believe that fans, artists and organisers all need to feel fairly treated, so, where dynamic pricing is used, it must be done in a way that is compliant with consumer protection law.
We are also issuing a call for evidence on pricing practice across the live events sector to better understand the changes adopted by the sector in selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies and technologies, and how these impact on the experiences of fans. It is important that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.
We are seeking evidence on how the ticket pricing system for live events generally works in UK, if and how consumers are being impaired by lack of transparency in this area, and whether new business models and technologies are creating new risks for consumers or gaps in the consumer protection framework. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. It is closing on 4 April. We will then decide on next steps, but be in no doubt that we intend to act. I look forward to hearing Members’ views in the debate today and also, hopefully, through the consultation period. For too long, fans have been excluded from seeing the artists and shows that they love, due to organised touts. This Government are determined to clamp down on touts. The question is not whether but how we improve protection for fans.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome today’s announcement and congratulate Chris Bryant on piloting the consultation legislation through Parliament. I declare an interest: I have worked passionately on this for 15 years with Sharon Hodgson, the excellent Labour MP, as co-chair of the APPG, and ending up as her frenemy on Times Radio couple of weeks ago— such is the way we work together. I totally share the commitment by the Government to better protect genuine fans through legislation, and I support them.
I have a few quick questions, but first I will say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I do not believe that the Paris Olympics was a fair comparison. We did ban secondary ticket sales in the London Olympics 2012 and we managed through other measures to completely fill it. It was a phenomenal success, both at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, in demand for seats. It was done with very strict regulation—legal requirements—not to allow the secondary market, which was criminalised for the tickets.
The only seating that was a problem in Paris—and it was: I was there—was for the athletes. It is very difficult to determine how many seats should be left for athletes. They train, they go home, they do not necessarily decide whether they are going to be there, and that does lead to seats being left. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the secondary ticketing market.
I have three quick questions. Seeing how many excellent consultation exercises have landed in the long grass over the past 15 years—being hijacked, frankly, by modern-day ticket touts using bots, who have been very effective and put a lot of money behind their efforts—can the Minister promise primary legislation as soon as possible after this? I hope it will be in this Parliament, I hope it will be before I leave this House and I intend while I am here to work exceptionally hard to see that it is on the face of the legislation.
My number two question is: will attention be given to more details of the cap than have already been given today? Should it be face-value only? That, for example, is what the Principality Stadium does for Welsh rugby union matches. Or should it be a fee plus 10% to 13% for, say, administrative costs? That is the kind of range we should be consulting on. I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees.
Finally, many modern-day ticket touts unfortunately move abroad—they are multi-billion pound organisations that are based overseas—and legislation has to be supranational in this context. We have to think about that very carefully in this consultation period.
Any crackdown on the black market has to be fully enforced. It is the terms and conditions that are abused time and again. That is illegal but, unlike in the current situation where prosecutions are few and far between, we cannot go through this consultation exercise without significantly reflecting on the fact that we have a prosecution service that can tackle this problem. We are talking about the future of true fans, many of whom travel the length and breadth of this country with their families, only to find that someone has swept the market with bots and printed forged tickets in order to satisfy the relationship with the secondary market, such as viagogo and Seatwave. They have to go home deeply unhappy, with little recourse in respect of their tickets, having travelled across the country to go to an event in their diary that was most important to them and their family.
This is the time for action, and I am delighted that the Government have come forward with measures along these lines.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Having spent many weeks on opposing sides on some of the aspects of the Football Governance Bill, I am delighted to be able to agree with the noble Lord on the importance of these measures. I particularly note, as did the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the long-standing work the noble Lord has done over many years. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible, and I will come back on others that I do not get the chance to cover.
The noble Lord asked about legislation. We are clear that this issue may require additional legislation, and we will look to do that as soon as possible, potentially in the second Session of this Parliament. We are clear that taking a view on where we would land on a cap could lead to accusations that we are pre-empting the consultation, but we are keen to hear views, and I have heard the noble Lord’s point on that very clearly.
The point about touting based overseas is an important one. We want to make it easier for enforcers to tackle breaches of the law, and the consultation explores options for achieving that. We know that many touts target UK fans while operating abroad, and that will be an important factor to consider in the design of any new measures. However, that issue is not exclusive to ticketing, and enforcers such as the CMA and trading standards are empowered to take action against traders outside the UK. The reformed consumer enforcement powers in last year’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will empower enforcers to impose penalties on or directions against traders that target UK consumers, regardless of where they are based.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing this forward, and I welcome what is there. Until three and a bit years ago, I chaired National Trading Standards, and we were involved in trying to pursue some of precisely these cases. My question is simple: do the Government recognise the need for equality of arms in respect of those responsible for enforcing these new regulatory new arrangements, given that these are potentially multibillion-pound operations, sometimes operating overseas? It is quite difficult for either National Trading Standards or an individual local authority trading standards to pursue cases, given that heavy court costs will often be involved.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend raises a critical issue. This is about major ticket touting, which is incredibly well organised and heavily financed. The issues that have been raised are ones we will want to explore through the consultation, because there is no point in our having stronger laws unless they have an effect. We are clear that we need to act on ticket pricing, and that cannot just be words; there has to be action.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative. Can the Minister assure the House that the consultation and eventual legislation will stretch to cases where it is the seats that are owned rather than the tickets, and the seat holders are putting the seats up for resale? At the moment it is impossible to get tickets through the Albert Hall for the Last Night of the Proms because the programme has not yet been devised, but online you can pay £13,000 for a single ticket. But don’t worry: if you cannot run to £13,000 then for £450, if you move fast, you can get a restricted-view ticket. I ask the Minister to reassure me that this sort of resale will be included.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Mindful that your Lordships’ House is going to be debating the Royal Albert Hall Private Member’s Bill, if not next week, then the week after, I raised this issue myself. On debentures, we are consulting on a range of measures, including a price cap on the resale of tickets for live events. We will consider all views in determining the best route forward once the consultation is concluded.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is time to take action to protect fans from extortionate ticket prices and the illegal practices that are now the hallmark of the secondary ticket market, with the profits going to ticket touts rather than to the artists and performers at live events. As shadow Minister for Music and Tourism, I was pleased to put forward this policy on capping resale of live event ticket prices for the Labour manifesto. So I welcome the Government’s consultation on this policy and the call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector.
I must say that my actions followed years of campaigning by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, my friend Sharon Hodgson MP and the FanFair Alliance, which has done sterling work on this. However, as my friend the Minister, Chris Bryant, said in the Commons, it is not a consultation on whether to act; it is about how we should act. I too feel that enforcement is essential in this crackdown on the black market for ticket sales. We saw so few investigations and prosecutions taking place under the previous Government. Will my noble friend the Minister and the DCMS team take that challenge on board, as other noble Lords have asked?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I mentioned in a previous response that there was a successful prosecution relatively recently. Without prosecutions, without teeth and without action, all the work by Members of this House, including my noble friend and others who have been campaigning for years to address these issues, will have been in vain. I am clear, as my noble friend indicates, that this needs to lead to clear action.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am going to break the cosy consensus here. The Conservative Party always used to be, and perhaps still is, the party of markets and economic freedom, so I am going to say what I think a lot of Conservatives might still think, which is, I am afraid, that this is a silly idea and the price of a sporting event or a Taylor Swift concert is nothing to do with the Government and can safely be left to the market. Does the Minister agree—I suspect she does not, but I will ask her anyway—that the best way of avoiding the problems we have been discussing is to deregulate, legitimise secondary markets and allow individuals who want to participate in cultural events to decide how much they want to pay for them and get access to them accordingly?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord correctly identifies that I am not going to be in agreement with his views. There is a difference between a market that acts fairly and one that does not. All UK Governments look at competition markets to make sure that they are legitimate and fair. What is happening at the moment with the ticket resale market is not fair and does not reflect the ability of individuals to see the shows or live events they want to see, nor does it give money back to the artists and venues. So although this is very much about people accessing tickets at a fair price, it is also about making sure that people do not skim off huge profits through the illegitimate means that we want to regulate. I could not disagree more with the noble Lord.
Rules-based International Order
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
That this House takes note of the challenges to a rules-based international order, and their impact on global cohesion, stability and security.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
We are a few days before the second inauguration of President Trump. Before he has even taken office, he has spoken of taking over Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland. We know that what he says does not necessarily translate into what he does, though whether, this time, his chosen advisers will have much of a check on him remains to be seen. We now have autocratic leaders in three of the five permanent UN Security Council members: Russia, China and the US. We will have to see what kind of restraint on Trump can come from American democracy, the media—see even the Washington Post under Bezos—and the apparent separation of powers within the US system. He is the first convicted criminal to take office as President in the United States.
Globally, we see nationalists and populists exploiting economic challenges, post Covid and post the invasion of Ukraine, with climate change potentially destabilising the world. We see the use of misinformation becoming a fine art, not just from Russia and China but many other actors, and now via X and unchecked Meta. AI threatens to turbocharge this. Biden has just spoken of the US becoming an oligarchy, with huge wealth, power and influence concentrated in the hands of very few. Given the US’s position as the world’s largest economy, that has global implications. Huge wealth as possessed by Musk, along with social media influence, seemingly allows him to threaten to overturn our own democracy. Putin is also an oligarch, of course, and Chinese oligarchs have to dance to the tune of their leadership—see Jack Ma.
The institutions put in place particularly after the Second World War and Nazi genocide seem to be under threat. The rules-based order, whatever its limitations, is being shaken up. The world faces the existential threat of climate change but instead of pulling together to address this, we seem to be pulling apart—a far cry, seemingly, from where we were when the Paris Agreement was signed 10 years ago. Trump may indeed pull out of that, despite the huge financial and human costs, not least of what has happened in California. It is a tinderbox world. Are there even foreshadowings of the catastrophes of the mid-20th century as we look at widespread economic challenges, the social instability that usually follows, populists deploying new propaganda tools and the rise of authoritarianism?
It has always struck me that it was remarkable that any global agreements on international law and global institutions should be agreed. However flawed people may feel them to be, it is worth emphasising that point. The very idea of states potentially agreeing to limit what they might do, either within their own countries or in their relations with other countries, is striking. The establishment of the Red Cross in the 19th century reflects this: the First Geneva Convention of 1864, including the non-targeting of medical services on the battlefield. It is ironic that our next debate should be on attacks on healthcare in Gaza.
The brutality of the First World War led to the far-sighted, but ultimately ineffective, League of Nations seeking to resolve competition between nations through dialogue and diplomacy. The economic consequences of reparations, the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression, with propaganda lethally harnessed, destabilised the West and helped to pave the way in Germany for Hitler and the Nazis, through genocide, to begin the invasion of neighbouring countries and thence to the Second World War.
It was in the wake of those catastrophic years that we saw the setting-up of the global institutions we have today: the Bretton Woods agreements on the establishment of what became the IMF and the World Bank in 1944; and most importantly, the UN in 1945, whose charter will be 80 years old this July. Among the other plethora of organisations set up following the Second World War, there was the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1945, agreements on regulating trade which eventually developed into the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization in 1948 and NATO in 1949. Brits played key roles in those—global influence. Of course, established as a project for peace, there was also the Common Market in 1957, which later became the EU. It brought together in remarkable fashion France and Germany in particular in the hope of avoiding future wars in Europe, and now includes states of the former Soviet Union, with candidates such as Ukraine keen to join.
Over the years since the Second World War, the Nuremberg trials were held, then others were held to account for genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and elsewhere. International law steadily developed, and, after much struggling, the International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002. Whatever the flaws, those were remarkable developments since the catastrophe of the 1930s in Germany and the Second World War: a framework of political, legal and economic rules to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict and to uphold the rights of all people, wherever they lived. Of course, things have not been perfect. We have had wars and even genocides. The veto in the Security Council has stymied action. The complaint is made that these international arrangements particularly favoured the US and the western world. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that such global organisations were set up.
UK Governments have long argued for the international rules-based system. Thus, the last Government in their refreshed integrated review committed the UK to working to
“shape an open and stable international order of well-managed cooperation and competition between sovereign states on the basis of reciprocity, norms of responsible behaviour and respect for the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law”.
I expect that the current Government will say the same, but the challenges are immense.
There are autocratic leaders of states. Putin apparently wants to recreate a historic Russia or Soviet Union by dominating neighbours and brutally invading Ukraine. I heard Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at the Doha Forum defending this in a way that reminded me of domestic abuse: “We had to; we were provoked”—in effect, “They asked for it”. If Trump seeks to end US engagement in Ukraine, how ready are we to work with European partners to ensure that Putin does not benefit from gains in Ukraine or undermine the security of the Baltic states and others? We know that much of the rest of the world does not share our concern about Ukraine. The External Affairs Minister of India put it thus:
“Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems”.
Then there is China. The Chancellor argues that China’s economy is vital for our own. Clearly, China’s slowdown affects the rest of the world. Tariffs from the US on China will affect us all. China leads on manufacturing renewables. It controls much of the world’s critical minerals supply. Industrial espionage is seemingly widely used to maintain its position at the forefront. Its engagement with the global South and its indebtedness to China, plus its human rights record, all make its role in the international order challenging. China’s cultivation of the global South is why we could never win votes at the UN on Hong Kong. Yet, interestingly, it maintains support for the principle of the UN charter, so long as it does not mean so-called internal interference. China has been expansionist in seeking control and influence. We do not know what Trump will do if China invades Taiwan. What will Europe do?
Both Russia and China are able to seize on the global South’s resentment at what seem like western double standards. One of the major areas where double standards seem to hold is the Middle East. It came across very strongly from leaders and others across the region and Africa at the Doha Forum in December that the response by the Israeli Government to the attack of 7 October 2023 is viewed as devastatingly disproportionate. The UN and ICC have said as much, but in return have come under attack. The West has not pushed back, critics say, allowing the Government of Israel to get away with actions others are condemned for.
The growth of populism and nationalism globally, reflected in Trump’s election, seems to show that lies are believed just as easily, maybe more so, than the truth, and that politics is being driven to the extremes. Those seeking power seem adept at using this. Sufficient numbers of people believe them, as we have seen in Latin America, Europe—including the UK—and elsewhere. We see that the likely victor in Canada in its upcoming elections is one who, in an interview before Christmas, expressed a desire to pull out of the UN. The WHO too is under misinformation attack.
Economic pressures, populism, nationalism and the spread of disinformation all played their part in our pulling out of the EU—that project for peace—even though we damaged ourselves economically and in terms of our global influence by doing so. Has withdrawing from the EU neutered the right wing in Britain? Hardly; if anything, it is stronger. The Government need to recognise that and move further and faster in rebuilding ties with the EU, both for growth and to maximise our global influence. Pandering to the right clearly did not work.
It is said that we are now in a multipolar world, but it is striking that even the BRICS countries nevertheless sign up to the principle of the UN charter. It is just that they say the West has double standards in applying this.
There has been a rise in authoritarianism around the world, including in Europe. Terrorism networks are better funded, exploiting concern over certain conflicts to raise funds. Crime is often international, including exploiting the increasing number of migrants on the move in Africa, to Europe and up through central America—a trend that climate change and conflict are exacerbating.
States, as ever, involve themselves for their own interests in the conflicts of others, as we see in the terrible case in Sudan, or risk seeing in Syria. Agreement on the equal rights of all—particularly women, and especially control over their own bodies—is seriously in danger of going backwards. We see that in full force in Afghanistan. Major new challenges, such as climate change and the transformative expansion of artificial intelligence, face us, with global institutions talking about these but not necessarily finding it possible to take action.
Nevertheless, as I have said, it was a huge achievement to have any global rules and institutions, which, since World War II, have helped protect citizens, including those in conflict, bring millions out of poverty and hold leaders to account. We should seek to strengthen them and not walk away.
We are indeed in very challenging times. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions, and especially the Government’s view, on this very wide-ranging topic. It is just the future of the world—that is all. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on her excellent speech, which was extremely well argued and well constructed. I did not entirely agree with everything; I think that the role of Iranian-backed terrorism must also be taken into account in the Middle East.
I want to start my speech by quoting from another speech that is now almost 25 years old:
“Globalisation has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalisation is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon. We live in a world where isolationism has ceased to have a reason to exist. By necessity we have to co-operate with each other across nations … We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not … We cannot ignore new political ideas in other counties if we want to innovate. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure … We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community. By this I mean the explicit recognition that today more than ever before we are mutually dependent, that national interest is to a significant extent governed by international collaboration and that we need a clear and coherent debate as to the direction this doctrine takes us”.
That was Tony Blair, in Chicago in 1999, almost 25 years ago. What a mess we are now in. I still believe that what Blair set out in that speech, which I played a very small part in drafting—very small, I assure noble Lords—is the objective to which our policy should be aimed. However, it has obvious weaknesses given what has happened since. Interestingly, Blair did not mention China at all 25 years ago. On Russia, just to show the change of mood, he said:
“We simply cannot stand back and watch that great nation teeter on the brink of ruin. If it slides into the abyss, it will affect all of us … We must not let our current differences set us on a route towards … mutual hostility and suspicion”.
Tony was an optimist about Russia and Putin, which has proved to be bitterly disappointing.
We thought then of the United States as a hegemonic power and that we Europeans should be its constant loyal friends and partners. Now we have Trump to reckon with and we no longer live, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, in a unipolar world.
Britain is in a much weaker position to exercise any global influence. We are no longer at the centre of the councils of the European Union. Our economic strength, which is the basis of foreign policy strength, has been gravely weakened and, as a result, we halved our overseas aid budget—which, at 0.7%, was one of Labour’s proudest achievements previously—and we are struggling to meet our defence target.
If we want to be influential, we have first to prioritise economic growth here and have a successful economy, and to establish a new, more positive relationship with the EU—that is fundamental. Our top priority has to be to deal with the United States, not to moralise towards Trump but to make sure that we keep the Americans in Europe. That is fundamental to our security. To do that, we will have to become a leader in European rearmament, which will be necessary in the next decade.
A lot of numbers games are played on defence spending. Trump is said to want us to spend 5% of GDP. We are presently spending 2.3% with an objective of 2.5%. Interestingly, from a historical perspective, at the time of Suez we were spending 7% and at the time of our withdrawal east of Suez in the late 1960s we were spending more than 4% of GDP, so we are at a very low level. The point that I see as fundamental is that we will have to have European rearmament—I know that it is a word that people do not like—if we are to convince the Americans to back NATO and be a source of security in Europe against a revanchist Russia. We have to press for a European rearmament that is collectively planned and delivered, probably with the creation of a single market in defence, because that is the only way it will be affordable. If every member state does its own thing, we will waste a lot of money, as we presently do, on defence.
The defence budget has to go up, and I fear to more than 2.5%. That will involve difficult decisions. Some of it can be done through innovative financial means, as we have seen with the latest Ukraine package, but it also raises profound questions for tax and spend and public spending in the five to 10 years ahead. We have to establish a national consensus that we need to spend more on defence, to keep NATO as fundamental to our security, and to be willing somehow, collectively, with all-party agreement, to pay for it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, this important debate on the international rules-based system is both timely and necessary. I put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for tabling it and for outlining some of the key challenges that the world faces. As she noted, this system emerged in the aftermath of the human destruction witnessed during the Second World War. It is underpinned by institutions such as the United Nations and the IMF.
Since then, over several decades, we have seen the emergence of other organisations, legal structures and related institutions, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which seek to hold perpetrators of crimes to account and bring justice for victims and survivors. Other organisations have been established to further economic empowerment, such as the World Trade Organization, which evolved into more focused groupings such as the G7 and G20. Treaties emerged as the nuclear age evolved, and we saw agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty to avert further global wars, which would be devastating if they ever happened. In a post-colonial era, we saw new dynamics emerging, with the ending of the imperial age of dominance and its replacement with what we have termed “partnerships”, underpinned by organisations set in renewal, such as the Commonwealth.
Yet, as 2025 begins, geopolitical tensions dominate. Wars rage in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Structural inadequacies and evolving dynamics mean that we are truly living through uncertain and challenging times.
As noble Lords are fully aware, for seven years it was my huge honour to represent our country around the world, including as the Minister of State charged with leading on our relationships with multilateral organisations, including the United Nations and the Commonwealth. I truly saw our capabilities and networks at work. I experienced high points: the strength of UK equities through diplomacy; the massive repatriation of more than 20,000 Brits during the Covid pandemic; development support in conflict zones; defence and security partnerships; the focus on new trading agreements; and success in international elections through investment in our relations with other nations.
I also witnessed the most tragic and testing of circumstances, such as the ill-judged and rushed NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which saw the Taliban ascend to power. I worked around the clock with Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place simply to get people out. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will remember that time well. Then, there was Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine and, more recently, the shocking terror events in Israel on 7 October and the devastating war in Gaza. Humanity is suffering.
We have seen the erosion of multilateralism. I experienced the UN at first hand. We passed resolution upon resolution to try to avert conflict and, where conflict began, to stop it. Yet, tragically, we have seen these collective arrangements fail to bring about that valuable commodity that we hold so dear—peace. Major powers have opted for unilateral or bilateral approaches, undermining the very system that they claim to support. We have seen withdrawals from agreements, such as the Paris climate change agreement; the rise of regionalism; and organisations emerge based on common economies, such as ASEAN, the African Union and, indeed, the EU. In the modern age, new powers have emerged, such as India and, within the Middle East, the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These have emerged not just as economic powers but as brokers for peace.
US-China competition continues, with disputes about trade, technology and military influence. Of course, Russia’s annexation of Crimea was an early warning sign, unheeded not by the UK but by many others. We now see this manifesting itself in Ukraine.
We have seen issues concerning climate change, cyberwars and digital governance, and global health crises—although under the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, we led on multilateral action through the COVAX Facility, established by the World Health Organization.
We have also seen the challenges of extremism and terrorism by non-state actors such as Daesh and al-Qaeda. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, just referred to them. In Syria, sadly and tragically, despite its efforts, it was not the UN that delivered change and got rid of Bashar Assad, but HTS—a proscribed terror group.
Multinational corporations—companies such as X, Google, Amazon and Facebook—wield growing significance, often bypassing national regulations. They are a growing influence over the next generation.
The lack of reform of institutions remains a challenge for us all. The UN Security Council and the IMF face criticism for the geopolitical realities that now exist in the world. We see economic inequalities, global trade imbalances, and the rise of nationalism and populism, with the rejection of global norms and populist leaders in various countries rejecting the very international standards and treaties they are signed up to.
There are challenges to human rights, which I have always said was the most challenging but, equally, the most rewarding of the wide-ranging briefs I held in the Foreign Office. Even institutions such as the Human Rights Council are not being used for what they were set up to do; instead, they deliver blocks and see power-broking that ensures national issues and priorities emerge. Of course, military conflicts and security issues continue.
How do we move forward? Addressing these challenges requires a renewed commitment to multilateralism while recognising the desperate need for reform. It must happen through the recruitment to these institutions of talent that reflects experience and the strength of personal relationships. With this must come the willingness of all nations to balance the importance of national sovereignty with collective action.
Human rights and justice initiatives can be established. I pay great tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Hague, on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, which I was pleased to take forward, marshal and lead for seven years. We held the conference in 2022. Today, Ukraine takes over the chair and First Lady Zelenska will chair a debate. Can the Minister update us on who is attending from the UK?
We led with the previous Trump Administration on establishing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. I hope that will go from strength to strength during the second Trump presidency. On women’s rights, we led on important issues such as WPS and women mediators’ networks. I would welcome an update on Women Mediators across the Commonwealth, which the last Government established. There is also the question of addressing terrorism and extremism. We need international collaboration to combat terrorism and ensure the security of nations.
The UK’s commitment to upholding the international rules-based system, even amid rising challenges, by prioritising what we are best at—diplomacy, standing up for justice and inclusive development—must remain at the heart of our foreign policy approach. It is for us and the Government to keep this flame alive.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her comprehensive introduction to this important debate. I think many of us will be emphasising the many points that she made.
That there is a threat to the system of political, legal and economic rules which have governed international relations since the end of World War II is in no doubt. A new feudal order is emerging. The question becomes: should this, if not be accepted, at least remain unchallenged or should there be new international norms and treaties taking into account current realities such as environmental conditions, international commitments, and principles of national sovereignty and self-determination? If the latter, what might these new norms look like and who would draft them? Perhaps it is preferable to go for a middle way and focus on reforms to the existing order. The task is to salvage an international order that is now gravely weakened.
cthe last almost 80 years underpinned the principles of sovereignty, democracy and human rights. More recently, international rules have resulted in trade liberalisation through economic governance, the advent of a number of new peacekeeping missions, the International Criminal Court, as we have heard, and the insistence on women’s and LGBT rights. But there remains suspicion and departure from these accepted norms because they are perceived as imposing a system invented by liberal democracies for the benefit of western diplomatic, military and economic agendas.
These growing views of western manipulation have given rise to a gradual but quickening departure from these rules. Egregious examples abound. They include the distaste for multilateralism, with Trump—I nearly said “chump”—insisting on the unimpeded exercise of American power in pursuit of defined national interests; China’s preference for bilateral diplomatic transactions, together with a newfound assertiveness in the UN, as well as its unbending approach where its interests are threatened, an example of which is its refusal to abide by the court of arbitration decision concerning disputes with the Philippines over the South China Sea; and, of course, Russia’s subversion of international rules.
We have the continuing fragmentation of the system brought about by new centres of world power, increasing populist and nationalist pressures, new and empowered centres of political dissent, international crime and terror networks, and the rise of non-state actors, among other 21st-century developments. This democratic backsliding and the accompanying rise in authoritarianism threatens international peace and stability by undermining the democratic political process—for example, by using technology supply chains as a means of repression.
Last September, the United Nations adopted a resolution, a “pact for the future”, which called for a recommitment to international co-operation based on respect for international law and the strengthening of multilateral institutions. The actions pledged included sustainable development, peace and security, digital co-operation, and a focus on youth and future generations. Subsequent suggestions concerned amplifying these actions—for example, strengthening the International Criminal Court, establishing global conduct for outer space, further embracing soft power, trade policies that better protect human rights, and a recalibration of the “responsibility to protect” principle. At the same time, it was acknowledged that this was no easy task, assuming, as these actions do, a common standardised definition that would enjoy legitimacy, reward investment in co-operation, reconcile clashing interests and deter conflict.
Another major theme was the necessity of engaging with a far wider range of constituencies, from citizens and civil society to the private sector and even local political actors. Above all, there has been a consensus among reformers that preventive mechanisms are key. The UN enjoins states to facilitate more sustainable and robust frameworks for prevention, again working with local knowledge and skills, especially with NGOs.
This is a task that has scale and complexity. The responsibility to protect is a failing norm, codified by all UN member states in 2005 but too often seen by some states as intervention by the backdoor. The three main pillars of R2P are: the primary responsibility of the state to guarantee the safety and security of citizens; the responsibility of the international community to support states to implement this norm; and the responsibility of the international community to ensure protection of civilians where the state has failed to do so and when the state targets its own citizens.
It is not unfair to question the relevance of this principle in the face of ever-growing challenges. What strategies might work? Should R2P be recalibrated, defining more closely the second pillar to reflect the increasingly multifaceted nature of governance? Should the UN promote capacity building as its main plank, developing joint response mechanisms with regional organisations in collaboration with civil society organisations? Surely broadening the base of actors to provide evidence would help to embed R2P. It is encouraging to note that ASEAN is beginning to develop and integrate the R2P curriculum into its training courses for police and justice agencies. We cannot allow this crucial principle to die. Everyone with an interest in peace and security should be working to make it more agile, widespread and effective.
Finally, recent UK Foreign Secretaries have given support to a modernised rules-based international order that benefits everyone and holds to account those who infringe it. It has been pointed out that defending the rules-based order will require multi-pronged strategies. I hope that the UK Government will be closely involved in helping to achieve this.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on getting this subject before your Lordships yet again. As she said at the end of her speech, absolutely correctly, this is just a small matter of the future of the world, and it is certainly the future of liberal democracy and capitalism, or the socialised versions of capitalism that we need to be working to develop and preserve. This is not the first time we have looked at this subject; we have returned to it many times in your Lordships’ House over the years, and rightly so. There are two reports in particular that I think are worth scrolling back to as we try to breathe some momentum into the whole subject.
The first was the December 2017 report from the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order. Going back further, the second was the March 2014 ad hoc Select Committee report, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World. I had the honour and privilege of chairing both committees and I think both reports had some influence in encouraging the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was then called, to start taking the whole issue of the soft and smart power dimensions of our world interests and influence much more seriously, and, I hope, led up to and connected with yesterday’s soft power initiative taken by the present Government at Lancaster House. I am glad that the idea is alive, but it needs to be connected with the other great issues we are discussing today.
The more recent report went much deeper still into what was happening in the world, which is widely disputed, and why. That “why” is the most important aspect of all because, unless we really understand the real and root causes of this now very troubled world, where we have the highest and most dangerous number of conflicts since the Second World War and where trust is undermining democracy on all sides, will never be effective in our focused efforts to halt the downward spiral of democracy going on at the present time. It is a sad contrast to our high hopes at the end of the Soviet Union.
Not all that many experts and commentators seem to quite grasp what is happening. Of the ones who certainly have—there are some very authoritative and excellent voices—several gave evidence to our 2018 enquiry. The best one of all was a very senior and good public servant of the nation, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, former National Security Adviser and our man at the United Nations, who held all sorts of other high offices as well. Certainly, speaking personally, he always gave me superb support when I visited the United Nations in New York as a Minister.
He is rightly quoted in the Library briefing that has been supplied on this debate—although unfortunately the briefing gets his name wrong. It is not just “Lyall”, it is Sir Mark Lyall Grant. He said:
“The most visible features”
of the world we are now living in
“are new centres of world power and influence”.
A vast shift has taken place in world power. He added that there was increasing populism, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and others, and
“nationalist pressures, far-reaching networks of crime and terror, new and empowered networks of political dissent and assertions of identity”
of tribes, cells, groups, communities, localities and mini-nations,
“the rise of non-state actors and movements, the disruption, and in some cases”
total
“destruction of established industries, the distortion and corruption of news and views on a worldwide scale”,
which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly emphasised and which is of course growing by the hour, particularly with AI, which can bring great good to our lives but can also do great damage, and is doing so already,
“and mass movements of migrants and refugees”,
which we do not really know what to do about. Sir Mark went on in our report that it was very clear
“that the influence of the ongoing digital revolution and the accompanying global connectivity on an unprecedented scale”
affects
“every sphere of modern existence”
and
“plays a central role in this turbulent scene”
that we now face.
I think Sir Mark has really got it. He really shows how deep we must go in seeking to contain the onward march of technology, which is disrupting human relations on a global scale and threatening not only international stability but the safety and security of every family, man, woman, and child, and every nation’s integrity and unity, including ours.
I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, again, because he has been such a good Commonwealth Minister over the years. He asked where we should start to rebuild. Obviously, right now we would like to solve the horrors of Gaza and Ukraine. We may even get some good news tonight on Gaza—although I fear it will only be temporary, whatever comes. They are the worst running sores.
They are not necessarily the deepest sores, because the real problems may lie in the Pacific and around China, but all this has yet to unfold. We certainly have to build on new collective international organisations. There are those who say, “Start again”, but I do not think you can do that; you have to build on the United Nations. We must take the Security Council issue really seriously day by day. The trouble is, of course, that it has been wrecked by Russia and China sitting in the middle of it like cuckoos in the nest. We have to move, we have to go for new alliances, we have to think of our neighbours in Europe. If the European Union is not going to move in the directions we want, we have to think about new European structures, perhaps through the European Political Community. Now that the spine of the old EU has broken, with France and Germany no longer co-operating, clearly, new structures are required and we should take a lead there.
Finally, we have to re-energise the Commonwealth, again as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, remarked. It is a safe harbour for the neo non-aligned nations of the world which do not want to be under either American or Chinese hegemony. Oddly enough, mention of the Commonwealth still seems to be very difficult for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office today to come to terms with. It is in fact the network of the future that is going to help more than possibly any other.
I divide the world between those who have grasped the enormity of what is now happening—the biggest shift since the Gutenberg printing press, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution—and those who have not grasped it and remain glued like errant insects to the surface of events. Events now will not wait for interminable reviews, commissions and councils. Whether in politics, business and investment or social development, events, technology and innovation will pass them all by, and are already doing so.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. I just point out that, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, every speaker so far has gone well over the seven-minute limit. If we carry on like this, it will eat into the wind-up speeches, so could we observe the seven-minute limit, please?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Northover not just on securing this debate but on the width and vision expressed in her remarks.
The news from the Middle East gives some relief to Israel and respite to Gaza, but, after conflict, there must be accountability if a rules-based international order is to survive. As a boy, I saw the scenes from Belsen and I felt relief when the war ended. Vital to the durability of peace was Nuremberg, the tribunal which brought the leaders responsible for the world war and the Holocaust to account.
The Draft Code of Offences against Peace and the Security of Mankind was drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations. Decades later, that code was applied in separate international tribunals for Rwanda, for the former Yugoslavia and for Sierra Leone. American judges, among others, shaped the jurisprudence of international criminal law. American lawyers served as senior prosecutors and defence counsel.
In 1998, it was a delegation from the United States which played a key role in negotiating the Rome statute and its rules, establishing the International Criminal Court. Some 122 countries, including the United Kingdom, voted for the Rome treaty and seven, including the United States, China and Israel, voted against. In 2000, President Clinton, despite that contrary vote, signed the Rome treaty for the United States and said that
“we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come”.
He did not, however, submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Jesse Helms, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proclaimed it “dead in the water”, and George W Bush, on coming into office, agreed.
Last November, warrants were issued by the ICC for the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and his former Defence Minister, together with three now-deceased leaders of Hamas. There must be other Hamas leaders in the frame for their unprovoked slaughter in October 2023. Hamas puts the figure of deaths in Gaza at over 46,000 in 14 months; the Lancet last week reported 64,260 deaths in nine months. To put those figures in perspective, the number of US military killed in the Korean War over a period of three years was 36,516. The impressive Vietnam War memorial in Washington carries 58,320 names from eight years of US involvement in that conflict. We can see how that compares with the deaths in Gaza.
Can Hamas truly justify its savage attacks? Were the retaliatory deaths inflicted by Israel in Gaza proportionate self-defence? Who will decide? I know from experience, and respect, the Israeli system of military justice. I have no reason to conclude that Israel’s Military Advocate General is either unwilling or unable to conduct the necessary investigations and criminal proceedings, if warranted, into battlefield crimes by IDF forces. But Mr Netanyahu, as Prime Minister, is not subject to the military system of justice in Israel.
In his opening in the Nuremberg trials in 1947, the American Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, the lead prosecutor, said in a blazing speech:
“The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.”
The International Criminal Court has the benefit of the procedures and safeguards set out in its charter, with the support of a vast majority of the world’s nations. It is a fair and impartial court, not under-resourced for its output. It is an important part of the architecture of the world order.
However, a Bill passed in the United States House of Representatives just last week instructs the US President to freeze property assets and deny visas to any foreigners who materially or financially contribute to the ICC’s efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute a protected person. Protected persons are defined as all current and former military and government officials of the United States—and allies that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction, such as Israel. Brian Mast, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said:
“America is passing this law because a kangaroo court is seeking to arrest the prime minister of our great ally.”
He accused the ICC of anti-Semitism in prosecuting Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in an equivalence with leaders of Hamas. He further said:
“Do not get in the way of America or our allies trying to bring our people home. You will be given no quarter, and again, you will certainly not be welcome on American soil.”
Similarly, Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and the Majority Leader, referred on the Floor of the Senate to, “the ICC’s rogue actions.”
To categorise the ICC as a kangaroo court and its proceedings as “rogue actions” undermines the rule of law. It casts doubt upon the validity of Nuremberg, the very mechanism that brought justice, if not peace, to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and a durable and lasting settlement in Europe. Will the Minister explicitly tell us what the reaction of His Majesty’s Government is to this pernicious Bill in the House of Representatives and what representations they will make to the US Government about it?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Today’s debate, introduced so eloquently and powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is certainly timely and is perhaps overdue. One would need to be blind not to recognise that, in recent years, the rules-based international order has taken some heavy hits and has failed to make much serious progress towards the goals subscribed to by all members of the United Nations—whether they are reversing and mitigating climate change, increasing freer and fairer trade, reducing world poverty, combating global pandemics or many of the other pressing challenges.
In Ukraine and the Middle East we see wars raging—perhaps to be paused this Sunday in Gaza, I hope—that defy the rules of the UN charter itself and of international humanitarian law. The prospects for regress rather than progress in the period immediately ahead are all too evident. The hard fact is that this order, so laboriously constructed in the decades following the Second World War, is being deconstructed before our eyes.
We need to recognise that the proclaimed champions of this order, among whom successive British Governments have ranked themselves, bear some of the responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. The sharp decline in our overseas aid spending from the still existent legal commitment to 0.7% of gross national income, which is now fast disappearing in the rearview mirror; our weak performance on trade issues since we unwisely decided to leave the EU; our failure to head off serious outbreaks of war in Europe, the Middle East and Africa—all have contributed to the failure to meet these challenges, which are to our own future security and stability every bit as much as they are to others’. Too often, warm words subscribed to at global gatherings have not been followed up by effective action.
Moreover, we have failed to recognise that the watchword we call a rules-based international order, and the detailed application of its component parts, have not been meaningfully communicated to our electorates. In many western countries, people are turning inwards and backing policies that are likely to make matters worse if the consequences of trade protectionism and the appeasement of the enemies of global order during the 1930s are anything to go by.
Some of this continued deterioration is likely to come upon us pretty fast, perhaps as early as the end of this month when a new Trump presidency begins in the US. It does not require much clairvoyance to predict that the US will again withdraw from its commitment to the Paris climate change accords. What will our response be? Will we simply wring our hands or collaborate with others to ensure that the next COP meeting, in Belém in Brazil, will keep alive and act more effectively towards the build-up of renewable energy resources and the reduction of carbon emissions from fossil fuels?
On world trade, how will we react if new tariffs are imposed unilaterally and trade wars break out? Will we be drawn into tit-for-tat retaliation, the damaging consequences of which, not only economically but in security policy terms, were clear for all to see in the 1930s and 1940s? Or will we work collectively with like-minded countries to sustain open, tariff-free trade and the equitable resolution of trade disputes—in particular to ensure that those benefits reach developing countries?
We must also face the grim reality that there will be other global health pandemics. Negotiations for a new WHO-based pandemic convention stalled last May and are continuing into 2025. Will we work wholeheartedly for intensified systems that will ensure earlier warnings of outbreaks? Will we back arrangements for the equitable distribution of vaccines as they are developed without leaving poorer countries behind? Will we do that whether or not the universal acceptance of those new rules can be achieved?
These are just three fields where urgent action is already needed and is likely to be required in the immediate future. The Prime Minister is clearly right to say that they are not susceptible to clear-cut binary choices, but hard and, in some cases, costly choices will have to be made if our backing for a rules-based international order is to be more than mere empty words; if that order is to be protected from falling into decay and disintegration and is to be developed and strengthened for the future; and if we are not to find ourselves in a world where our own security is to be diminished and put at risk.
I have painted a rather bleak picture. That is not to deny or belittle the good news of the Gaza ceasefire, but it is to relativise it. I hope the Minister, in replying, will find it in herself to offer us some reassurance on how the Government will point the way ahead.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on sticking to the seven-minute speaking limit; he is the first person to have done so. This is a very broad, wide-ranging and complex subject and I will concentrate on its economic, international trade and financial aspects—or some of them, at any rate—and try to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Howell as to why.
As with the other aspects of the international rules-based order, the principles and institutional structures were set up by the United States, with some assistance from us, in the immediate post-war years. Therein lies one of the problems: the world has changed out of all recognition since then, and this has led to efforts by China and others to adjust the system to reflect more closely their rise in the world. That, in turn, has led to practices that challenge the systems and bring them under stress. But the real nub of the problem is the fact that the international order no longer reflects very closely the international realities, and until that is put right, we will continue to have major problems, with people breaking the rules and seeking to undermine them.
The main challenge, as has already been made clear by a number of speakers, now comes from the United States. That is not just because of the rise of Trump; it is the culmination of a number of factors. For most of its existence, the rules-based international economic order worked not just in the overall interests of the United States but, broadly speaking, to the benefit of most sections of its society. The great majority of people shared in the fruits of an expanding economy, enhanced wealth and widening opportunities. Of course, that was also true of other industrialised countries and countries that were not industrialised at the beginning but found ways of taking advantage of the opportunities that were open to them.
But in recent years, the system has increasingly worked in another direction. Those with the right education and skills, in the right part of the country, have continued to do very well—indeed, in some cases, exceptionally so—but as new industries have arisen and prospered, others have gone into decline, often terminally. Those who were dependent on these industries, such as steel, motor manufacturing and textiles, have seen their livelihoods disappear and with it their status in society. Wealth inequalities have widened enormously and social tensions have increased. These factors have fuelled the rise of the MAGA movement in the United States and the rise of Donald Trump as its spokesman. He reflects the frustrations, disappointments and anxieties of a very large segment of American society.
In addition, we have had two further problems: one, of course, is the resentment caused by immigration, and the other is the resentment caused by the strong sense in many parts of the United States that a number of their closest allies, who benefited considerably from trading with America, have freeloaded in defence. I am afraid that we, like other Europeans, stand guilty under that head.
Trump has been elected in large part to put all this right, from the point of view of his supporters. We do not know what exactly he will do, nor how he will prioritise among the incompatibilities of a number of his objectives, but we do know that we have arrived at a point where the leader of the country that was the principal founder of the international rules-based order is going to approach this problem on the basis of transactional, unilateral negotiations without regard to the rule books or to the views of multilateral institutions that might shackle or inhibit American power. This is a novel and very worrying situation, and one where the Government will need great wisdom and support if they are to carry the British ship of state through these turbulent waters.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome very much the debate introduced by my noble friend—which is absolutely necessary at this time—the way she has introduced it and the shape it has taken.
It is perhaps inevitable that any rules-based international system of order is going to be determined by the relative political, economic and military strengths of the parties. Nevertheless, these rules were constructed with a motivation to reduce conflict and increase the space for better living conditions. What has threatened that order in the last 20 years has been a series of crises that have undermined increasing prosperity and threatened living standards. We had the financial crash, the growth of mega-multinational corporations largely outside the control of Governments, a global pandemic, accelerating climate change and an outbreak of conflicts. Big-player states have turned in on themselves and become protectionist, suspicious and expansionist: the actions of Putin’s Russia and the rhetoric of Trump smack of craving for Lebensraum.
Sadly, I have to say that the UK has not only been prey to these developments but, to some extent, in the vanguard. When a once-major political party threatens to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights and hypocritically promotes large-scale immigration while then demonising immigrants as a prime cause of social breakdown, it is clear that human rights and common humanity are at risk. The driver of Brexit, which has been mentioned, was a diversion to blame failure at home on outside factors but also to attack international agreements as hostile to our national interests. It is questionable whether the narrow victory for Brexit would have been achieved if the Ukraine war and Russia’s aggression had been foreseen. As a result, the outcome of Brexit is a weaker UK and a weaker EU—a divided Europe in the face of dire threats. I very much welcomed my right honourable friend Ed Davey’s speech this week on how we rebuild our relations with Europe.
The incoming US Administration threaten intervention in Greenland, Panama and Canada, even as they are handed a ceasefire in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin has a twisted vision of history that makes Ukraine the cradle of Russia and the demise of the Soviet Union a disaster that needs to be reversed. Aggression and conflict, usually promoted by male bullies, do nothing to enhance the welfare or security of citizens who crave peace and security.
On Tuesday this week, I raised my concern about diminished UK engagement in Africa. On the one hand, the continent has huge potential, but corruption and rapid population growth hold it back. Yet Russia and China are moving in to secure economic resource and political advantage, while we stand back and let them do it with their total disregard for transparency and support for anti-democratic forces. The UK’s behaviour in recent years has undermined our integrity and trustworthiness, which surely we need to rebuild. Many countries in Africa will inevitably accept involvement from Russia and China, but many would also welcome much more engagement from us. In my years as chair of the International Development Committee, and since, I have found a surprising reservoir of good will towards the United Kingdom, which we seriously undervalue.
When Boris Johnson called overseas development
“a giant cash machine in the sky”,
he showed not only total ignorance of the transformational impact of our development programmes but a lack of respect for the partners with whom we were working. When he followed this up with a chaotic merger of two departments and a sudden drastic slashing of the budget, he left development partners shocked and disillusioned. When he threatened to tear up agreements with the EU post Brexit, he exposed the UK, once a proud upholder of the rule of law and what we were pleased to describe as an international rules-based system, as, in effect, tantamount to pirates. People’s hopes were dashed, lives were lost and a process of building resilience and capacity to sustained poverty reduction and a path to prosperity was summarily terminated.
If we expect countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia to have a favourable attitude to the UK and our role in the world, we will require to invest in rebuilding trust and integrity. If the international rules fall away and the world breaks into like-minded authoritarian blocs, we should not be surprised if many choose to throw their lot in with the BRICS, given how little leadership we have offered them in alternative. We need to act urgently in rebuilding relationships with partners who would welcome the right approach, whether it be the EU, the Commonwealth or the global South, but there is not much time.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her masterful introduction to this debate. I intend to drill down into one of the threats she noted—the one we all face from unregulated technologies and the unchecked influence of technology billionaires. Those threats are eroding the very foundations of accountability, equity and co-operation that sustain our global system.
Elon Musk’s current global dominance exemplifies the dangers of concentrated power in unregulated domains. His Starlink satellite network has become indispensable for global communications, particularly in remote regions and conflict zones. Yet its control rests solely with Musk, allowing his whims to dictate access to vital infrastructure. This monopoly undermines state sovereignty and creates a “tragedy of the commons” where a shared resource is privatised for profit.
X has become a global epicentre for misinformation. Under Elon’s leadership, the platform has abandoned traditional content moderation, dismantled trust and safety teams and replaced verification with paid subscriptions. This has allowed bad actors to amplify lies about politicians, elections, public health and climate change. Musk himself, with 200 million followers, has promoted misleading narratives that have been viewed billions of times. His controversial comments on Taiwan and international affairs highlight the risk of unelected individuals wielding disproportionate influence over our international discourse.
X’s reliance on a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” system to fact check content has proven ineffective. Studies show that this approach fails to curb engagement with misinformation, instead creating a chaotic information landscape where truth is obscured. Musk has a deep aversion to transparency, such as restricting data access for researchers. This further compounds the problem, making it nearly impossible to assess the scale of harm caused by his platform.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is following a similar path. In a recent announcement, Meta revealed it would replace its third-party fact-checking program with a community-driven system akin to X’s. Zuckerberg’s disingenuous justification was that this is a return to “free expression”, but clearly it is a political move aligned with the incoming Trump. By removing fact-checkers and reducing content visibility, Meta is becoming another breeding ground for disinformation. The decision to rely on community moderation not only weakens safeguards against falsehoods but also places the burden of truth-telling on users who may lack expertise or accountability.
Unregulated artificial intelligence compounds these issues. AI systems are already linked to biased decision-making, privacy violations and job displacement. Worse still, authoritarian regimes exploit AI for mass surveillance and censorship, while democratic nations struggle to regulate its misuse. The lack of global AI governance leaves a vacuum where corporations prioritise profit over public safety, fostering inequality and undermining human rights.
We are ill-equipped to address these challenges. By enabling private actors to dominate critical sectors such as digital communications and AI development, we have ceded control over public goods to corporate interests. This shift not only weakens state authority but also exacerbates global inequality and political instability. Mr Musk’s accumulation of power is one of the most stark outcomes of this failure:
In my opinion, it is not sufficient to say that our UK-focused Online Safety Act will mean we are protected. The information ecosystem is global, and the inter-relationship between traditional media and social media is complex. Noise and nonsensical opinions travel fast.
So, what now? Ofcom must accelerate its enforcement of the Online Safety Act road map to ensure platforms comply with their duties as soon as possible. This includes holding companies accountable for illegal content and misinformation through fines or criminal penalties. The Act, however, as this House well knows, has limited powers over disinformation. We need to consider how to address legal but harmful content, such as election disinformation and health-related falsehoods that destabilise society. We should consider including a mandate for transparency in algorithms and a requirement that platforms such as X and Meta publish regular audits on content moderation. In addition, platforms should be legally required to share data with independent researchers to enable real-time monitoring of misinformation trends. This can empower us to identify high-risk narratives.
Secondly, we must bring together the many skills initiatives to ensure our local and our global institutions are equipped with the digital understanding to think through current and future challenges. To counter both foreign interference and domestic vulnerabilities, we need a workforce equipped with cutting-edge technical expertise. Expanding initiatives such as the UK Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy will help us build capacity in cybersecurity, AI governance and digital resilience. But it is not enough. We must also ensure collaboration between universities, employers and training providers. The UK Government, where they are able, must keep up pressure on our multinational partners to also invest in talent.
I want to end with a personal anecdote. In 2022, I was on the board of directors of Twitter and deeply involved in the sale to Elon Musk. As chair of the nomination and governance committee and the compensation committee, we had multiple interactions. In one conversation I had with him, he told me—and I quote directly—that he had “solved the climate crisis by inventing electric vehicles, solved interplanetary travel by inventing SpaceX” and was now going to “save democracy by joining the board of Twitter”. At the time, I was bowled over by the arrogance of his words and thought he was wildly overestimating both his own power and that of the platform. How naive I was. Fast forward to today and we have a man who, through an investment of $250 million in a presidential campaign, has increased his own wealth by $200 billion and has become a figure who dominates global headlines on a near daily basis. He exerts massive cultural and geopolitical influence. It is easy to see him as a cartoon-like supervillain. We do so at our own peril.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this debate and for doing so brilliantly. It is so important that we recognise why the world embarked on a moral course after the Second World War. It was designed to prevent war. It was designed to prevent the escalation of conflicts into war, to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes and acts of gross inhumanity, and to create a better world. It was out of that sense of altruism that we saw the creation of institutions which have lasted until now.
Even though we have a changed world, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, has described, those institutions matter. The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was based on a set of shared values of that time, and the International Bar Association—I declare an interest as director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute—was set up at the same time to bring together lawyers from around the world and all the bar associations of the world to ensure that the law was respected, and that law was part and parcel of that new order.
We followed up with the renewal of the Geneva conventions, seeing that they were not delivering just and fair war. The bombing of Dresden is an example: the new Geneva conventions made after the war said that total bombardments such as that of Dresden amounted to collective punishment of civilian populations and should not happen, and that there had to be rules for the conduct of war. Then there were the subsequent conventions to prevent genocide, to protect refugees and to eliminate discrimination against women—we know so many of them. The idea was that “never again” did not apply to just one community; it applied to all of humanity. We should never again stand by while human beings were subjected to terrible crimes.
For over 70 years, the memory of that war seared the minds of my parents’ generation until they died, and indeed of my generation because we were the children of that. We knew the stories of our parents fighting in the war and enduring the bombings of their homes. My mother lost her home and was left with small children while my father was in the Army abroad. Those experiences created empathy for those who suffered around the world, and that was why having a rules-based order mattered so much.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, tells us that the world has changed, and that is true. We have seen a difference in the position of Russia evolving into a criminal mafia-run state. China is authoritarian still but wants to be a market player. Both of those are on the Security Council and blocking many of the things that that one would want to see being done. So it is true that there needs to be change in some of those institutions, but what does not need to change is the commitment to justice and peace.
There has to be accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, if there is to be justice. That means there has to be law. There have to be courts and prosecutions. In the same way that domestically we need to have courts in order to resolve disputes and deal with crime that affects our communities, there have to be international courts to deal with the ways in which states behave towards each other, regulating relationships internally and domestically as well as externally and internationally.
All this has been documented in other speeches, but we somehow did not expect democracies to be dismissive of the rules. However, we are now seeing democracies being created where there are populist nationalist Governments or isolationist Governments who are interested only in their own sovereignty. After the war, there was a recognition that a certain amount of pooling of sovereignty was essential if we wanted to make a better world and we needed to have international law; law has to apply. However, the institutions that maintain democracy are under attack because we have new kinds of Governments, and I am afraid that many of them do not believe in the importance of law. We have seen in Hungary the capture of the judiciary, for example; while in the United States we are seeing something similar, where the judiciary is supposed to deliver what the President or Government of the day want. The independence of the judiciary has been abandoned.
There are attacks on the media, or appropriation of the media so that it is owned by friends of the Government, which means that corruption and crimes by the state are not exposed. Then there is the whole business of the dismissal of civil servants who are fulfilling their independent status. We are denuding democracies of the checks and balances that are essential to just societies.
I reiterate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about the importance of multilateralism and partnerships in our world. That is the only way in which we can have a world that will create peace and justice. However, I would say that it is the economic model of neoliberalism that has allowed money, not our common humanity, to become the supreme value.
Markets, as we know, know no morality; they are amoral. It is we who have to inject morality into markets, but then we hear from someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about market fundamentalism being the name of the game today. What that has done is create huge gaps between the rich and the poor. It has created a whole cadre of billionaires in our world, so rich that they can buy government—or whatever they want—and now running the technologies which are corrupting our democracies.
The whole business of that combination of neoliberal economics—low-tax economies, getting rid of welfare, every man for himself—is about deregulation. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was talking about: deregulation is the name of the new order being created and we have to resist it. That is why it is so important that our Government are standing by the rule of law and the role of international courts.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this vital debate and congratulate her on her speech. As other noble Lords have noted, the international rules-based system is under unprecedented stress. It faces not only the test of time and a world vastly different from the one it was designed for but the shortcomings of our collective response to global challenges, from climate change and mass migration to artificial intelligence and advanced weapons systems. Revisionist autocratic powers seek to disrupt and displace the system, while regional powers pursue nuclear and missile programmes and terrorism. Populist movements and illiberal democracies challenge global economic integration.
The founders of the international order could also not have envisaged the way in which the large tech companies operate as quasi-states, often prioritising profits over democracy. Unregulated algorithms amplify harmful content, fuelling disinformation and even ethnic violence, as tragically witnessed in the genocide against the Rohingya. With more active conflicts occurring now than at any time since the Second World War, global cohesion, stability and security have entered a dangerous phase.
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this month, we should remember those who perished, reflect on our values and never stop learning from that tragedy: never allow its lessons to be algorithmed away, diminished or deliberately reinterpreted by those who seek to distort history. The international institutions, treaties, and laws we rely on today were born from the two world wars and the particular tragedy of the Holocaust. Britain played a proud and pivotal role in establishing these foundations. As prosecutor Ben Ferencz said after the Nuremberg trials:
“I learned that if we did not devote ourselves to developing effective world law, the same cruel mentality that made the Holocaust possible might one day destroy the entire human race”.
Today, these institutions need more than our respect or fond memories. They require us to recommit to their principles and work to strengthen and reform them. It is widely accepted that Russia and China pose primary challenges to the international order. Both seek to reshape it: Russia through force and subversion, China through subtler means. One crucial way to counter this is by defending—and adhering to—the international rules and norms that we helped to establish, remembering that international law is not discretionary: something to be ignored when it is inconvenient and adhered to only when convenient.
After Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, our collective response showed international co-operation to uphold international law at its most effective, with Ukrainian courage bolstered by decisive multilateral action. On the other hand, our darkest moments—the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the invasion of Iraq, the impunity for atrocities in Syria and, most recently, the mounting catastrophes in Sudan and Gaza—occurred when we disregarded our collective responsibility to uphold international norms.
While we all welcome the ceasefire in Gaza and hope that it holds, and deplore Hamas’s terrorist attacks, we must acknowledge that the Israeli Government, with the support of the United States, the United Kingdom and other friends and allies, has ignored numerous orders from both the ICJ and the International Criminal Court to comply with humanitarian law. In the words of Omer Bartov, the Israeli-American genocide scholar, these acts have destroyed
“the entire edifice of international law that was put into place after WWII”.
Whatever one might make of the merits of this assertion, the fact that it had to be made at all is tragic.
Britain too has fallen short on occasions. Between 2015 and 2023, we dropped from second to eighth place in the global humanitarian aid rankings, even as crises multiplied worldwide. While these cuts may have saved some money in the short term, they have cost us in international credibility and soft power. At the same time, our responses to human rights violations have shown some inconsistencies. In Ethiopia, we seem to have prioritised trade over justice. In the DRC, where M23 rebels rape and pillage with Rwandan support, we defer to President Kagame. In Sudan, we would rather not talk about external enablers. In Gaza, while rightly supporting Israel in its response and defence after 7 October, we have failed in our duty to be a candid friend and to defend and uphold international humanitarian law.
Theodore Roosevelt once observed that the most unpleasant truth is a safer companion than a pleasant falsehood. If we believe that we are safer in a world without rules or that we can pay no price for selectively applying them, we gravely misunderstand our own interests. Our international engagement is not about idealism; it is about self-interest. During moments such as the Falklands War or after the Novichok attacks on British soil, most of our allies stood with us because they believed in shared principles. We must therefore reaffirm our commitment to international institutions, investing in diplomacy and deterrence while leveraging soft power through mechanisms such as the BBC World Service. Most importantly, we must restore moral principles at the heart of our foreign policy, not just through stirring rhetoric but through consistent actions that reflect those values.
Human nature remains constant. It is prone, as ever, to error, greed and conflict. This reality demands a response from international institutions and sustained efforts to address poverty, injustice and conflict. The rules-based order is not merely a diplomatic construct; it is humanity’s best hope for lasting peace.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Northover on securing this debate and on her excellent and wide-ranging introduction.
After the terrible attacks on 11 September 2001, which killed 2,977 people, President George W Bush said:
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.
The world was supposedly divided into good and evil. It is argued that, with 9/11, we saw the prelude to widespread conflict. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died, many were displaced, and we saw a refugee crisis as a result. It is argued that the global war on terror has served to blur the lines of war and human rights. We have seen this in the abandonment of Afghanistan.
The international humanitarian law principles of distinction and proportionality were a touchstone. We believed in and provided important protections for civilians, as well as medical and humanitarian staff. These are the bedrock principles on which the United Nations was founded, as has been mentioned. Proportionality prohibits attacks that would cause excessive civilian damage, for example.
On the current conflict in Gaza, we have heard recently with some relief that there is to be a ceasefire. We can only hope and pray that it will lead to a lasting peace and an end to the killing and destruction. We have witnessed graphically a 21st-century manifestation of the erosion of international law, in which few to none of the restraints set out by the post-World War II system have been respected. The United Nations and the ICC have been under attack.
The law of occupation, based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, is relevant here. Israel is recognised as an occupying force in the West Bank. It is also effectively occupying Gaza, its borders, airspace and coastal waters. Occupational law prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, collective punishment and other measures that harm the civilian population. The Israel-Palestine conflict is exposing the inherent contradictions in the West’s stance as guarantor of the international order. It is something that we all believed was a given. Since Hamas’s attack back in October 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis were killed and 240 taken hostage, Israel’s air and ground campaign has killed over 46,000 Palestinians. As my noble friend Lord Thomas outlined, that is being seen now as a gross understatement; far more people have been killed or are buried and missing under the rubble.
It is hugely depressing that millions of people in this country and around the world now believe that there is an inherent racism at the heart of British foreign policy in respect of Gaza. I do not say that lightly. People who are non-Europeans, from the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean—people who look like my family and with heritage such as mine—are deemed not worthy of similar protections. That is being said much more consistently, and I can say that it is felt very keenly. When Putin bombs hospitals and attacks civilians, there is rightly instant condemnation. Thousands of Palestinians have been blown up and killed, and almost all hospitals have been destroyed, with barely a murmur from the United Kingdom Government. Why is that? Why are Palestinians not deserving of the same protections given to the millions of Ukrainians who were able to flee, with hundreds of thousands being rightly welcomed with open arms here in the UK?
The majority of Governments and people in the region, and globally, do not support Israel’s actions. Opinion is increasingly citing the clear contradictions between policy in Ukraine and Palestine as double standards. Younger generations in particular are increasingly frustrated, expressing their strong opposition to and outrage at what they believe to be the collapse of the rules-based international law, especially when they see viral videos of death and destruction across the internet—including, sadly and depressingly, those of Israeli soldiers openly singing and dancing in Gaza, many wearing dead or displaced Palestinian women’s underwear. This is a reality.
This situation will almost certainly breed even more despair and animosity—and more radicalisation. If you have lost your entire family, your home, your school and your neighbourhood, you may feel that you have very little left to lose. Depriving Gazans of electricity, water, food and medical aid, as well as targeting residential areas, hospitals, mosques, churches, schools and refugee camps, is clearly incompatible with the Geneva conventions. These attacks are seen as nothing short of a war crime, and history must eventually hold those responsible to account. Our rules-based system is increasingly weakened.
Andrew Miller was the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs under the Biden Administration. He resigned last year and has since gone public in expressing his concerns about the role of the US in the war. He said:
“I’m unaware of any red lines being imposed beyond the normal language about complying with international law, international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict”.
International institutions such as the UN appear increasingly weakened and in need of reform, as has been mentioned by others. This apparent double standard undermines the rules-based global order and plays into the hands of the extremists and authoritarian leaders, who we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has just articulated that. They will exploit these inconsistencies.
Many believe that untold damage has been done to the standing of the United Kingdom. Many are now saying, with increasingly loud voices, globally, that they do not want to be lectured by western countries about international law and human rights. An honest and constructive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital. Why has this country, with its long history in the region, in effect absolved itself of any responsibility other than to support and facilitate these ongoing breaches of human rights?
Over many decades, the UK has led the way in effective diplomacy and soft power, underpinned by a strong sense of regional responsibility. The catastrophic war in Gaza is a test of our commitment to a rules-based international order. Now more than ever, we must rely on the moral compass of international law to guide our actions. To quote Martin Luther King:
“It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people”.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the rules-based international order exists to support two primary goals. The first, as indicated in the title of this debate, is to offer global cohesion, stability and security. The second, I believe, is to provide a foundation for the global economy to grow and prosper. I am speaking in this debate because I believe that economic growth ought to be explicitly part of this conversation.
The ability of the rules-based international order to drive global economic growth rests on globalisation. However, as we know, since the 2008 global financial crisis, economic growth has slowed and globalisation has stalled. According to Bloomberg, globalisation peaked in 2009. Since then, the world has continued to fracture, through the 2020 pandemic and the rise in geopolitical conflicts, both kinetic and ideological.
We see widening fissures in the five key pillars of globalisation. The first is trade in goods and services. According to the World Trade Organization, the volume of global trade slumped in 2023. Looking ahead, estimates suggest that the growth in worldwide trade volumes will flatline. This reflects both the slowdown in global economic growth and a more siloed world, as the world order is replaced with a proliferation of bilateral agreements and the reconstitution of regional trading blocs—think, for example, of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The threat of higher tariffs by the incoming US President, Donald Trump, will only accelerate this trend.
The second pillar is capital flows. Global investment is being hampered by growing protectionism and regulatory bans on the flow of capital. According to UNCTAD, global foreign direct investment fell by 2% to $1.3 trillion in 2023, partly because of rising geopolitical tensions. Investment restrictions, such as the US ban on investment in Chinese technology, have contributed to weak global FDI since 2021.
The third pillar, the free movement of people across borders, has been interrupted by national Governments looking to stem the flow of disorderly migration into their countries. The United Nations estimates that there are now over 120 million refugees and displaced people globally—the highest figure on record.
The fissure in the fourth pillar is the “splinternet”, which refers to the fierce competition between technology leaders, such as the United States and the West versus China. A more geopolitically and economically balkanised world with competing factions must surely make the world a less safe place. This is particularly worrisome at a time when innovation in AI and quantum computing are leaping ahead. Technological fissures heighten the risk of cyberwarfare in a way that can only destabilise the world order.
The fifth and final pillar, multilateralism and global co-operation, is being undermined on two fronts: via growing economic nationalism across developed countries, and through the rise of competition from new configurations of countries such as the BRICS, which is a group of 10 of the largest emerging countries, representing 45% of the world’s population and 35% of world GDP. These new groupings reroute and reprice global trade and commodities, and can often be dominated by nations which have stark ideological differences with the West. The worry here is that such differences make it more difficult to tackle or confront global pandemics, climate challenges or financial crises in a unified way.
Clearly, based on the reversal of globalisation’s important pillars, the rules-based international system is at breaking point. It should come as no surprise that with a hobbled rules-based system and deglobalisation comes slower and lower economic growth.
As an example, here in the United Kingdom, annual GDP growth averaged 3% in the era of globalisation between 1993 and 2007. Since globalisation peaked, between 2009 and 2023, average GDP in this country has halved to 1.5%. This deglobalising world slows human progress and impedes improvements in living standards. At this time of deglobalisation, the International Monetary Fund already predicts that the world’s leading economies will struggle to reach 3% per year—the minimum required to double per capita incomes in a generation, which is 25 years.
I know that it has become unfashionable to promote globalisation. However, the United Kingdom must remain steadfast as an advocate for global institutions and treaties that can defend and sustain the rules-based system. There are efforts to step up and reinvigorate multilateralism. In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the pact for the future, pledging a new beginning in multilateralism that focuses on peace and stability, sustainable development and digital co-operation. However, there was no mention of action on global economic growth. Yet, actively supporting a global economic growth agenda is a pre-requisite for global cohesion, stability and security.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating the debate. Yesterday, I met her in the lift. She said, “I’d like to thank you for your contribution tomorrow”. I said, “Hang on; wait till you’ve heard it and then you can decide”.
I have spent most of my life in some part of foreign policy. I was in the European Parliament for 25 years. I spent five years in the Council of Europe and 15 doing odd jobs for the European Commission. As such, I have seen quite a lot of the world—some 90 countries in all, some of them more times than I would have liked.
I start by giving an example from the Council of Europe. One of the problems with the international order is that it sometimes gets beyond itself. For three years, I was the chair of the Council of Europe committee for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, everybody says, “Oh, Russia never carried out any decisions”. That is wrong. The worst offender was Italy and the second worst was Turkey. The Russians were not too bad at carrying out decisions of the court that had no real political consequences. Beyond that, they were not very good at all.
I was on that committee when we debated the court’s decision to enforce prisoners’ votes in Britain, which David Cameron—now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—said made him sick. I did quite a bit of work on this. One of the things I discovered was that most of the judges who had voted that Britain should give votes to prisoners came from countries that gave no rights to prisoners at all. Secondly, many of those judges did not understand the English prison system. In particular, they did not understand the difference between a remanded and a convicted prisoner. Thirdly, when it came down to it, they were open to negotiation. Thanks to the great skill of David Lidington, we managed to solve the case, get the judgment amended and accepted so that, once again, Britain was a country with no outstanding judgments. I mention this because there has been a lot of mission creep in international jurisdiction, which I do not think has done international law a tremendous amount of good.
The Court of Justice of the European Union and the WTO are unique in being courts committed to a very central, tightly drawn range of circumstances, but some of the other courts—including the International Criminal Court—have a tendency to go well beyond where it is sensible for them to go. I see that some noble Lords object to that. To issue an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu is downright foolish, because it will not be implemented. It undermines the authority of the court. People look at it and say, “What a bunch of jokers. Surely, they don’t expect Netanyahu to get off the plane in London and be banged up by the British coppers”.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Does the noble Lord know that, when a warrant was issued for Kenyatta, he got on a plane, went to The Hague, submitted himself to the court and said, “I’m here to answer it. I have a defence to this”? It gave him permission to return to his country and to continue to lead it before there were eventually hearings. Why does Mr Netanyahu not do that? You have to remember that the warrant is in relation not to his conduct of the war but his refusal to allow humanitarian aid into the country to feed the population.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I claim damage for extra time, Mr Whip. I take that point, but I am making the point that the Netanyahu incident did the ICC no good at all.
My second point will also be a bit controversial. I believe that, if we are to redefine the international order, we have to bring the Russians and Chinese on board. It is as simple as that. You cannot do it without having the whole international order represented around the table. The Russians recently had their BRICS conference in Kazan. A number of Commonwealth countries were at that conference instead of in Samoa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, because they judged it might be in their better interests. One of the problems we have is that the impact of sanctions has pulled Russian foreign trade in a southern direction. Suddenly, India, Pakistan, China and the countries in between are of far more importance to it than western Europe. We need to take that on board.
We also need to look at the way we construct the international order and give it a serious jolt because, finally, we need to look at the perception of Britain by its own citizens. As my noble friend Lord Howell, a good friend, has said in the past, capitalism has failed the young. There is an increasing distaste for democracy. My children know many people who say, “What the hell does it matter? We need someone who can get things done”. That, frankly, is one of the appeals of Nigel Farage. People look at him and think, “He’d soon sort you lot out, wouldn’t he?”
We are in a very dangerous situation. One of the questions that both major parties need to address is how to bring the younger people of Britain back into communion with them. They have fallen out of love with us. Not one of my children voted Conservative at the election —or Labour. They used to vote for both. A lot of the people in their circle have an attitude towards the two major parties—incidentally, not towards the third party—that they are finished, are past it and have nothing to offer them. They cannot offer them a house or a decent job and have frozen their tax thresholds. I think I have had enough of the extra time I claimed. Thank you all for listening.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on identifying such a massively important issue for our time and on her excellent introduction. If I may, I am not going to predict what President Trump may or may not do, although I do share the concerns voiced by some present. To the extent that the UK seeks to be a force for good, what I principally wish to address is remarks concerning preparedness in changed and changing circumstances.
Perhaps challenges to the rules-based international order started most blatantly back in 2008 when the world witnessed the Russo-Georgian War. Six years later, in 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea and started a war in eastern Ukraine, which eventually transformed into a full-blown attack on the country, and which continues to this day. In the meantime, putting to one side its annexation of Tibet in 1951, China has been attempting to redraw rights of sea passage in the South China Sea by constructing an array of extensive military facilities and has systematically eroded Hong Kong’s freedoms. Alarmingly, it has also on multiple occasions categorically asserted its aim to unify democratic Taiwan with mainland China, threatening to do so by force if necessary.
But it is not just Russia and China, though they are the most important disrupters. There are numerous countries and regimes that are not full participants in the rules-based order or which, like Iran and North Korea, pretty much play by their own rules. The result is a world where an increasing number of nations and societies put a low value on human life—President Putin does not value the lives of conscripts and convicts at all—where there is the highest ever number of conflicts in process, and where the UN is highly challenged due to players who do not accept the current rules. In particular, Russia and China have a veto on the Security Council. A significant number of countries feel that the system is not working for them and in the meantime, need, greed and corruption see democracy being eroded on an alarming scale.
In the 2000s and 2010s, the democracies became complacent. On the one hand, Russia retreated from international aggression and entered a short and confused era. On our side, we became risk averse as we clung to that old system, and we became averse to conflict and reluctant in the use of force. We made steep reductions in defence spending and were comfortable in what seemed to be a period of peace. But the integrated review of 2021 and its refresh already pronounced the decay of the rules-based international system, so for the democracies this new era of intensifying geopolitical competition requires new thinking. The extent of the challenge posed by large authoritarian states is clear.
My good friends at the Council on Geostrategy—I declare an interest as a member of its advisory board—have summarised the mounting challenges we face succinctly under three headings, each highly destructive. First, we face an anti-systemic drive, primarily from Russia. Russia lacks the means to replace the prevailing order with a new one, even in the Euro-Atlantic area. Instead, it focuses on an anti-systemic approach designed to spoil and degrade the free and open international order, with a specific focus on eastern Europe, where, due to proximity and history, it is strongest. Secondly, we face a counter-systemic challenge, primarily from China. Beijing seeks to break down the free and open international order before replacing it with a new one centred on an authoritarian China. Thirdly, on a different point, many leading democracies seem unprepared to generate the power needed to underpin the system. For example, defence spending remains very low by historical standards, even when taking into account recent rises in NATO countries—particularly Poland and Germany—and elsewhere, such as Japan.
We need to move faster to invest in our infrastructure, domestic industrial base and state autonomy to move away from economic links with authoritarian rivals. This is particularly acute when it comes to China, on which we have become dependent for many critical minerals and manufactures. It is time for a rethink and a more vigorous stance in defence of our freedoms, prosperity and that which we hold dear. We need to think more about shaping the international order of the future—a free and open international order. This means that we need to learn to value power and be willing to utilise it once again. Our competitors appear to understand power very well and they are prepared to take risks: from building fake islands in the South China Sea to invading foreign countries such as Ukraine. Perhaps, sadly, they have come to understand power and escalation better than we do. Undoubtedly, they recognise the extent to which the democracies would really far rather not engage in hostilities. But unfortunately, in this new world, power is going to be increasingly important to international relations. It always was critical.
In the 1990s, however, our power became invisible and less important, at least to us. Power is not only about military strength, though we undoubtedly need more resources to uphold a strong defence which can deter. Power is also about economic strength and command over discourse and narratives. Much of this new era of competition already is—and will be—about economic, political and discursive instruments of power.
In my remaining time, I will look at some things that I believe could be done. We need a whole-of-society approach with full societal engagement, not just for Britain but in other democracies. We also as a matter of urgency need to adopt longer-term thinking. Business typically has a short-term horizon while government of course has to live within electoral cycles. We need to see the international world as one world. If we do not, our adversaries will continue to undermine the free world.
The best way to uphold peace is to deter, not just militarily but politically, economically and discursively. We need not overconcentrate on Russia; China is a much bigger threat. We need a strong domestic foundation, political and commercial, and a focus on emerging technical sectors. As for the new minilateral arrangements, we must be alive to any and all possibilities better to meet the challenges of our competitors, and I note the success of the AUKUS and JEF arrangements.
We need to develop a more competitive mindset and we must be ready to identify the attempts of others to undermine us and prepare to push back with a vision of our own, underpinned by strong domestic foundations. This is a battle for ideas, and this is a battle we must win if we want to ensure sovereignty, security and prosperity, both for ourselves and our key allies and partners.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for securing this excellent debate, and for her comprehensive and sensitive tour d’horizon in her opening speech.
Only rarely in British politics do we consider international concerns in broad terms—largely, I suspect, because our media are overwhelmingly reactive and concerned with domestic issues. In July’s election, for example, international issues, with the possible exception of Gaza, hardly featured. In particular—and sadly—climate change, the number one issue for millions of young people, was largely ignored.
Turning to some of the threats we face, discussed by many noble Lords, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, preceded by the annexation of Crimea, violated an independent nation’s sovereignty and territory. Yet many seem to believe that the West should somehow pressure Ukraine into a peace, however unjust. But that is not for us; it is for Ukraine to decide on any peace agreement and its terms. Furthermore, if Putin is rewarded with success for Russia’s invasion, the threat to peace will be increased and the Baltic states in particular will face existential threats, beset by nervous uncertainty that Article 5 of the NATO treaty will prove effective.
The uncertain US approach to NATO is a serious threat. Financially, Trump clearly has a point. We have relied for years on America to fund the bulk of our defence, but, if Europeans are to bear the primary costs of our defence, 2.5% of GDP simply will not cut it. A detailed paper by Intereconomics in November floated far higher figures, possibly 5% or more in the face of Russian expansionist militarism, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out. The shock of such an increase to the European economies and our spending priorities would be savage.
On the Middle East, despite the strength of feeling on both sides, there is in the mainstream a unity of view. We uniformly condemn Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October 2023—the murder, the rape and the kidnap of innocent hostages—and we have also been shocked by the unrestrained conduct of the war in Gaza since then, with massive civilian casualties, untold destruction and the unacceptable failure to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid and the availability of healthcare.
We have now to hope that the fragile ceasefire holds and that the second phase succeeds, but that is far from assured. The region and the world will then have to navigate the massive costs of reconstruction in Gaza and the political difficulties of reaching agreement on a two-state solution that both secures Palestinian agreement and guarantees Israel’s security. That will be difficult.
Turning to trade, Trump’s proposed widespread tariffs threaten the entire structure of world trade, and geography means that protectionism is a far more attractive concept for America than it is for us.
Then there is the ever-present threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and other threats from China, and the American response.
I turn to climate change, a matter close to me this week as my daughter has had to return from the wildfires in Los Angeles to work from home in the UK. She is lucky: her flat is just outside the evacuation area. But, while it is standing, it is without any power and her office is closed. Nevertheless, we now have to accept that “Drill, baby, drill” will dominate Trump’s energy policy, and that the US is almost bound to leave the Paris Agreement once again, undermining, for the next four years at least, much of our already stuttering progress on climate change.
What I have said so far has been marked by a profound sense of pessimism. This flows from the widespread flouting of international law and the rules-based order, which depends on rules, conventions and treaties between nations, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friends Lady Northover and Lord Thomas.
My pessimism is tempered only by the belief that we now have a Government with a serious commitment to our treaty obligations—as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Many of us were profoundly shocked by the casual approach of the last Administration to international law. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill introduced in 2022—ultimately, thankfully, withdrawn—was plainly a wilful breach of the recently agreed UK-EU withdrawal agreement. With the Safety of Rwanda Act, the British Government, in a Kafkaesque approach to legislation, forced through a Bill that inexcusably deemed what was plainly untrue to be unchallengeable truth.
The Illegal Migration Act clearly flouted the Refugee Convention of 1951. The failure to comply with our legal commitment to 0.7% overseas aid needs urgent reversal. The support of many Conservatives for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the ECHR, which I should say is a major triumph of a previous Labour Administration, did little to improve this country’s reputation for a commitment to the rules-based world order and did much to undermine it.
So I ask the Minister once again to reaffirm this Government’s commitment never again to legislate to legalise a breach of the UK’s treaty obligations, and to underline our national commitment to upholding, while we can, the rules-based world order.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Noble Lords have rightly highlighted the threats around the world, and perhaps, out of this global instability, there is more yet to come. But I want to try and change the tune of the debate. Rather than focus on the negatives of the world right now, I will focus on the positives: that out of this darkness, there is still good, that all hope is not lost and that there is enormous opportunity.
I had the privilege to work as a special adviser to the Foreign Secretary for two years, and I saw first-hand a number of hard-working civil servants, here and around the world, furthering this country and our aims. I also saw how little old Blighty is enormously regarded and how we open doors—and that is, as some say, “despite Brexit”.
I say to some noble Lords that I do not agree that the last Conservative Government were absent from the world. I will give one example of many, Ukraine, long before the war, building the coalition and our continued support. But there is always more to do around the world, and Brexit was never an inversion or a retreat but, in my view, a chance to engage more intensely around the world and with individual countries, some of which may even fall within the EU.
In today’s world, we need to be nimble and bold. There are three areas I would like to talk about which seek to build on our strengths as a country. The first is the Commonwealth. With almost a third of the global population, 60% of whom are under 30, some of the oldest and biggest democracies, and a combined GDP or over $14 billion, with education and legal systems that we share and complement, we need to recognise the enormous wealth and scale of opportunity in the Commonwealth. It is ready-made for so much, not least on trade—crucially, trade deals that push exports, especially for British farmers, rather than the easier, cheaper imports which undercut them. There was talk about us being close to a trade deal with India. Can the Minister update us on that? Are there any other deals being considered with the wider Commonwealth family?
It was a genuine pleasure to hear the contribution of my noble friend Lord Ahmad earlier. I am reminded of the times we worked very closely on many great schemes, not least the Commonwealth summit in 2018. I think we would both agree that that was a very successful summit, with some great people behind it. We achieved much at that summit, not least on the rights of women and girls, with our campaign to deliver 12 years of quality education for girls around the world. That was something I worked on and care about, and I am pleased to say that it was agreed across the Commonwealth.
All this takes enormous effort and activity, day in, day out, at all levels and from all of government. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, noted, not everyone was present at the most recent CHOGM summit, and, sadly, some happened to be with Putin. What effort are His Majesty’s Government going to put in, beyond and more regularly than the CHOGM summit, to strengthen ties with our Commonwealth partners?
Secondly, as we have said, in just a few days America will welcome in its next democratically elected President. We should all welcome and congratulate President Trump on his win. I pay tribute to the outgoing ambassador, Karen Pierce, who I have previously worked with very closely. In her typically subtle yet determined way, she has executed her duties diligently, courting the American world for years, and has built strong relations with the new Administration. I wish our outgoing colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, well. I have long believed that, where required, political appointees are good. We need personalities in foreign affairs; people who are able to understand politics more generally and who can be blunt and strike deals.
It was one of the greatest privileges of my entire life to go to America with the then Prime Minister and join his meeting with President Trump. It goes without saying how much he is an Anglophile and a man who means business. With this new President we should be embracing this new America. We should be his number one port of call whenever he thinks of an ally. We should be careful and conscious of some of the language used in this discussion. This country has worked with President Trump before. He achieved great things in his first term around making states pay more for NATO, the Abraham accords, dealing with “rocket man” and tackling Iran, and, as has been said, he is already having an impact in the Middle East.
We should be in no doubt that America is still the number one country in the world, economically and militarily. Deals and agreements are there to be done, not least with the exponential growth of AI and technology, and in security, where we share direct interests, as with AUKUS. This is something which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere talked about recently when he advocated for strengthening the ties of the Anglosphere democracies based on and building on Five Eyes.
My third point is on relevance. I used to challenge the then Foreign Secretary to explain what the purpose of the Foreign Office and foreign policy is when it comes to a single mum in Yorkshire. It is not a geographical point; the same applies to anywhere in the north or in the country. The point is to ask what the role of the Foreign Office is for the average person in the street and for those who feel left behind. How does it make their lives better, not just the lives of those who want to sound and feel good at dinner parties in north London?
I was once told by a senior Foreign Office official that it was one of the great offices of state and that, in effect, it had a right to exist. In today’s world, that will not cut it. We need to be honest, realistic and brutal as to what it is we want from our Foreign Office. There should be far more effort and focus on the national interest. If we cannot show why it matters, or articulate and demonstrate what foreign policy achieves for Brits—how it makes the world safer for them and creates jobs—then that is the challenge. The question then is why we are doing it. Whatever we have to do has to be relevant to the interests of this country—why we push human rights, why we support Ukraine, and why energy and food security matter.
I end with a quote from my good friend and foreign affairs specialist Professor John Bew. He wrote recently that
“the national interest of the UK—which I would define as improving the security and economic life of the British people—requires us to get down to work to seek hard economic and security outcomes, rather than the sentimental education of those whose world-view does not exist in perfect sympathy with our own”.
This is an opportunity to have more Britain in the world. All that is needed is the will, energy and vision to deliver for Britain.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the quality of this debate has done justice to the outstanding manner in which my noble friend introduced it. She argued, in clear terms, why we have rules and why there is a structure for the way that nations relate to each other. It is to resolve competition and govern the means by which disputes can be mediated or adjudicated, and therefore for accountability. Representative institutions were formed to be the secretariats for this system of governance, in finance, trade, maritime law and, more recently, development policy, climate—as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated—and human rights, with global judicial procedures.
My noble friend outlined in compelling form the history. As my noble friend Lord Thomas indicated, that history was written by the UK and the US in many regards, and it is the UK and the US that loom large over this debate. Is this generation honouring the previous generation who designed the very system on which we rely? It is based on fundamental principles that should apply to all equitably, but, as my noble friend said, the concern is whether we in the UK apply them equitably. The double standards we have recently seen, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said, have perhaps been seen elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated.
The rule of law is not just for our adversaries but for our allies. War crimes are crimes, whatever the war. A human right when denied to one is denied to all. It is interesting that, last year and just this week, when I have asked questions about war crimes, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Collins, agreed with sincerity that war crimes have been committed by Putin. They said so at the Dispatch Box. However, just on Monday, the Minister said that she could not proclaim what a war crime was within the Gaza-Israel conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
We were talking specifically about genocide. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could make that clear.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for interacting, but what she said was in response to my question on war crimes. The Minister replied from the Dispatch Box that she could not proclaim what a war crime is. The point I am making is that, for other conflicts, Ministers speaking from the same Dispatch Box over the last year have proclaimed what war crimes are. It is not about whether Ministers have adjudicated; it is about whether Ministers can state what they are. That is where the world sees UK Ministers perhaps taking a different approach.
From these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thomas has said that we have had to be the vanguard in Parliament against recent Governments who have, in our country and abroad, moved away from honouring commitments—whether through the casual treatment of the ECHR or the Rwanda legislation, as referred to. We have tried to be dogged in what we believe: we believe in honouring commitments and know that, if we do not, we give license to other countries to dishonour them too. The United Kingdom remains a leader on rules and rights and others look to us. It is coming up to Burns Night, so we should
“see ourselves as others see us”.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that it was catastrophic for the UK to cut by a third our development partnerships and in the way that we did. It was heartbreaking that a new Government, with a historic mandate, chose in their first Budget to reduce even further ODA. It is now at its lowest level in 17 years.
As a prime example, over this period, the challenges of the world, be they Covid, the climate or conflict, have made the development need even greater. Some 80% of developing nations still have not recovered their economies to pre-Covid levels, as the World Bank’s most recent reported indicated. With the growth of conflict exacerbated by the climate emergency, the most recent data shows that 282 million people in 59 countries and territories face acute food insecurity. This is seen especially in Sudan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Despite the global aim of abolishing absolute poverty by 2030, which was set in 2015 in the SDGs, the lowest estimate is that 600 million people will remain in absolute poverty by then.
In 2015, all parties in this Chamber agreed with the SDGs. They also agreed with the International Development Act, a statutory duty that we should honour our commitment and continue to honour it. We should be dependable, reliable and predictable. I agreed with 99% of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—I did not agree with 1% of it because it was not the Labour Government who met the 0.7%. As political parties, we were all aligned to that ambition, and there is a need to restore dependability, reliability and predictability.
Those three words are not often used to describe the incoming President of the United States, but perhaps the Trump Administration will again have as their approach dysfunction by design. It is true that the previous Administration of Donald Trump had leverage, but I disagree that it was used to net benefit. I believe that legitimising the North Korean leadership, removing the guard-rails on Iran and putting at risk the NATO alliance was not strength. We have to ensure, as my noble friend indicated, that our relationship with our European partners and like-minded countries is as strong as it can be, given that we may well have uncertainty in the next Administration of the United States.
Many Trump supporters say that what he says should be listened to seriously but not taken literally. But the problem is that the people who now have to listen to what he says and judge whether to take it seriously or literally are his allies, not necessarily his adversaries, and the negative energy that will be consumed will be wasted energy, especially since the global challenges are immense.
Transactionalism at the core of United States foreign policy will potentially lead to openings of opportunity for the Kremlin and Beijing. The challenges of the 21st century are immense and include technology, AI, the climate and many others. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated, we will see a combination of an uncertain American partner and the concentration of power in people such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel—individuals who consider law as discretionary, standards as weakness and norms as anachronisms.
In 2015, there was considerable consensus that we should not only meet the 0.7% obligation but set sustainable development goals and work with others to meet them. It is 10 years to the week since we had the Second Reading of that 2015 legislation, on 23 January. I want to close my remarks now as I closed them then. In that debate, when we passed that legislation, I never felt that we would honour it in only three out of the following 10 years—and it is likely to be only three out of 15 by the end of this Parliament.
As I said then:
“I conclude by saying that the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. Our global footprint is massively disproportionate to the size of our tiny islands. If the UK is a citizen of the world, what kind of citizen must we be? I say we are one that comes to the assistance of others who are in need, does not shrink from challenging those who abuse minorities, refuses to support those who prevent women accessing rights, and never turns a blind eye to those who disempower their own citizens. We establish our place and our identity as a citizen of the world if we uphold our obligations and encourage others to do likewise”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1520.]
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has been yet another fascinating, wide-ranging debate in your Lordships’ House, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing it. I thought she introduced the topic very well, although I have to say that I did not agree with her on her list of authoritarian leaders, including President Trump alongside Presidents Putin and Xi. Of course, like many people, I do not agree with or support some of the wilder statements that President Trump comes out with, but there are many checks and balances in the US system that simply do not exist in Russia and China: Congress, 52 independently minded states, independent courts, et cetera. As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne reminded us, Trump won a fair, democratic election, and, of course, we know that he can serve only a four-year term. By all means, criticise some of his statements—I suspect that we will spend a lot of time in the next few months and years ruminating on the various utterances of President Trump—but I think the noble Baroness made a flawed analogy in comparing the US, which, in my view, is still the world’s greatest democracy, with Russia and China, so I hope she will reflect on that.
The rules-based international order has enabled nations large and small to co-operate under shared principles, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over the rule of might. Today, however, as many have pointed out in this debate, this order is under threat as never before, and it is incumbent upon us, as defenders of freedom, sovereignty and stability, to address many of those challenges head on.
As many have pointed out, the first and most visible challenges come from the authoritarian states that I just mentioned, particularly Russia and China, whose actions flagrantly undermine international norms. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and brutal war in Ukraine represent a blatant rejection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, a core tenet of the UN charter. I listened with interest to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddell: possibly like Tony Blair at the time, I was optimistic about the direction Russia could go in following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think all of us wanted to see Russia admitted into the family of western democratic states, and there was a possibility that that would happen, but we all now see the direction that Russia has taken, and we have to recognise it for what it is now: a threat to the international order and to European security. Similarly, across the South China Sea, we see China’s militarisation, economic coercion of smaller states, and flagrant disregard for any international rulings on territories or the famous lines that they impose on the maps, seemingly making up and deciding what is Chinese sovereign territory. This really offers a systemic challenge to the global order.
These actions are not just mere aberrations. They are, in my view, deliberate attempts to reshape the international order into one that privileges power over principles. Such behaviour destabilises regions, weakens alliances and creates a permissive environment for other rogue actors to flout international law—we can see how Russia is now cosying up to those paragons of democracy in North Korea and Iran to further its aims.
The second challenge lies in the erosion of trust within the system itself. Many multilateral institutions that were indeed put in place initially to safeguard global stability are increasingly seen as ineffective or politicised. The failure of some organisations to act decisively against aggression or hold nations accountable risks undermining their very legitimacy. We believe in strong, accountable institutions, but this requires reform to ensure that they are fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges of the 21st century.
Furthermore, the rise of economic protectionism and deglobalisation poses a subtler but equally significant threat. Free trade and open markets have lifted millions out of poverty and fostered interdependence, which discourages conflict. Yet, we will have to return to the battles many of us thought were won in the 1980s and 1990s in favour of multilateralism, free trade and globalisation, and refight those ideological battles, because retreat into economic nationalism risks dividing the world into competing blocs, undermining both prosperity and stability.
Those challenges are compounded by the growing influence of the non-state actors that a number of noble Lords referred to—from cybercriminals to extremist groups—that exploit the gaps in governance and the vulnerabilities of our interconnected world. Their actions transcend borders, creating a fragmented and volatile global landscape.
We must, first, reaffirm our commitment to the principles that underpin the rules-based order: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. This requires a robust defence of our values on the global stage, supported by credible deterrence. NATO’s unified response to Russian aggression is a great model of how alliances can serve as bulwarks against authoritarian threats. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how we are continuing to build alliances around the world that help ensure that the rule of law is upheld while protecting our sovereignty.
Secondly, we have to champion reform of many international institutions to ensure they remain relevant and effective. This is not about abandoning multilateralism but about strengthening it to reflect modern realities. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s view on reform of institutions such as the ICC, the ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights? Does she agree with the ICC arrest warrants that have been debated? The ones issued for Netanyahu and Gallant were, in my view, ridiculous and demonstrate how that institution needs serious reform.
Thirdly, we have to prioritise economic resilience—investing in secure supply chains, fostering innovation and supporting free trade agreements with like-minded partners. Finally, we have to harness the power of our values—freedom, enterprise and the dignity of the individual—to rally allies and inspire those in many parts of the world who yearn for a better future.
The challenges to the rules-based international order are real, but so too is our ability to overcome them. By standing firm to our principles and working with others who share them, we can ensure that this order continues to deliver peace, stability and opportunity for many generations to come.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and for sharing her thoughts on how we have arrived at where we are and what we need to do next. This debate has raised important questions that I hope we can continue to consider in the months and years ahead. I thank her for sharing her experience of serving as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, now 10 years ago—I hope she does not mind me saying that—and for her continued dedication in the years that have followed. Her long view was inspiring and sobering. Her debate has enabled us to hear vast experience from across the House as well as fresh perspectives. By no means have we had unanimity, but there is broad agreement that the rules-based order is necessary and our best, if not only, prospect of tackling the greatest challenges the world faces.
It is interesting how much emphasis has been placed on populism and threats to our democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, we are not immune to these pressures. We must defeat populism and rebuild our international reputation. His words about our relationships in Africa are well worth heeding.
Equally, concerns about disinformation, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, are an urgent call to action that must be answered multilaterally through technology, governance and, as several noble Lords said, our use of soft power. We need global action to address global challenges and—more optimistically, perhaps—to make the most of global opportunities.
The rules-based international order continues to play an important role in making sure we can take action at the scale and pace that is needed, including in facing crises, with most countries trusting the United Nations to act effectively as first responder. Of course, we can all see, as many noble Lords reminded us, that the reality of today’s world is piling on the pressure. The system is being stretched by the strain, with millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people bearing the brunt of the consequences.
We can all see opportunists, such as Russia and China, seeking to set themselves up as the true defenders of the system and the true champions of the global South, even as they contribute so very little and strive to set countries against one another—just when we most need to be working together on everything from respecting sovereignty and upholding rights to getting help to those in desperate need and making sure the system is fit for the future. Indeed, it should give us pause to see just how hard they are working to pervert and undermine a system that is still robust, resilient and widely shared. We can all see, 80 years since it all began to come together, in the shadow of the war between great powers that engulfed the world in a generation, that it endures.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and—as he reminded us— Tony Blair have warned us, we must not take this system for granted. Our focus must be on making sure it thrives. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations General Assembly and the summit of the future in New York last September, the Government are committed to multilateralism and to the mission of the United Nations. We recognise that this is an important part of how countries work together on everything from conflict to the climate and nature crisis, economic shocks, poverty, public health, and trade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, our commitment to justice and peace must be renewed, consistent and shared internationally. These partnerships are the only way forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, warned us that we need a massive global effort to get back on track to meet our shared goals for sustainable development by 2030. Learning from history, we must make progress towards our climate and nature goals together or we will never meet the urgent and growing humanitarian need that we see in so many countries. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary said in a major speech just last week, across the board what we need now is
“a whole new level of global engagement”,
not only with our closest allies and strategic partners but with all those who are committed to the principle of the UN charter. That is how we work together: in genuine, respectful partnership with others, taking realistic steps towards progressive ends.
Over the last six months we have been putting this into practice across a vast range of work, spanning everything from irregular migration to emerging technologies, and the needs of women and girls and other marginalised people. At the UN Security Council, as well as standing with Ukraine, we used our presidency to keep the world’s worst crises firmly in the spotlight when others would prefer to look away. No doubt noble Lords will have seen the Foreign Secretary’s passionate address in November on the catastrophe unfolding in Sudan. We have not only doubled UK aid to Sudan but pushed our partners to do more for the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, and worked intensively with our partners to support people living through traumatic situations in Yemen, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the central Sahel, Somalia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, and more.
We are committed to upholding and promoting the rule of law, putting it at the heart of our approach, from our domestic legal and judicial system, to strengthening accountability and the international institutions that defend international law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We are seeking re-election to the Human Rights Council and to return a UK judge to the International Court of Justice. This Government will not withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this Government support the effective and independent International Criminal Court.
We are pursuing justice at the local level too, and that includes helping Ukraine to build capacity to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked who attended Ukraine’s First Lady’s conference on sexual violence. I can tell him that our ambassador in Kyiv attended that event to represent the UK. I also highlight that Prime Minister Starmer is in Ukraine today to progress and highlight our determination that we have a long-standing partnership with Ukraine.
We continue to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including in Gaza. From our first day in office, this Government have pressed for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages and to bring relief, reconstruction and hope to civilians, who have suffered so much. All phases of the ceasefire deal announced yesterday must now be implemented in full. We were all pleased to hear that news yesterday, and we are hopeful that every phase of the agreement that has been reached can be implemented. The UK will continue to make every diplomatic effort to get lasting peace, security and a two-state solution for the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
The UK remains a top donor to the multilateral system. We are the largest flexible funder of the World Health Organization. Indeed, we have unlocked $42 billion from the International Monetary Fund to support our partners’ health systems, saving lives and safeguarding economies from future pandemics, as well as building long-term systems that will support communities for the future. From the UN regular and peacekeeping funds to the World Bank, we are channelling UK assistance through the multilateral system because it is effective and cost effective.
For example, last year we increased the UK’s pledge to the World Bank’s International Development Association by 40%. We did that because partners agree that this will help them to grow their economies long term. Indeed, since 1960 that fund has had a transformative impact for so many countries around the world. It supports 1.9 billion people, almost one-quarter of the world’s population, in 75 countries. Already every £1 that we put in pays for itself in results three or four times over, and that is set to rise as we encourage private sector investment as countries add their own fiscal resources to multiply that even further.
As we use our leverage to secure reforms, we are delighted that Tom Fletcher has started his new role as UN relief chief, working on the reforms that are needed to make sure that all our efforts are much more joined up across the humanitarian and development system that is so stretched. We are working with pioneering partners such as Mia Mottley to get more climate finance to those who need it faster and with greater impact, and to reform the global financial system, making the most of our leverage as a major donor to secure the reforms that we need to achieve it, not least through the multilateral development banks. In all my visits, I have heard our partners underline just how important that is for them. The UK is not only at the forefront of developing innovative financial tools in areas such as insurance but we are using our heft to implement much-needed reforms, with the World Bank now mainstreaming climate resilient debt clauses.
As part of our work to strengthen, improve and reinvigorate the wider system—as, to be fair to him, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said we should—we are supporting expanded membership of the UN Security Council, with additional permanent and non-permanent seats. In all that we do, our approach is one of genuine partnership grounded in mutual respect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for highlighting the launch of the soft power council yesterday. I can assure him that promoting our values of the rule of law and democracy will be central to that work.
This Government are committed to fulfilling our first duty, which is to keep people safe, and determined to make good on our guiding mission to grow our economy and bring opportunity to people across our country. In today’s world, the work we do with our partners, overseas and globally, is an essential part of how we achieve that. I say that partly in answer to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I agreed with much of what he said about ensuring that what we do in foreign affairs is directly relevant and interesting and feels important to people from every part of our country. That is why this Government are focused on making sure that the way we do things works in today’s world, so that we overcome those who seek to set us against one another and reinvigorate hope for a shared future by working towards it together.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and, as I expected, this debate has been very wide-ranging, drawing on huge expertise. I must respond to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I suggest that he reads back over what I actually said about President Trump, including the potential checks on him in the US system. I believe in being precise.
In this debate, it comes across loud and clear that noble Lords support the principles of a rules-based international system, with internationally agreed laws, fairly applied. There has been considerable concern about, first, the potential weakness of that international order and, secondly, the profound challenges we face: in particular, the new challenges of climate change and AI. It was out of appalling catastrophe—genocide, a devastating war and the flattening of cities, including the first use of nuclear weapons—that our current international system was born. We have to hope that we can work together to improve and modernise that system, without needing catastrophe to enable it. There was clear cross-party agreement on the need to do that, which I welcome.
Gaza: Healthcare System Support
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the healthcare system in Gaza.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate, I remind speakers that they have two minutes and ask them to please stick to that time. We have a lot of speakers to get through and we want to finish the debate on time. Thank you.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, this debate sits comfortably on the back of the debate that we have just heard. Let me immediately set before the House my interests: I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. Our work is global: it addresses human rights abuses, and breaches of humanitarian law and the laws of war around the world. We are currently engaged in work on China, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Belarus, Sudan and now Syria. We do legal training in many other countries too. At the moment, I am personally co-chairing a task force for President Zelensky of Ukraine on the war crime of the abduction of Ukrainian children by Russia. Warrants were issued by the International Criminal Court and celebrated by many nations.
I was a member of the legal panel which reviewed the evidence that was to be used, by the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor, to apply for warrants before the court against Hamas and its leadership for the atrocity crimes committed on 7 October—horrifying crimes—and against the Israeli war leaders Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes against the laws of war. That related to the failure to enable access to humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people.
The review involved looking at whether thresholds for evidence had been met, but decisions were always made by the prosecutor’s office. The warrants have now been issued by a court of law, not by the prosecutors. It relates to the impact of the absence of humanitarian aid on the well-being and health of the people of Palestine, of Gaza.
I sought this debate because of the grievous humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the near collapse of the healthcare system, with its enormous consequences for suffering people, and because of my concern that Parliament had been too silent on the suffering of the people in Gaza. We are on the brink of a negotiated ceasefire and, thank God, the release of the hostages. I hope and pray that it may be so. But it should not distract us from the dire immediate need for humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people. Those who are conducting this war on behalf of Israel, or who step in to the role of mediators or peacekeepers in the weeks and months to come, have to enable the immediate delivery of substantial aid.
A huge number of hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed and those which remain can barely function. Many medical staff have been killed. There is very little food and water in the region, and no fuel. A hospital cannot function without electricity for incubators, dialysis machines, operating theatres and sterilisation units. Disease is now rampant in the area because of the gross state of sanitation. The infrastructure of Gaza—from its sewers to its water supply pipes, to its schools, mosques and churches—has been destroyed: it is a moonscape. For over a year, no chlorine has been allowed to enter Gaza.
There is little medicine and virtually no medical supplies. Surgeons have had to operate without anaesthesia. The number of people, especially children, who have lost limbs runs into the thousands. To prevent people bleeding to death, ragged remains of limbs have to be sawn off and sutured. Modern doctors are not trained for the sheer horror of doing this kind of operation with patients who are conscious. Many of the international doctors have testified to the fact that they and other healthcare workers working for international organisations are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their experiences.
Israel’s debilitation of Gaza’s healthcare system is justified to the world on the basis that there are Hamas military targets within the hospitals, which may well be true. But what humane war leaders are prepared to kill people in their hospital beds or babies in incubators when there is a Hamas presence in a hospital? I will turn to some of the research that has been done on that in a minute.
Some 62% of all the buildings in Gaza have been destroyed. That increases to 80% in northern Gaza. It would be hard to find a single family that has not lost multiple relatives. According to Israel, it has used 70,000 tonnes of bombs, which surpasses the tonnage dropped in Dresden, Hamburg and London combined during the six-year Second World War. The Geneva Convention sought to create new rules of engagement after the horrors of the Second World War, but they seem to count for nothing.
On 10 January, the World Health Organization warned that the Al-Awda hospital, the last functioning hospital in northern Gaza, is so overwhelmed with patients and critically low on essential supplies that care is basically impossible. Damaged roads and insufficient facilitation by the Israeli authorities have made safe access for the WHO impossible. Are we accusing it of making these things up? The UN estimates that, as of 31 December 2024—Christmas time—14,000 patients required medical evacuation abroad in order to meet their needs.
In the emergency debate of the UN Security Council on 3 January, on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the WHO said that Israeli forces had been conducting a systematic dismantling of the health system in northern Gaza. The WHO has verified that 654 attacks have been made on healthcare facilities. The UN human rights office published a report on 31 December claiming that
“Israel’s pattern of deadly attacks on and near hospitals in Gaza … pushed the healthcare system to the brink of total collapse”,
and that
“The conduct of hostilities in Gaza since 7 October has destroyed the healthcare system in Gaza, with predictably devastating consequences for the Palestinian people”.
The horrors go on. On 8 November 2024, the IPC Famine Review Committee stated:
“Famine thresholds may have already been crossed or else will be in the near future”
in northern Gaza. The UN estimates that 60,000 children will require treatment for acute malnutrition in the course of this year.
Before the conflict, some 500 trucks entered Gaza every day. Now, every single person in Gaza requires humanitarian assistance, but in October, 57 trucks a day were allowed to cross into Gaza on average. Of course, it vacillates, but in this House we keep hearing that looting is the problem, with people taking the aid. No mention is made, I have noticed, of the extent to which attacks have been made on the humanitarian aid trucks by settlers from the West Bank. They have torn down humanitarian aid and overturned lorries, with IDF soldiers looking on, inactive.
A report by 29 NGOs, including Save the Children, Oxfam and others, detailed the looting of aid trucks as an ongoing issue, but called the theft of goods
“a consequence of Israel’s targeting of the remaining police forces in Gaza, scarcity of essential goods, lack of routes and closure of most crossing points, and the subsequent desperation of the population amid these dire conditions”.
Many of the those who are looting are young Palestinians who are trying to get food for their families, their parents and other people suffering in the absence of food.
On 10 January, a study was published in the medical journal the Lancet which estimates that the death toll, which people refer to as 47,000, is higher than that: between 55,298 and 78,525. They have split it in the middle, with a best estimate of 64,420.
Finally, I have just read a book by Omar El Akkad called One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This. Each generation looks back in judgment at the moral blind spots of earlier generations, and it will happen on this subject too. One day, we will be ashamed of ourselves for our passivity and hypocrisy concerning what has been happening in Gaza. This silence has to be broken.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for securing the debate. I was honoured to serve on the justice committee that she chaired. I agree with her on most things—the treatment of the Uighurs, for example—but on this issue, it is different.
I could not be more delighted, as the noble Baroness was, at the prospect of seeing Emily Damari and all the other hostages released, but I remind noble Lords that Israel is not negotiating with the UK, nor with the UAE. It is having to make an agreement with a terrorist group, Hamas, which chillingly vowed yesterday to repeat 7 October. We will no doubt hear in the next hour distorted figures and distorted so-called facts provided by the Hamas propaganda machine. But let us be clear: Hamas is a terrorist group with scant regard for the welfare of the Palestinian people.
Do not take my words, take the words of Fatah’s statement of 11 January condemning Hamas for gambling with the interests and resources of the Palestinian people to the benefit of the Iranian regime, and holding Hamas responsible for the destruction of Gaza, in particular concerning the protection and healthcare of the population.
I have three questions for the Minister. Will she confirm that, according to HMG, Hamas will have no role whatever in the reconstruction of Gaza? We are likely also to hear today, by the way, about how Israel systematically dismantled the healthcare system in Gaza, and very little about Hamas using hospitals as command centres and ammunition stores, so will the Minister please confirm to the House that Israel has provided 13 working field hospitals in Gaza, in co-operation with international partners, since the beginning of the conflict? Finally, will she confirm to the House that 3,259 sick and wounded civilians and their escorts have been evacuated from Gaza? Israel cares, Hamas does not.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, it is hugely welcome that we finally seem to have a peace deal, and we must hope that this holds, but we must not look away now. There are lessons to be learned and only a sustained focus can give any hope of there not being similar conflicts in the future. Although this debate focuses on healthcare in Gaza, it is in essence about rights and responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has rightly laid out, under international law, civilians and medical staff must be protected, yet we hear that in Gaza, hospitals have been attacked, with patients killed, equipment destroyed and services lost. Numerous doctors and other medical staff have been killed.
The WHO has said that Israeli forces have conducted a
“systematic dismantling of the health system”
in northern Gaza. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described a “pattern of attacks” that begin with Israeli air strikes and are followed by ground raids and the detention of patients and staff,
“leaving the hospital essentially non-functional”.
Israel has maintained that Hamas has been operating from these health facilities, but the UN high commissioner states that Israel
“has not provided sufficient information to substantiate many of these claims”
and has called for independent investigations. Why have these not been allowed? Why are journalists not allowed access?
It is in the interests of everyone—Israelis, Palestinians, the wider region and globally—for this appalling situation to end. A political resolution, with a two-state solution, is long overdue. International law must be respected without fear or favour.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, we all lament the tragedy of Gaza, the deaths, the devastation and, in particular, as this Motion reminds us, the damage to the healthcare system, but much of that tragedy is the inevitable consequence of a war, a war which Hamas was responsible for starting. It is a war that Hamas has continued, by threatening to repeat 7 October if it could do so, and by detaining Israeli and foreign hostages in conditions of unspeakable cruelty for 468 days and counting. We all hope that the agreement announced in the last couple of days will end that detention very soon and resolve the situation.
Hamas bears a particular responsibility for the damage to the healthcare system of Gaza. It is the consequence of Hamas’s policy of using civilian structures such as hospitals as bases for its weapons and its soldiers. I say very politely to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that I find it quite extraordinary that she can speak, eloquently, on this subject for eight or nine minutes and make only one brief, indirect reference to Hamas. I say to her and to the House that the best way
“to support the healthcare system in Gaza”,
which is the subject of this debate, is for this country and all civilised countries to do all that we can to ensure that Hamas is deprived of power and deprived of weapons. That is in the interest not only of Israel and the world but of the people of Gaza.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, news of a potential ceasefire would indeed be a great relief for both sides, though we will now be going into a sort of truth and reconciliation phase in which blame will be laid on one or other party, and we will see Hamas’s very successful propaganda laid out for the BBC and others to swallow without question.
I want to head off some of that with a few facts. When we hear talk of hospitals being destroyed, I remind noble Lords that Israel built 13 field hospitals in Gaza to treat the Palestinians. It has sent hundreds of Gazan patients not only to Israel’s hospitals but to hospitals in other countries and managed the polio vaccination programme for all the children in Gaza. That seem to have slipped by the BBC’s balanced reporting.
Israel evacuated the patients of Kamal Adwan hospital, but it was not the patients or staff who were killing Israeli soldiers nearby—nine last weekend alone. It was Hamas terrorists who were shooting from tunnels under the hospital—tunnels to which Hamas has always denied access to its own people. Remember that, while Israel builds shelters for its population, Hamas builds huge tunnels for itself to which it denies access to its women and children so that it can cynically use them in the front line of its battles. This is where Hamas stores the food and medicines delivered from Israel that it purloins and sells at exorbitant prices to its deprived citizens.
There has been some talk of the role of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of the Adwan hospital. Israel now seems to have evidence that not only is he a key member of Hamas, he may even have taken part in the 7 October terrorist attack. It is little wonder that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are turning against Hamas as they understand what horrific results Hamas has inflicted on them.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, a recent report by Save the Children reveals that at least 14,100 children have been killed. Gaza now has the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history. Additionally, at least 17,000 children—approximately 3% of Gaza’s population —have been orphaned.
For the last year, I have consistently supported Project Pure Hope, which, since November, has been trying to extend UK medical assistance to severely injured children in this country, at no cost to taxpayers, for a limited time and in limited numbers. So far, it has failed, and I have failed too. It has recently reached out again to the Cabinet Office but has not received a response. Can the Minister assure me that these initiatives will be considered?
There is a lot of passion and controversy about this issue. Can the Minister tell us whether international journalists will finally be allowed into Gaza so that they can bear witness to 13 hospitals, to the citizens of Gaza who have been cared for in hospitals on Israeli territory and so that we can finally get what could be considered an objective view of what exactly has been happening on the ground and the results of those actions?
I will use my last 20 seconds to ask the Minister to update us on the status of UNRWA and the UK Government’s current position on UNRWA being kept out.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the prospect of a ceasefire, but the catastrophe of Gaza needs far more than a respite. We have heard about attacks on hospitals. There are no functioning hospitals in northern Gaza because of the bombardments which have removed not just healthcare but staff. Some 500 healthcare staff and 200 aid workers have been killed. We should pay tribute to the courage of these people, many of whom are volunteers. It is they who are providing the reports of what is going on in Gaza which are being refuted by others in this Chamber. I would ask those noble Lords to read the testimony of some of the people who actually work there.
Does the Minister feel that the Government have done enough to protect healthcare in Gaza, in light of the systematic attempts to destroy it? Aid is almost non-existent for Palestinians: 160 attempts to reach civilians in north Gaza by the UN resulted in virtually zero success. So far this year, eight babies have frozen to death in Gaza, largely as a result of denial of fuel, shelter and medical care.
Any lasting peace will depend on justice and accountability, so will the UK Government commit to pursuing those responsible for war crimes and ensuring that they are held fully accountable? The people of Gaza were already deprived, crowded and oppressed. They have lost everything in this latest catastrophe. Will the UK take a lead and insist on immediate access to aid and medical care for the dispossessed and displaced people of Gaza and will the Government play a full part in rebuilding a future for Gaza based on justice, accountability and guaranteed human rights?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the year of agony for the hostages held by Hamas and their families and friends. I regret that the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been able to check on their welfare and I express the hope, as we hold this debate at a point of continuing uncertainty, that both sides will use its offer to facilitate the return of the hostages and the release of Palestinian prisoners as expeditiously and kindly as possible.
I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for securing this debate on the specific point of the healthcare system in Gaza, but I must start by reflecting on what is happening now. These are hopefully final tragedies, but all the more heart-wrenching for family and friends. Overnight and today, reports suggest that at least 70 more people have been killed in Gaza, adding to a death toll of more than 46,000. Very many of them were children and the majority were clearly non-combatants. It is an awful blight on the whole world. Two million people have for 15 months endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us for ever: multifamily homes and whole blocks, streets, hospitals and schools obliterated to a pile of concrete, all too often with fragile human bodies entombed. Will the Government co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court in pursuit of justice against all those who have committed war crimes? What will they do to ensure the restoration of the medical facilities that are so desperately needed?
The Green Party has been calling for a ceasefire since October 2023. While the apparent agreement offers hope, it must mark the beginning of addressing the root causes of the conflict. The ongoing occupation, the siege of Gaza and the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights cannot continue. The UK Government must formally recognise the state of Palestine —a vital step towards justice, equality and a sustainable peace. It is also a demonstration of commitment to international law and a balanced approach to the region, which must include a full suspension of all arms exports to the Israeli military.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the fragile agreed ceasefire, although it was too late for those hostages who could have been saved and the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed and starved. Multiple generations of families have been wiped out. The death and destruction cannot carry on. What role is the UK playing to ensure the ceasefire is permanent?
The surviving Palestinians now face a critical threat. The healthcare system in Gaza has been decimated, leaving Palestinians without access to life-saving treatment, which could result in a doubling of deaths. The injured cannot be treated. There is the spread of disease. Newborns are dying. Pregnant women are having miscarriages and being denied safe birth. One overlooked tool of genocide is preventing births, which we are witnessing.
Hospital buildings have been destroyed and patients and healthcare staff killed, and medical staff have been imprisoned. All of this is in breach of international law. Why has Israel been allowed to violate international law repeatedly and with impunity, through actions which have undeniably contributed to the elimination and expulsion of Palestinians? Will the UK join efforts to hold Israel accountable for its repeated violations of international law and for the collective punishment of Palestinians?
I finish by commenting on the Prime Minister’s statement about the ceasefire. Language matters. He rightly described the deaths of innocent Israelis as brutal and “a massacre”, but then simply described the deaths of Palestinians by saying that “they lost their lives”. Palestinians, too, were brutally massacred. Given the atrocities we have witnessed, why did the Prime Minister downplay the suffering of Palestinians and show double standards in humanity?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, the horrific effects of the Israeli Government’s callous treatment of Palestinian civilians in Gaza have been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, so I will not repeat them, but I do want to point to the long-term effects on children. They may escape death, but many are maimed, seriously malnourished, have been denied education because so many schools have been destroyed, and have lost close family members. They are traumatised and they will be left with permanent scars, meaning that their mental and physical health will require long-term treatment for many years. I also want to mention that the sexual and reproductive health of younger women has been shattered by the systematic destruction of primary care centres as well as hospitals. Miscarriages have trebled, as have maternal deaths. Women are giving birth with no medical assistance, no anaesthetic and no access to clean water or power. Moreover, their babies are dying because of a lack of neonatal care.
I salute the Government for welcoming the ceasefire and for calling for the entry of far more development aid to Gaza, but can I press the Minister on what the Government are doing to push for a permanent ceasefire so that medical facilities can be re-established for the long term? Will they hold Israel to account for its failures under international law in annihilating the health sector in Gaza? And what are they doing to ensure that UNRWA can remain in place to carry on its vital work in delivering humanitarian aid? Does she agree that UNRWA’s experience and expertise are indispensable in this area to allocate food, fuel, water, medicines and medical equipment, without which the health of Gazans will continue to deteriorate? Finally, will the Government commit to a leading role in restoring the Gazan infrastructure to allow its people the chance of a semblance of normal life, including proper healthcare?
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on securing this debate and on her excellent introduction. I declare an interest as president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine. I join others in expressing relief at the proposed fragile ceasefire, while lamenting why it took so long, and mourning the many thousands, including Israeli hostages, who tragically did not live to see it. We hope and pray that this ceasefire holds.
It has been reported that over 1,000 doctors, nurses and medical personnel have been killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza over the past 15 months. The situation, as has been outlined by others, is catastrophic and I do not need to repeat some of the facts and figures that we have read repeatedly. Israeli forces arrested Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of the last major hospital operating in north Gaza—the Kamal Adwan. He was among more than 240 people arrested and the IDF has accused him and all his staff members of being Hamas terrorists. We understand that he has been denied legal representation since then until 22 January, and these allegations are not proven, as others have tried to say.
MSF reports that every medical centre and humanitarian delivery system has long been destroyed and been replaced by unacceptable improvised provisions. There is no telling what the indirect human cost will be in deaths and long-term injuries as a result of the denial of aid and treatment. We have heard that the International Development Select Committee heard harrowing and chilling evidence from NHS doctors trained in this country who were over there. Can the Minister say what role the United Kingdom will take in helping to rebuild healthcare services and in asking for justice and more transparency for the doctors and medical staff who are being held without charge and without legal representation?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and I thank her for calling this debate. My heart goes out to all those suffering—Palestinians and Israelis—following the Hamas massacre. Hamas cynically exploits hospitals and healthcare, inviting attack by firing on Israel from those facilities. Hamas has turned hospitals into terror command centres. It has used them to hide hostages and terrorists. Hamas terrorists themselves go round disguised as women, even holding children. They are deliberately disguising themselves as patients and doctors and travelling in ambulances. They are callously putting ordinary Palestinians in harm’s way.
The protections for hospitals and healthcare are not unconditional, but the Palestinian Hamas terrorists cynically exploit international sympathy. I join in sympathy for those impacted. Article 8.2 of the Rome statute prohibits intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, provided they are not military objectives—but they have become so.
The December actions at Kamal Adwan Hospital found large terrorist operations there. Some 240 Hamas, PIJ and other operatives were caught, and 19 terrorists were killed. Even then, many tried to pose as patients and flee. This is the same in other hospitals that Israel has attacked, and it has set up its own. Notwithstanding all of this, Israel has provided fuel and medical supplies. It has even run a vaccination campaign for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hep B and polio—hardly genocidal intent.
I pray for peace, and I pray for a relief for the Palestinians and Israelis.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I spent much of my childhood in a hospital bed. I did not know then that most of my surgeon’s family had been murdered at Auschwitz. But I am sure that, were he alive today, he would be as horrified as I am by the tragedy that has befallen the people of Israel and of Gaza since Hamas’s barbaric and depraved invasion from unoccupied Gaza in 2023.
Of course, the international community must do everything it can to help rebuild the hospitals in Gaza, whose sacrosanct position has been consistently violated, as we have already heard, by Hamas in defiance of international law. For it is their cynical cowardice, in turning hospitals into terror command centres, that has put patients, their families and medical personnel in harm’s way.
So, to support the healthcare system of Gaza must mean protecting it from Hamas. Never again can Hamas be allowed to perpetrate such crimes against the Palestinian people. I ask the Minister to confirm that His Majesty’s Government will prioritise ensuring Hamas respects and upholds international law, because unless and until that happens, no amount of support from us will remove the threat posed by Hamas to the security and viability of the Gaza healthcare system and, ultimately, to its people.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
We awoke with news that gave hope that, 15 months after the monstrous Hamas attacks of 7 October, a ceasefire would bring the Israeli hostages home and end the devastating slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians. This afternoon, we hear reports that Israel continues with airstrikes on Gaza and is backing away from the agreement, reportedly due to the intransigence of extremist Israeli Ministers, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. During this time, Palestinian health services have been attacked and largely destroyed and health service workers indiscriminately killed or seized by the IDF.
In light of these attacks, will the Minister restate that obligations under international humanitarian law to protect hospitals and health workers are unconditional? Will she tell the House what representations the Government have made to Israel regarding the recent IDF attack on Kamal Adwan Hospital and the treatment of healthcare workers who are being detained by Israel?
The destruction of medical facilities is putting at further risk the lives of tens of thousands of children facing acute malnutrition in Gaza and who are unable to get access to medical care. I hope the Minister will once again urge all parties to ensure unimpeded access for humanitarian aid, both into and within Gaza. We must all hope that an enduring ceasefire will be established in the coming hours and that the unconscionable disregard of both Hamas and Israel for innocent Palestinian lives will come to an end.
Israel is not only losing many of its friends over the devastation it has wreaked in Gaza; far worse, it is in danger of losing its soul.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the families and friends of the hostages deserve their loved ones home, and the catastrophic humanitarian crisis inflicted on the Palestinian civilians needs to end. Therefore, the ceasefire must hold, and we all hope that it does, but the hours, days and weeks ahead will be tense, and there will be major uncertainty, because it is not a peace and governance agreement but merely a ceasefire. The conditions must be in place where we can hope that it leads to that, but it could have come to an end a lot sooner, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Blackstone, were right.
UNICEF’s figures are 14,500 child deaths, 17,000 unaccompanied children with no foster care and 1 million displaced children. In context, that is the equivalent of the entire under-10 population of London now displaced, that now needs to be educated and homed. Of course, as we heard, even with this agreement there continues to be outpost and settler violence in the West Bank.
None of this was inevitable, but the task ahead is enormous. In the region, an unprecedented level of rubble clearance is required, as is corpse identification and certification, the restoration of health services, trusted law and order, judicial services and water and electricity services, and emergency shelter put in place.
I can only reiterate my appeal to the Minister from earlier this week that the UK can play a very significant role in the restoration of education services with pop-up provision, and we can perhaps start the process of moving away from recrimination. That may lead to recognition of the state of Palestine—two states—and long-term sustainable peace. Let us not lose all hope.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join others in hoping—the latest news seems to be positive—that the ceasefire is back on and that it will hold, although I fear it may be only temporary if Hamas is allowed to continue playing any kind of role in Gaza, dedicated as it is to the destruction of the state of Israel.
There is substantial evidence that Hamas has fought from within hospitals throughout the war, periodically hiding some of the hostages it has held since 7 October 2023 inside them and using the people of Gaza as human shields. There is video evidence to demonstrate that.
We must also acknowledge the measures taken by Israel to facilitate the flow of aid into Gaza. Despite the security challenges, Israel has worked to establish humanitarian corridors and to co-ordinate with international actors to allow the delivery of vital supplies. It is crucial in this debate to recognise these efforts, as in my view they demonstrate Israel’s willingness to balance its legitimate security concerns with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
It is essential to differentiate between the legitimate self-defence actions of a democratic state, Israel, and the actions of what is essentially a terrorist group that seeks to undermine peace and stability in the region. Hamas bears total responsibility for the suffering in Gaza, not only through its attacks on Israel but through its previous governance failures and misappropriation of the considerable resources delivered over many years by the international community that were meant to help civilians.
This Government took the decision to help resume funding to UNRWA after the previous Government had suspended it. UNRWA had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel in October 2023. We are clear that all links to the Hamas terrorist group must be severed if there is to be a sustainable peace in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for securing this debate and to noble Lords who have contributed. I know this House will join me in welcoming the news overnight of major progress on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. This provides hope and the prospect of an improvement in the dire situation in Gaza. I pay tribute to those who have worked so hard to bring this about, including the negotiating teams from the United States, Qatar and Egypt.
At the same time, we recognise that for the hostages and their families, the suffering continues. We especially think of British citizen Emily Damari, and of Eli and Yossi Sharabi, Oded Lifshitz, and Avinatan Or, who have strong links to the UK, and their loved ones, who have shown so much courage and commitment to bringing them home. We stand with Gazan civilians as they await more information about what this deal will mean. They need to be able to start rebuilding their lives and livelihoods as soon as possible. Winter has come to Gaza, and after 15 months of conflict Gazans are in a desperate situation. The legacy of conflict will take time to address fully. Nearly 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes, and the whole population of Gaza, not least the children and the most vulnerable in society, bear the scars of the conflict, both physically and psychologically.
Since the appalling Hamas attacks of 7 October, hospitals and other healthcare facilities make up much of the vital infrastructure that has been destroyed in Gaza. What is needed immediately is a rapid surge in aid reaching Gaza and an effective security context for this to be delivered. We need to see commercial deliveries fully reinstated and medical supplies allowed. We must also see more medical evacuation routes opened and the urgent facilitation of new and sustainable healthcare provision. Reports that more than 1,000 medical staff in Gaza have been killed, injured or detained during the conflict only underline the scale of the problem. The impact on Gaza’s people has been devastating. They have been unable to safely access the healthcare they desperately need; child malnutrition has rocketed and the whole population has faced the risk of famine for some time now. Infectious diseases have spread, and babies have died for lack of warmth.
Throughout the conflict we have pressed all sides to meet their obligations with regard to healthcare in Gaza. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, asked about UNRWA. In our view, UNRWA is the best way forward to get aid, and it should be allowed to continue. Last month, the Prime Minister committed an additional £30 million to UNRWA, which will support vital services including medical care. We have now committed £41 million of UK funding to UNRWA this financial year to support its work in Gaza and the wider region. As the ceasefire begins to be implemented, it is essential that UNRWA is enabled to carry out its vital mission in Gaza and beyond.
Through our wider funding to the Occupied Territories, we have supported UK-Med’s operation of field hospitals and other healthcare services. UK-Med has provided vital care to over 300,000 Gazans since the start of the conflict. We have also provided £1 million of funding to the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through the WHO in Egypt, to support Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza.
Given the distressing plight of the sick and injured, we continue to look for opportunities to alleviate the suffering, particularly of those in need of specialised treatment and urgent care. Officials across government are examining all options to ensure we are doing everything in our power to help and to explore all avenues in order to support the critically ill in Gaza. It remains essential that all parties work urgently to establish safe passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza. We have to take the opportunity of the ceasefire to further enable this. It is true that Israel has provided field hospitals; I am happy to confirm that. But we must acknowledge that the humanitarian situation we see today tells us that this has not been enough. Journalists should be able to operate freely and safely in Gaza, and we hope that that can be brought about soon.
In closing, I reiterate that what we urgently need now is for the implementation of the ceasefire announced last night, long overdue though it is, to bring swift and significant relief to the people of Gaza. We need to see a rapid increase in the amount of aid reaching Gaza and immediate action to restore civilian infrastructure, including access to healthcare. Reconstruction should be Palestinian led, but Hamas should play no part in this. We stand ready to play our part in reconstruction and psychosocial support. I suspect that this House, like the wider world, will never agree on the balance of responsibility and blame for the deaths of tens of thousands of children, women and men. But what we can support, and we surely all have a duty to support, is that negotiation, dialogue, humanitarian aid, a ceasefire and the release of all hostages, today, is the only way forward.
Global Warming
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the challenges caused by the effects of climate change on natural ecosystems and the role of nature conservation in combating global warming.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is late in the week. The reason why I wanted to hold this debate is that, as those who have been Members of the House for some time know, I have tended to specialise on climate change and energy during my career here. However, more locally in Cornwall, for the last few years I have chaired the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Its aim is to tackle the crises of biodiversity and the retreat of nature regionally. For some time, I treated both those crises—they are crises—as separate issues locally and globally.
For instance, I was optimistic about biodiversity in the far south-west of the United Kingdom. I used to say about the climate crisis that, wherever carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, they will affect us globally, wherever we are, but that we can really make a difference to biodiversity in our locality. We hope that the rest of the world gets it right, but we can get it right here as well. However, I quickly learned that, although that is just about correct in the short term, if we do not solve the climate crisis in the medium and long term, our attempts to repair our ecosystems will be equally fraught.
I make an apology in that, in asking the question, I have said something that I tell everybody else off for saying—“nature conservation”. Nature conservation was a 1970s and 1980s term. It is no good now; we need nature recovery. Conservation is not sufficient. However, the one thing that I will try to do during this debate is to be optimistic and not mention that our nature is the most depleted of any country in the world. I will not go down that route.
So we have two crises. On the climate side, we know that 2024 was the hottest year for our planet, and that all of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. On biodiversity, the Living Planet Index has shown that, over the last 50 years, the average size of monitored wildlife populations has shrunk by three-quarters. In the UK, one in six species has been threatened by extinction, while 7% of our woodland and a quarter of our peat-lands are assessed to be in good condition—a minuscule amount. I will come back to peat-lands later and I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is here to talk about caring for our forests, and the Woodland Trust.
Both these crises are linked by their cause but, optimistically, they are also connected by their solution. Briefly on the causes of biodiversity loss, it is now estimated that climate change is the third most important reason for biodiversity loss but that it will, over the coming years, become one of the most important.
Those individual threats include temperature, and the fact that species cannot migrate at the same rate as the planet is warming up—at the end of the day, you cannot go further north than the North Pole, and you cannot go further south than the South Pole; flooding and more destructive storms; fires, obviously; species migration, and the fact that we do not necessarily have the right conditions for all the migration routes; seasonal dysfunction, where perhaps a species of flora that an animal or species relies on is there at different times of the season because of changes; ocean acidification, which is directly related to carbon being absorbed by the ocean, which has been hugely helpful against climate change but will eventually be very destructive to marine species; invasive species, which when they come down to being pests can also affect human health; soil destruction; and desertification, as we have seen in Africa and beyond.
So we see all sorts of examples of that, including the current wildfires in California, coral bleaching, floods in the United Kingdom and Europe and extreme weather in the Caribbean. I ask noble Lords whether they can think of a day when they have watched the news, whether on television or YouTube, and not seen some form of extreme event problem over recent months. It seems to me that every night examples of this problem are there to see on our screens. This is not just about biodiversity; it is about trying to protect our ecosystems and ecosystem services, whether it is pollination, clean water and air, water cycles, healthy soils or flood control.
I will give a bit of bad news and then I hope to come on to the good news, so that everybody can at least feel that there is some solution here. When I first got involved in biodiversity, I was looking at the so-called Aichi targets from the Convention on Biological Diversity. There were a number of them: they were set in 2011 and were supposed to be completed by 2020. Not one of those targets, all of which were on biological diversity, was actually met and we do not seem any nearer to them now. Very few of the sustainable development goals, which we perhaps know better, have been met, either globally or here in the UK. Some have, but not very many in this area.
This is a big issue globally. Back in October, there was a convention on biodiversity in Colombia, and in November, a Conference of the Parties on climate change in Baku, Azerbaijan. The first ended without any conclusions whatever because the parties could not agree on the biodiversity side, and at COP, as we know, partly because of the fossil fuel interests that were there, again, there was insufficient agreement on how to move forward. In the meantime, we face a number of tipping points that we must avoid: the disappearance of the polar ice caps, the movement of ocean circulation and the survival of the lungs of the planet—not just the Amazon but the Congo Basin rainforest.
I will mention something that really disappointed me, as a parliamentarian, during the last Government. The Treasury, while under the control of Mr Sunak, produced the fantastic Dasgupta report, which was primarily about natural capital. To me, it was equal to the Stern report on climate change from several years before. It was a beautiful report, produced by the Treasury under the previous Government, but did anything happen? Did any of us do anything about it? It lies there, unused. Both nationally and globally, we are all committed to the 30 by 30 target, aiming for 30% of the land and sea to be managed for nature by 2030, but we are nowhere it.
Let us be a little bit more upbeat and look at where we go from here. I believe that we can solve all these by solving both together. We can rebuild our ecosystems and can substitute nature for concrete when it comes to adaptation. The first of those ways, as Members in this debate will know, is nature-based solutions. For example, unstraightening rivers, healthy soils, reforestation, beavers—as we have in Cornwall now—or healthy wetlands can all really confront flooding. For biodiversity on farmland, we have ranch-style grazing, herbal leys and lots of other things that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will put far more powerfully than me. Of course, there are no-take areas for fishery regeneration as well. I congratulate the previous Government, particularly on the marine Blue Belt initiative across the globe.
I come back again to peatland regeneration. I understand that, although we had a ban on gardening peat last year, we are still able to extract peat and use it commercially. We have regenerative agriculture and nature-friendly farming, which will look after our soils, absorb more carbon and give long-term food security. Seagrass increases biodiversity and is an effective carbon sink. I welcome the Crown Estate’s mapping exercise of our coast, including salt marshes. Native forestry can absorb carbon and increase habitats, and individual trees or clusters of trees give shelter and moderate heat for livestock. Tropically, mangroves promote carbon capture and biodiversity in tandem. Of course, we should not forget urban green areas, which can be as good for human health, both mental and physical.
In this area, I would say that we have the promise of a triple win: climate mitigation, adaptation and a rebound of biodiversity. That is my good news—but I ask the Government the following questions. The Government are great on climate change and I really respect and encourage them in their objectives, particularly in decarbonisation of the energy system. I also welcome the rapid review of the Government’s 2023 environmental improvement plan, which has been ordered by Steve Reed, the Secretary of State. But where is the real plan for 30 by 30, even here in the UK? We have only five years left for that now, and the Office for Environmental Protection warned today that the Government are
“largely off track to meet”
the majority of legally binding nature targets, and time is rapidly running out, as we have seen. How will the Government avoid silo management between DESNZ and Defra? This is a problem for all Whitehall departments and it is absolutely crucial here that the two work together. Will the Government turn first to nature-based solutions rather than concrete ones? Will they look at the Dasgupta report again? In England, how will they deliver local nature recovery strategies? Is there a real way of stopping peat extraction as soon as possible? I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests with a range of environmental organisations, as listed in the register. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this important debate. I am very glad that he has seen the light on the road to Damascus and is now seeing climate change and biodiversity as a joined-up issue. Predictably, the noble Lord has done a splendid job of laying out the issues, so I will not duplicate that. I will simply say that looking after nature benefits not only nature but people, the climate and the economy; indeed, it is one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon and providing solutions to enable us to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
When I was looking at what I was going to say during this debate, I was very worried because, when talking about climate and biodiversity decline, you can begin to sound like Private Frazer from “Dad’s Army”—“We’re doomed!”—so I am going to talk about something much more positive: four real opportunities that are around right now, in the real world, that could make a difference for both climate and nature.
First, we will be building a lot in the next decade in pursuit of growth, housing, infrastructure and green energy. We have the opportunity to do all that in a completely different way—with planning decisions that are simultaneously good for the climate, the environment, the economy and people; using new green construction technologies; and building our new housing stock to the highest environmental and resilience standards.
We will have to change our current ways of doing things, of course, where too many developments threaten or destroy some of the most precious habitats for the storage of carbon and the support of biodiversity—vital carbon sinks such as, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, and peatlands, which store twice as much carbon as forests. You have no idea how difficult it was as a former chair of the Woodland Trust to put pen to paper to admit that something is better at storing carbon than trees are. What we must not do is what I call “doing an HS2”—driving in thoughtless straight lines across protected sites, important biodiversity and stuff that is really important for climate change.
My second proposition is that agriculture has probably the single biggest adverse impact on biodiversity and the climate change mitigation and adaptation that biodiversity can offer. But all is not lost; we have a significant amount of funding in this country already invested in agricultural support, which, if used skilfully, can simultaneously support biodiversity, climate change mitigation, food resilience and farmers. We have farmers who have shown that they understand the need for diverse and resilient farm businesses. So let us go for it, but with the climate change and biodiversity issues well embedded in all aspects of the agricultural landscape.
My third opportunity—I am sure the Minister will comment on this—is that right now we have an awful lot of initiatives across biodiversity and other environmental measures, planning and construction, energy systems and climate change, and very few of them are joined up. The Government set off in the right direction with joined-up mission boards in support of the manifesto, but we need to go further than that. We are blessed with one thing that joins up much of this: land. Land is a scarce resource. It is fundamental for a whole range of issues: climate impacts, biodiversity, housing, infrastructure development, energy, health, water quantity and quality, and growth.
So I urge the Minister not to keep us waiting any longer for the much-delayed—although I must admit it was the Tories who mostly delayed it—land use framework consultation, because that is the foundation that will join up many policies that currently are not joined up. But it also offers a process, nationally and locally, to get away from the sorts of conflicts in the past that were framed around the idea that we can either build or have biodiversity, but we cannot have both. I believe that we can have both and that local people have a right to expect both and to be part of that.
My fourth and last opportunity is that the majority of the biggest landowners in this country are public bodies. Look at the league table of land ownership in this country: I bet not many people know exactly who lies where in it. But if those public bodies, such as the Forestry Commission, the Crown Estate, the Ministry of Defence and others, were all to do the right thing by their use and management of their land in the interests of biodiversity and climate change, we could make tremendous progress and set some terrific examples of good practice for private landowners, and globally.
Let me take those three examples in a bit more detail: the Crown Estate, the defence estate and the Forestry Commission. I praise the Crown Estate for the progress it has voluntarily made in addressing environmental responsibilities and welcome the fact that, as a result of the Crown Estate Act, it will have an even stronger statutory requirement to do so. The defence estate is less promising, with land set aside for carbon sequestration through tree planting and habitat creation now being sold off for development as it searches for cash. The Forestry Commission, the biggest landowner in Britain, needs serious review. Its establishing statute is now over 60 years old and shows signs of age.
The statutory purpose of the Forestry Commission is to promote the interests of forestry and the production and supply of timber. Conservation is to be undertaken, but only if it can be balanced with timber production. We need an urgent review of the legislative framework of the Forestry Commission to bring it into the 21st century and, indeed, we might well consider tasking all public bodies that have major land holdings to deliver statutory targets for biodiversity, environment and climate in much the way that has now been done for the Crown Estate. I hope the Minister will grasp these opportunities.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—someone, I confess, I greatly admire. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and his fantastic rallying cry at the beginning. Sadly—I am sure that I am not alone in this—he has stolen much of my thunder. It was a good speech. I thank all the organisations which I am sure have been in touch with all noble Lords ahead of this debate. I declare that I am a member and supporter of the Conservative Environment Network.
There are three things I would like to raise today. First, everyone knows the importance and beauty of our oceans and, sadly, the many challenges they face. Under the last Government the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating the High Seas Treaty and it now needs us—this country—to take it forward and to play our part. I ask the Minister: what steps this Government are taking to ratify the treaty?
There is one linked—utterly crazy, frankly—manmade thing we are allowing that is having a huge effect on biodiversity in the ocean, not to mention carbon, and which we could bring to a swift end. That is, of course, bottom trawling. Just before Christmas I met Oceana, the international organisation doing incredible work to promote ocean conservation. I asked for the meeting because I was struggling to understand why—this is not a political dig at all; obviously, this has gone on for far too long—we continue to allow bottom trawling to happen. I was blown away in that conversation to discover that it is also allowed in marine protected areas.
Let us be clear: this activity is unbelievably destructive. It is practically bulldozing entire habitats with extraordinary, ridiculously high bycatch, and it is disturbing blue carbon. As I say, this is actively happening now and in what are deemed protected areas. So urgent action is needed. What steps are the Government taking to ban this destructive form of fishing across our so-called protected areas?
The second issue, as has already been mentioned, is around forestry and rewilding. Trees play a massive role in society, in nature, in economic terms, in health and in carbon storage. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking beyond the task force to unleash planting by the private sector to create new woodland habitats, thereby sequestering lots of carbon in the process?
More broadly, I have argued for—I am sure noble Lords have heard me bore for England on—rewilding. To me, nature is our ally on so much. It is not just about some green and pleasant land. It is not just about health. It is not the emotional attachment and the enjoyment it gives. It is not about the jobs it creates or the communities it pulls together; nor is it about the importance of restoring habitats or stopping them being lost. Nature does all this and more, especially when it comes our climate and weather.
The reason I pushed hard for nature-based solutions during our debates on the Water Bill is because those help us tackle water pollution. Often, they are far better and more efficient than manmade infrastructure. Flood plains, hedgerows and letting rivers meander, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, help tackle floods —as does our great and trusty friend the beaver. Trees, heaths and peatlands also cut gases. I say to those sceptics who say this is all nice to have but is impractical: it is not. Echoing the beautiful and moving words from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, yesterday in her incredible maiden speech in this Chamber, nature does not stop things, including food production.
That leads me to my third area: farming. I want to raise it because the only people who can improve nature and biodiversity en masse are land managers. I am afraid it does feel as though this Government are knowingly making it more difficult for land managers to do their job. So I ask, respectfully: what assessment was done by the Government of the impact of the tax changes on farmers and, crucially, on nature restoration? If farmers leave and sell up, what will replace them?
In closing, I have a general point that again slightly echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said at the beginning. Nature and the environment are not the same as net zero. They are entirely separate, albeit complementary, and I cannot help but feel that the wider Government—I respectfully exclude the two Front Benchers from this—see debates on the environment purely through the lens of net zero. I am not at all doing down the importance of green jobs or having energy diversification, and of course energy security is crucial, but so are food security and economic security. The Government, with the exception of the Minister, are broadly absent on nature. It is forced on them through the water Bill, or it is always under review, or, as we read the other day in the papers, policies are even killed off as options because they are seen as Tory policy.
By focusing solely on wind turbines and solar panels we miss a huge swathe of opportunities. You cannot tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change without recognising the limitless benefits and opportunities of nature. If we become the go-to place to lock up carbon, restore biodiversity and deliver green finance, those are the jobs of the square mile and the countryside as well as the solution to so much, not armies of civil servants or reams of legislation. Can I seek a firm commitment that the Government understand nature and the private sector’s ability to drive change? As I said, nature is a solution for so much.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on sponsoring this important debate and on his impressive opening speech. Clearly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, stated, farmers have a key role in helping to address this challenge. Having been a farmer for most of my life until recently, I am conscious of that responsibility.
Some in this House may be aware that I was responsible for a report published in 2002 on the future of food and farming, commissioned by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We reported that agricultural policy had been slow to recognise the impact of post-war policies on the natural environment. When we drafted that report, participation by farmers in stewardship schemes was less than 10%. We recommended the introduction of a broad and shallow entry-level scheme, which the Government endorsed, and after five years’ participation it led to 70% of eligible land being in some form of stewardship. It was an important first step for the majority of farmers, but we still face a huge challenge if we try to slow down and arrest species decline. The subsequent stewardship schemes, and latterly the ELM and SFI schemes, have built on that early progress.
However, I am concerned that, having got the balance wrong in the latter half of the last century, when we as farmers were incentivised only to produce food, that we may still be getting it wrong. The pendulum has swung 180 degrees. We need to learn lessons from the past and get the balance right between sustainable food production and addressing the environmental challenges we face, including the restoration of habitats. Those are not incompatible objectives, and I am sure the Minister will reassure us that Defra is fully aware of this challenge.
Even if all farmers were to actively engage in trying to restore habitats and re-establish ecosystems, we may never recover some species due to other factors, including climate change, as we mentioned, rising temperatures, urbanisation and, I may say, the increase in predators. I mention predators because they are having a greater impact on the natural environment than is appreciated. I welcome the inclusion of grey squirrel control in the SFI. Just for information, the badger population has doubled over the past 40 years. Over the same period, the population of hedgehogs has fallen from 20 million to fewer than a million. Of course there are other factors at work, but badgers are the only predator of hedgehogs.
There is undoubtedly some urgency about the challenges we face. The year 2030 is just five years away and these are long-term trends that we need to turn around. We need landscape-scale participation, with targeted action to address specific environmental issues, including the encouragement of species at risk. There are some great examples of that beginning to happen, and we need more of them. Existing schemes may need revision in order to achieve agreed landscape-scale priorities.
Tensions are clearly apparent on some estates between landlords and tenants, with the latter feeling threatened by decisions taken without consultation, particularly with regard to short-term tenancies. The viability of farming businesses is being put at risk. I hope that the new tenancy commissioner will be given the powers to investigate perceived unreasonable behaviour by some landlords.
There is clearly a need to look at all schemes—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stated this—whether that is woodland establishment, selective tree planting or flood mitigation, and the SFI and the various options available, to make sure they are reliable to deliver the desired objectives of restoring nature, climate change mitigation and sustainable food production. It does not feel as if policies are joined up. Peat has been mentioned and the planting of trees, so I will move on.
I want to make a plea to the Government. Soil quality is crucial for sustainable food production and the sequestration of carbon, but also for supporting effective ecosystems. Soil is fundamental. The previous Government committed to a soil action plan and then reneged on that commitment. We need a national plan to enable us to optimise the effectiveness of the contribution that our soils are capable of delivering. Northern Ireland has a national soil map; so does the Republic. We need one in England. We have the opportunity, through the ELMS, to capture information on soil quality, which could be supplied by all participants. Soil’s carbon content varies from farm to farm, from field to field, and within fields. GPS, in conjunction with soil testing, can help identify what actions are needed and where to improve soil quality. We need a national map and a plan.
I will make two other points. First, the statement by the Secretary of State for Defra committing to £5 billion of funding for agriculture support over the next two years is very welcome. However, despite fairly encouraging figures of farmer participation in the SFI, there are still thousands of family farmers, many in precious and vulnerable landscapes—some will be neighbours of the Minister and some neighbours of mine, on the other side of the Pennines—who have not yet engaged in the schemes. Can the Minister confirm that funding will still be available for those who have not yet applied, or have delayed applying, due to either the scheme being too complex or the options available being inappropriate until recent revisions? Is there a possibility that Treasury pressure on Defra might have to limit participation in the SFI? It would be deeply regrettable if that were to be the case.
I will be just a short moment. I have long believed that the public benefits that farmers can deliver are much greater than has been calculated in the past. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did, when we can expect an announcement—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Can the noble Lord wind up, please?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this debate. I agree with almost every word he said, but when he starts telling the House that the Labour Government are to be congratulated on their climate change actions, I am afraid that I disagree really strongly. In a debate on an existential crisis for the human race and the planet, we have one Labour Back-Bencher—albeit an excellent one. At least we have three Tories, most of whom will talk some sense—but not completely, obviously. I just do not understand how this Government can take this so casually. It is absolutely appalling and I have been sitting here fuming since we started.
We need nature and we need biodiversity. It is not a nice thing to have but absolutely necessary for human life. Biodiversity, in particular, is nature’s safety blanket; it cushions the shocks and creates resilience. We have been shredding that security blanket for decades with an industrialised agricultural system that is overly dependent on chemical life support.
Human actions have raised global temperatures by 1.5 degrees. We have done that a decade ahead of when we thought we would. Climate science is constantly wrong because it is constantly cautious in talking about impacts and because it is constantly running to catch up with real-time impacts that scientists are measuring. For example, last year the UN issued its big climate report that brings together all the other reports. It was its sixth assessment, and it declared that things were far worse and disaster much closer than it thought in its fifth assessment. Its fifth was worse than its fourth, and that was worse than its third. We have had decades of these reports and emissions are still going up.
The science that went into the UN report last year is already out of date. First, the rate of increase in global temperatures has accelerated and broken barriers that we thought we had over a decade to reach. It might be why Trump is so interested in the sovereignty of Greenland; as the ice sheets melt, zinc and all the other minerals and precious metals will be available for grabbing. His rich friends know that the climate is changing. Their denial is simply greed; they want to carry on making money while the rest of us have to swim to our lifeboats.
Secondly, the scientists who work on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation—the Gulf Stream is part of that—are saying that it could fail because of all the freshwater running off the Greenland ice sheet, and a lot of those scientists are now saying that it could fail in the next few years, rather than in the next few decades. That research is important, as it talks about Britain losing the warm waters coming north and having the same climate as Newfoundland. Imagine icebergs floating off the coast of Cornwall and you will get the picture. That research will not appear until the UN’s seventh assessment report in 2029. We can see that the science is constantly behind in reporting.
I used to worry about what a seven metre rise in water levels would do to our coastlines and major cities when the Greenland ice sheet melts, but it turns out that, well before that happens, we will be very, very cold. That cold will probably destroy our farming industry and wildlife. This Government and the last—I blame the previous Government just as much—are unprepared for any of this because their plans are based on the out-of-date science of the last UN report, rather than on what the latest research is telling us. I hope that Government Ministers can get more up-to-date advisers. Please talk to scientists and find out the latest research.
Building up the countryside’s national resilience to the potential shocks of climate chaos should be a priority for our Government, farmers and planning system. The talk of constant growth does not fit with human survival. Capitalism places no value on nature, other than destroying it as fast as possible to create more wealth. We are destroying parts of the planet that we need for our own lives and well-being. That is utterly stupid.
I want to bring up a nationally important case for rivers. Labour committed in its manifesto to clean up rivers. There is a river in North Yorkshire—with a nice name, but I cannot find it in my notes—over which the Pickering Fishery Association, a club in North Yorkshire, won a landmark legal case against the previous Government and the Environment Agency. The anglers successfully argued that the Government and the Environment Agency had failed in their legal duties to clean up and protect the Costa Beck, a former trout stream near Pickering. Please can the Minister tell me what the change is? The previous Government put in an appeal against that ruling. This Government, through Steve Reed—who the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, congratulated—have continued with that appeal. This Government are refusing to clean up a river that the courts have said they should.
I do not understand why this Government cannot see that they should be the face of change—and they are not. We might as well have the Tory Government still in power—though I do not want that.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for including climate change and nature in this debate. They are and always have been inextricably linked. I agree with the Government in describing the crises facing them as the greatest long-term challenge the world faces. It is significant that, in the Global Risks Report published by the World Economic Forum yesterday, extreme weather and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are ranked first and second over a 10-year horizon in a table of severe global risks.
This interconnection, and the policy focus on measures to address the climate and nature crises, is likely to result in increased human-wildlife conflict. The global biodiversity framework recognises the role that human-wildlife conflict and coexistence plays in nature conservation in its target 4. In taking a lead, will this Government adopt the IUCN guidelines that provide the necessary framework to address conflicts and promote coexistence? If so, when?
While nature-based solutions—known as NbS—can help mitigate the effects of climate change, there is evidence from other countries that addressing climate change and biodiversity loss in isolation will result in other environmental implications. The Grantham Research Institute reports that, in some cases, NbS
“have been employed with a short-sighted focus on rapid CO2 removal without due attention to other environmental implications”.
To pick up my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s point, this is a clear warning to the Government that a holistic discussion addressing the issue is needed. Does the Minister agree that NbS should be pursued alongside other measures, such as emission reductions and a concurrent focus on consumer consumption as opposed to just producer emissions?
Many NbS have long timescales and may not even achieve the ambition of the restoration of an ecosystem, such as peatlands, but rather the creation of a novel ecosystem that relates to current climatic conditions. It is claptrap to say that we can save our peatlands by rewetting, when it is estimated that only 30% of the Peak District can be rewetted as part of peatland restoration. Climate change will cause land degradation. Models of future climate projections suggest that the geographical distribution of blanket bogs gradually retreats towards the north and west. Therefore, the protection of these existing carbon sinks is vital. The question for the Government is whether the focus should be on adaptation rather than mitigation in some habitats and areas.
Wildfire is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss and is becoming a growing threat. The UK’s Third National Adaptation Programme identifies wildfire as a significant risk to forests, woodlands and peatlands, with the climate change risk assessment highlighting a significant increase in summer wildfire danger. While the risk is highest in the south and east of England, the change in risk is likely to be more pronounced in the north and west. The expected milder, wetter winters will promote vegetation build-up, and hotter, drier springs and summers will increase the risk of vegetation catching fire. This increased fuel load will be an added threat to new woodland plantations.
Some UK habitats consist of fire-adapted species such as heathlands and peatlands, but the projected increase in fire frequency and the increase in fire intensity and severity means that even fire-adapted species are at risk. Whatever the targets for habitats and biodiversity are, wildfire is just one example of where proper management is essential in ensuring that NbS are good for both climate mitigation and biodiversity. Each site or area will be unique, requiring a policy that does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. We all know how difficult that is for Governments to implement.
Proper monitoring will be necessary, for how can one judge whether a policy is successful or not without it? However, we know that Natural England and the Environment Agency are struggling with resources and that the lack of monitoring has already led to environmental problems. I therefore pose the question: do the Government have the inclination and resources needed to grasp the challenges and opportunities? We are waiting to hear how their policies will be designed to meet their targets. Sadly, they appear rudderless, with the Treasury treating Defra with disdain. They need good non-departmental bodies to help implement their policies.
I conclude with two further questions. Why is there is still an interim chair of the Climate Change Committee? The term of office of the chair of Natural England ends in April. Will he be reappointed and, if not, when will his successor be announced?
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for calling this crucial debate. I note my interests in the register and the various capacities in which I wrestle with the challenges of climate change and nature restoration, as both a sustainable economy lawyer and a sustainable land manager in Devon. Given that climate change is so significant to future generations, I also note my interests as a father of two children whose own recent experiences of climate change warrant mention.
My kids have been privileged and challenged to spend their childhood in the south-west of two different countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the UK, they schooled at Kenton Primary School in Devon, which was inundated when a biblical deluge swept through the village on a Sunday in September 2023. The beautiful building in the middle of the village had hosted a village school for over 400 years. Given the devastation wrought by an unprecedented spate of five feet of water within an hour’s rainfall, it will never host a school again. A new school is promised on the edge of the village, but the excitement of schoolkids’ playtime voices will not be heard from the Triangle ever again.
Having moved to California to finish their education, they have enjoyed the delights of the Pacific Palisades Charter High School, replete with surf and beach volleyball teams, where my daughter is a senior and my son a sophomore. Until last week, that is, when the school burned down, victim, along with a whole community, of the Palisades fire, which still burns—it is only 22% contained. They are safe and evacuated, but over 50 of my daughter’s classmates are now homeless. They have lost everything: wildfire has taken back that whole hillside. The Apocalypse is here and it is now, and I speak today in tribute to that community and the remarkable bravery of firefighters, volunteers and public servants. While their experience is, thankfully, somewhat unusual, it will not be in the years ahead. Whatever we can do, we should have done it years ago.
Of course, it is not just these personal challenges that we need to bear in mind. Climate change’s impact on our natural ecosystems has devastated recent harvests. UK wheat production last year was 21% down due to those rains, and the Spanish fires around Barcelona massively disrupted supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Bad weather has added over £350 to national food bills. Tree disease is rife due to unseasonable droughts, and pollinators are stressed by parasites encouraged by warmer weather. Similarly, our national infrastructure is threatened by rising sea levels, with the main railway line past my home now under constant vigil at high tide due to the threat of breach of the Exe estuary’s Powderham banks.
Nature, of course, will survive these challenges. The fires may be life-threatening to us, but the Santa Monica mountains will recover; this is their natural cycle, after all. Rewilding is not the option; the removal of productive farming and the local communities that steward the land is not the solution. That way lies hunger and increasing food insecurity. What we need to do is to listen to nature, not to fight it; to embrace it and to farm with it, sustainably harvesting our food and regeneratively intensifying production where appropriate. Around the River Exe, we should not seek to hold back the tide, like King Canute, but we should embrace its return and look to harness nature-based solutions to the challenges of coastal erosion and flooding. I have long requested that intertidal habitat play a more important role in our land management structures; thus I applaud the inclusion of this land type in the recently announced SFI options.
As a priority, the Government need to turn around their relationship with farmers and land managers. The APR inheritance tax reforms were simply a disaster for rural trust. Steve Reed recently announced fresh reforms at the Oxford Business Conference: a farming road map. I ask that the Government take care in uprooting and changing farm policy yet again. Farmers, and the soils and biodiversity on which they rely, require consistent, long-term and dependable policies, not constant chopping and changing. I echo the call by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for us to honour the work of Professor Partha Dasgupta and his The Economics of Biodiversity. I happened to meet him yesterday at St John’s College in Cambridge.
In their tireless drive for economic growth, the Government need to recognise the cost of the natural capital that that growth will inevitably consume. If we do that accurately, and accurately measure what we consume, we may turn the tide on global warming and biodiversity loss.
To conclude on a positive note, both my children are passionate about the environment and hope to study it at university. They know that nature can provide a solution to these terrible challenges, if only we treat it with the deference and respect that it deserves.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing and introducing this debate, and I congratulate everybody who has taken part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, regretted the small number of Back-Bench speakers here today, but I have to say that that has given us a little bit more time. With a debate such as this, the trouble is that this Chamber is an echo chamber: we all know what we are talking about and what we want to see happen. We have to get that message out there—not just to the public but to No. 10. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the potential conflict between DESNZ and Defra. The people who can sort this out are in No. 10, which has to provide leadership on these issues. If there were anything we could do to give Defra more power to its elbow, I am sure we would all agree on that.
The trouble with being the last Back-Bencher to speak is that it has all been said. I was also struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, and it is true; there are some conflicts. I should register my interest as a member of various conservation organisations. I would normally be seen, and hope to be seen, as someone who is on the side of nature, but the noble Lord is absolutely right about the number of badgers. I can attest to that in my own garden, where the hedgehogs have disappeared and, suddenly, a camera trap has produced badgers. I am delighted that they are there, in suburban Middlesex, but I lament the loss of the hedgehogs.
I have been interested in birds, and been a member of the RSPB, for more than 60 years. I have seen things change. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have actually seen a species—although not in Britain—which is now recognised as extinct: the slender-billed curlew. I am sure there are a few other species I have seen during those years which will become extinct before I do. However, I am pleased to say that some breeding has gone on, so there may be some Randalls still around in generations to come.
As has been mentioned, climate change has affected mountain birds, which are going higher and higher. Snow-buntings and dotterel are running out of mountains because there is nothing left. It is not the right climate any more. This is an urgent and important issue.
My noble friend Lord Gascoigne mentioned the very good maiden speech yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who was president of the NFU for a long time. What struck me in what she said was how farmers can help. We must not have this conflict—it is not that farmers are bad for nature and conservationists do not like farmers. The most important thing is that we all work together.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the peatlands. This is another issue on which have to find a common theme. There are too many people taking a polarised view of these things.
Another issue, which has been hinted at, is wetlands, which present a fantastic opportunity. Some have been restored and new ones have been created. The Wild Fowl & Wetlands Trust has created wetlands on the Steart estuary, and it has just announced that it is trying to create them on the Awre peninsula, which juts out into the River Severn, by the Forest of Dean. These are places where we can restore wetlands, with all their benefits.
There will be a problem with the planning. As president of the Colne Valley Regional Park, on the edge of London, I am very concerned about this. Our green belt is being attacked by all sorts of things. No one seems to worry about whether the land in question is on a flood plain. This is not about housing; it is about databanks and so forth.
These are real issues. I would like the Government to think about creating wetland cities, as we had garden cities. We could re-wet some areas; the Fens would be quite a good area for that. The RSPB has the Lakenheath reserve, where it has recreated wetlands over some not particularly good agricultural soil—the original Fens. Perhaps we could create new towns there where people would actually want to live. The Minister could also talk to the MoD, which has a huge amount of land that it could do things with.
Let us not be too pessimistic, but, if we are not careful, we will have reason to be pessimistic because it will happen and happen badly. But we still have just about enough time.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in the gap, for one minute only, because there has been only a very brief mention in this debate—by the noble Lord, Lord Curry—of the potential for action on nature recovery by tenant farmers and the barriers to that. Half of all farmable land in this country is either fully or partly tenanted, so we cannot afford to ignore the contribution of tenant farmers. Is the Minister aware of the 2022 Rock review on tenant farmers led by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock? It was commissioned by the last Government following recommendations in your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee report of that year on nature-based solutions to climate change. Will the Minister look at the review and assess whether recent developments in response to the recommendations have been adequate?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and much more optimistic than it might have been. I felt, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that we could have fallen into a bit of a doom loop, but thanks to my noble friend Lord Teverson’s tour de force introduction, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, called it, which gave good examples of how things link up, we have had a very positive debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for saying that we had not talked enough about wetlands, because that is what I intend to talk about in my wind-up. I will look at a couple of examples of how habitat restoration can substantially increase biodiversity, mitigate aspects of climate change and store carbon. Salt marshes and wetlands at the confluence of freshwater and saltwater are examples of this.
There are now 470 hectares of wetlands at the mouth of the River Parrett in Somerset. They are known as the Steart Marshes, which started out as a flood management project in 1998. I must declare an interest as my husband, Humphrey Temperley, was then chair of the Wessex flood management board. He was passionate and committed to this ambitious project for many years, so I have learned an awful lot about it. Under a different regime, it continues to thrive and go from strength to strength.
It is a multifaceted and, as my noble friend called it, triple-win situation. The mudflat habitat and tidal creeks provide nursery areas for fish, including sea bass, and overwintering migrant birds thrive. There are otters, marsh harriers and any number of species that had been in substantial decline. There is grazing for Dexter and other cattle and sheep command a premium price as salt marsh lamb. There is a lot of community engagement and Manchester Metropolitan University has estimated that, since the restoration, 30,000 tonnes of carbon have been stored that would not have been otherwise. It has certainly fulfilled its original aim of flood mitigation and management.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned that it is sometimes controversial to do things of this sort. Indeed, this was, but, happily, one of the irritants in the way of further salt marsh plans in the area has been removed. The then Conservative MP for Bridgwater, Ian Liddell-Grainger, said such schemes were a waste of money. Thank goodness the community by the Severn estuary had the good sense to replace him with Rachel Gilmour MP, who has a wealth of experience in environmental issues.
There are lots of estuary and salt marsh projects. There is a huge project under way in the Humber which I have not visited yet. It is being undertaken between the Wildlife Trusts and Ørsted, the huge wind farm company. That is an example of a big one and there is a small one that I hope to visit tomorrow on the Dart estuary between Totnes and Dartmouth.
My noble friend did not limit his debate to what was happening in the UK; he also mentioned mangrove forests. That is another win-win-win situation. When I visited Sri Lanka in 2011 with War on Want, I was taken to see a community project then in its infancy. Noble Lords will remember that in 2004 Sri Lanka suffered terrible effects of the tsunami. Also, shrimp farms and salt pans had degraded the coastal strip very adversely, affecting fishing and making the coast vulnerable to erosion as well as tsunamis. The tsunami provided the impetus to think about mangrove forests and the immediate protection they offered, and the community was replanting them. In 2015 Sri Lanka became the first nation to legally protect all its mangrove forests and a decade later, in 2024, Sri Lankan mangrove regeneration programmes were recognised by the UN as one of its first World Restoration Flagships. Both wetlands here and mangrove forests there give us firm examples of a win-win-win. Blue carbon sequestration in mangrove forests is one of the most efficient methods of sequestration in the world.
I have to leave the cheerful examples now and move to some of the questions I have for the Minister. I certainly do not accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, that this Government are worse than the last. She must have forgotten all the things that happened as a result of Brexit, such as no more regulation around water and air. The loss of the EU water framework directive alone should give her pause for thought. This Government are busy bringing in regulations that will make sure that some of these issues are addressed in the short and long term. There was also a starvation of funds to Natural England and the Environment Agency, which meant that they were not able to deal with the things she mentioned, such as the North Yorkshire issue. I feel that this Government are making a very good start.
However, I have to ask the Minister about neonicotinoids. They are a proven mortal threat to our pollinators. I mention it particularly tonight because the government decision is imminent on whether or not to allow a fifth year of derogation from the ban. I believe it would be an utter disgrace if this Government cave in and allow a fifth year of derogation. I agree there might be a bit of loss to the sugar beet growers but it is nothing compared with the loss of our pollinators. Each year for the previous four years the Conservative Government allowed the derogation even though the negative effects to our pollinators was known and proven. That derogation was subject to farmers implementing a strict rotation system but after four years it is unlikely that even they can comply with the conditions, because, as the Minister must know, you are not allowed to use the same fields that you have used neonics in for 46 months, so unless they are very large holdings, that rotational requirement is probably being ignored or not enforced. A further condition is that they monitor the levels of neonics in the environment and submit the results to the Government. Is the Minister satisfied that that data has come in and is it feeding in to the decision?
As I mentioned, I absolutely do not doubt that exiting the EU has had an extremely detrimental economic impact, but I believe that it has had an even more detrimental effect on our biodiversity.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, called for a soil action plan. I absolutely echo his call.
Finally, will we in some form follow the EU chemical strategy for sustainability, particularly to address the issue of forever chemicals? They are really dangerous: they turn up in drinking water, and they threaten not only this generation but generations to come. We really need a chemical strategy with teeth to make sure that any manufacturing does not threaten this country’s drinking water in any way whatever. The Government should look at having that sort of regulation.
Having said that, I am delighted to have been able to take part in this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a developer of new, woodland carbon code qualified forests through LR Strategies; as an investor in Cecil, a data platform for nature reporting, and in Circular FX, a trading platform for natural capital; and as a farmer and landowner.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing this important debate. I always listen with great interest to contributions from the noble Lord, who has unique insights into these issues. Other noble Lords spoke with great authority on many different areas, and they have left me with little more to say on illustrating the extent of the problem.
How we in the UK interact with our landscape and ecosystems will have marginal impacts on global warming or global ecosystems, but it is still critical. As a wealthy and small nation, we are well placed through our actions to create, demonstrate and export best practice. Our actions will also have a massive impact on how we experience global warming and climate change in our country; we must continue to act.
It is also important that we remember the line of the great ice hockey player, Wayne Gretzky:
“Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been”.
Softwood trees we plant now will mature in 30-plus years in a climate not experienced in this country for 100,000 years. Our mighty oaks planted now will take 75-plus years to mature, and that could be in a climate that this country has not experienced for as much as a million years. Therefore, it is critical that we focus on planning ahead and stewardship rather than preservation, in order to protect and allow adaptation in a thriving, healthy, resilient ecosystem.
There is much anecdotal good news, as many noble Lords have highlighted. I add that Knepp and Nattergal have achieved remarkable things with rewilding, and evolving over time the balance between rewilding and food production. Foresight and Gresham are highly successful in reforesting tens of thousands of acres, with the help of the woodland carbon code. I was also lucky enough to spend a day with BaumInvest at its Finca La Virgen reforestation project in Costa Rica, where sloths, monkeys, frogs, deer and ocelots had all recolonised this 750-acre reforestation project since it was planted only 12 years ago. That project is enabled by the sale of carbon sequestration units under the gold standard.
However, all these achievements are measured in the hundreds, thousands or low tens of thousands of acres. There are 60 million acres in the UK, and we are a tiny country. Thunder Said Energy estimates that 6 billion acres globally have been deforested since 1850, releasing a quarter of all anthropogenic emissions and destroying ecosystems that had been in place since the last ice age and before. It estimates that 3 billion acres could be reforested, allowing decimated ecosystems to recover on a global scale and massive recapture of carbon dioxide. This is less than 20% of available land, and with careful planning can protect global food production.
Although the UK may be a small country, it is climactically advantaged for growing trees and has considerable areas that either are not farmed or could potentially be better used economically and environmentally for growing trees. We also have a strong market for timber, given that we currently produce only 20% of our timber needs. However, the cash flow profile of timber production, with it taking around 40 years until the first meaningful revenue is generated, has made it difficult to persuade land managers to change land use to forestry. Does the Minister propose to revise—I hope upward—our previous Government’s commitments to new forest creation? What more will and can this Government do to help achieve those targets?
In government, we established the Woodland Carbon Code, which creates additional incentives for reforestation via the award of carbon sequestration units, which can then be sold to help bridge the cash flows between planting and first harvest. It is unfortunate that recent rule changes appear to have made qualification unnecessarily difficult. Can the Minister say what progress is being made with the E&Y consultation on additionality qualifications, and what progress is being made with the code certification under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s core carbon principles? When do the Government intend to announce the results of the consultation on admitting WCC units into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme? Could the Minister update the House on what other initiatives are being pursued to bring private finance into nature restoration and other nature-based solutions?
Within the context of the horrendous changes to APR and BPR for inheritance tax, forestry investment will also be damaged, as forestry previously qualified for 100% business property relief. Given that forests can take from 30 to over 100 years to mature, these are multigenerational assets that lose their appeal if they are subject to inheritance tax, requiring disposals to fund that liability. This will tilt the equation back towards annual crop and animal farming. I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous change in the tax code while there is still time and before permanent damage is done to families and family businesses.
The forestry sector has been disappointed with the Defra biodiversity net gain calculations, which appear unable to capture the full life cycle biodiversity gains from forestry, which are evident to anyone spending time in forests. While new forests may often be predominantly of productive species, all new forestry schemes are required under UK forestry standards to have strong diversity of species planted, which creates vibrant new ecosystems. What progress is being made to improve the BNG calculations so that they work for forestry?
The role of land use change in nature conservation, preservation and enhancement goes far beyond just forestry, as many noble Lords have noted. While this particular land use change may give the most bang for the buck in protecting and enhancing nature, we need other, more incremental land use changes that preserve and enhance our food security, while being kinder to our soils and our native flora and fauna. These include regenerative farming, the rewetting of peatland and highly selective rewilding, in addition to the reforestation I have discussed—lots of “re-” words.
Land use needs to change, but the right choices can preserve our ability to feed ourselves without it being at the cost of carbon emissions, and with massive benefit to ecosystems. With the excellent Environment Act, bequeathed to us by my right honourable friend Michael Gove, the last Government initiated local nature recovery strategies, biodiversity net gain, a general duty to preserve and enhance nature, species conservation strategies, protected site strategies, conservation covenants and the power to ban the import of commodities from forests at risk. That Act is the greatest boost to nature recovery since the original Wildlife and Countryside Act and the creation of the national parks.
I very much amplify the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the terrible impact of predation on our most prized species, as well as his call for a soil action plan. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her gentle chiding of this Government’s commitment to nature restoration, and to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his warnings to this Government on their need to restore trust with farmers and landowners after a disastrous Budget. I urge the Government to pay heed to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s warnings of increased wildfire risk as a result of global warming.
We have the opportunity in this small but productive country to take leadership on land use changes and demonstrate to the world how to develop nature-based financial solutions which can allow us to be a world leader in standards, markets, and advisory and financing solutions. To quote Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa in The Leopard:
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing what has been an interesting and passionate debate. Noble Lords have made a lot of good suggestions, so I am pleased to be responding for the Government on this important issue.
Resilient, naturally functioning ecosystems provide essential services that underpin our lives. Alongside the intrinsic value of nature, these services, such as pollination and flood management, are fundamental to our economy and future prosperity and crucial for our health and well-being. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, clearly demonstrated, the impact of climate change on the natural environment is becoming increasingly evident. The scale and extent of this impact is, unfortunately, projected to increase.
In addition to the direct environmental challenges it poses, climate change also exacerbates existing pressures on biodiversity and their impact. Environmental degradation increases the likelihood and impact of climate shocks that could create significant and material risks for the UK economy. A report by the Green Finance Institute found that ongoing environmental degradation could slow UK economic growth by up to 3% of GDP in the coming decade. When compounded with climate-related damages, this could result in a scenario where GDP is more than 8% lower, so this is an economic issue as well as a nature issue.
The UK was one of the first nations in the world to enshrine climate adaptation into law, in the Climate Change Act 2008. We published the third national adaptation programme in July 2023, outlining actions to address the risks and opportunities from climate change that were identified in the third UK climate change risk assessment. The national adaptation programme includes many actions that will be taken to support the resilience of the natural environment, such as delivering our legally binding targets for biodiversity in England that were set through the Environment Act and are central to our environmental improvement plan, which we are updating, as I am sure noble Lords are aware. These include to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. Delivering our biodiversity targets will help create more ecologically functional, better-connected habitats and larger species populations, which will confer resilience to the predicted impacts of a changing climate.
We also have international nature recovery commitments, as we have heard, such as to effectively conserve and manage 30% of our lands and seas by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment about which we have heard so much. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, specifically asked about government plans to achieve this. We intend to deliver these targets through a variety of mechanisms, such as biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and environmental land management schemes. Our review of the environmental implementation plan will play a key role in that.
As we have heard today, climate and nature are intrinsically linked. Functioning ecosystems are required to tackle climate change, and climate change is a key pressure on nature. Natural habitats provide key carbon sequestration and storage, which is needed to combat global warming. Around 580 million tonnes of carbon are stored in England’s priority habitats; deciduous woodland, blanket bog and upland heath-land store about 76% of the national total.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about nature-based solutions. When designed well, such solutions can contribute to tackling climate change. Planting trees and restoring peat, as well as tackling climate change and restoring biodiversity loss, can support other priority issues—for example, flood management, which the noble Earl mentioned. I reassure noble Lords that this Government absolutely support and promote nature-based solutions.
We are also improving the evidence base through the Nature Returns programme. Six projects are creating or restoring habitats to test which are most effective in promoting carbon uptake or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also supporting organisations to develop investment-ready nature projects that use private sector investment, which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about, to benefit the environment and tackle climate change through the natural environment investment readiness fund. Through £15 million in grants, so far we have backed 86 pioneering projects to develop new business models that generate revenue from nature recovery, through carbon storage, cleaner water or enhanced biodiversity. We have confirmed the third round of grants, supporting an additional 50 projects to help farmers generate revenues from ecosystem services alongside food production.
The pathway to net zero includes actions to protect existing ecosystems, restore degraded landscapes and sustainably manage and create new ecosystems. We are actively pursuing the role of nature-based solutions to enhance habitats such as seagrass and salt marsh to deliver blue carbon and biodiversity benefits. This is not just about restoring land; it is also about restoring the sea.
A number of noble Lords, most recently the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about trees and tree planting. Of course, other key habitats are trees and native woodlands, which are an essential part of our nation’s biodiversity and are at the forefront of our plans to reduce emissions. As the noble Lord said, reforesting has an important role in achieving this. We are working towards our target to reach 16.5% tree canopy and woodland cover in England by 2050. Achieving this target would remove more than 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050 and more than 100 million tonnes by the end of the century.
As the climate changes, however, extreme weather events will become more likely. The right trees in the right places can help protect us from these extreme events: for example, they can slow the flow of flood water to protect people, homes and the natural environment during intense rainfall. However, trees can provide these benefits only if they are themselves resilient to a changing climate. Threats posed by a warming climate include direct threats such as drought and wildfire—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked in particular about the challenges of wildfire—and the increased risk of new pests and diseases.
Good woodland management is key to tackling these threats, but only 57% of all woodlands in England are currently in sustainable management. To address this, in December last year we published details of the improved offer for woodland management as part of the Countryside Stewardship higher tier environmental land management scheme. This includes increased payment rates and a new payment option for woodland resilience. We are also providing guidance for woodland managers and grant scheme requirements to ensure compliance with the climate change guidelines of the UK forestry standard.
Noble Lords asked about peat. We have ambitions to restore hundreds of thousands of hectares of peat across the country and are working to make sure that we have the most effective mechanisms in place to go further than we have before. Peatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store, so our peatland restoration will directly support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean-energy superpower and accelerate towards net zero. Peatlands are also a haven for rare wildlife and are natural providers of water regulation, helping to reduce the impacts of climate change.
Private finance will be critical to meet our restoration objectives and peatland projects must be able to use new revenue streams, including carbon finance. The Government are implementing policies that will mobilise private investment, including working with the International Union for Conservation of Nature to attract investment via carbon credits through the Peatland Code. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions on that. On the noble Baroness’s specific question on extraction, we are looking at the best measures to end the use of peat, including working with the horticultural industry to look at how best we can get there.
To achieve the best outcomes, it will be important to spatially target actions to restore nature in a climate-resilient manner. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that local nature recovery strategies are being developed right across England to target and deliver land management changes where they will have the most impact for nature and the wider environment. These strategies will consider climate change projections to help local areas prioritise and spatially target nature-based solutions that take account of our shifting climate.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. We have clearly committed to publish the land use framework. I previously said that we would publish it “soon”; I am pleased to be able to say that we will publish it “very soon”. I cannot give an exact date, but it will be very soon. Over the next 25 years, England’s landscapes will need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy and the statutory targets that we need to meet on nature recovery.
I also point out that the NPPF—the National Planning Policy Framework—has recently been published and has a lot that relates to the environment and nature and how we should involve planning, with a look at the impact and mitigation on environment. There are three sustainable development objectives in the plan—economic, social and environmental—and I will read noble Lords the environmental objective:
“to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”.
If noble Lords have not read it, it is very good.
I turn to international co-operation, which is very important, because we cannot address the huge crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss without co-ordinated global action. A good example of the impact of climate change globally was given by the noble Lord about what is happening in California at the moment with the appalling wildfires. At the UN Convention for Biological Diversity COP 16 last year, the UK took the lead on unlocking the climate and nature finance and resources that developing countries need to support emissions reductions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The UK co-chaired the negotiations, which led to the creation of the Cali fund on digital sequence information, which is the first fund of its kind to focus on channelling finance from the private sector towards nature conservation and restoration. At COP 29 recently, we continued to build on these successes by maintaining momentum on the interlinkages between climate and nature, focusing on sustainable agriculture, nature finance and the ocean.
I turn to some of the other questions that have come up. First, I reassure noble Lords that Defra and DESNZ work incredibly closely together: we have some staff who work between both departments, because we recognise the importance of working together to achieve these targets.
My noble friend Lady Young talked about public bodies. With the concerns that she raised, I remind noble Lords that the Corry review is currently looking at the effectiveness of existing bodies and whether things can be done to improve them.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned wildfire. I think it is important to say that we are working with and encouraging landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans, because that can make a real difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about the high seas. The UK played a significant and proactive role in over 10 years of negotiations leading up to the adoption of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. I am sure he is aware that ratification of the agreement is in line with the Government’s determination to reinvigorate the UK’s wider international leadership on climate and nature, and we are currently working at pace on the measures needed to implement the detailed and complex provisions of the agreement before we then ratify.
The noble Earl also asked about the chair of the Climate Change Committee. My understanding is that that is a matter for DESNZ, so I would have to pick this up with that department, or the noble Earl could.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked about bottom trawling. Over 60% of marine protected areas have restrictions on damaging bottom towed fishing. The department is now considering the next steps for fisheries management in the MPAs in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations and how we can support the fishing sector at the same time. We are extremely keen to manage it and sort it out.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, specifically talked about the green belt. There is a great big section in the NPPF on it if he is very interested in it. Again, we are taking our responsibilities towards it very seriously within that planning document.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about neonics—neonicotinoids. I can confirm that we are committed to ending the use of those neonicotinoid pesticides that are known to carry substantial risks to pollinator populations, including through the use of emergency authorisations. In our recent policy statement, released on 21 December, just before Christmas, we set out our plans to deliver on that commitment.
A number of noble Lords asked about farming. First of all, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I have read the Rock review. I regularly discuss tenancy matters with the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Also, the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, is very keen to work closely with the tenant farming sector and is doing so.
On other issues around farming, we have committed to support the farming sector through a farming budget of £5 billion over two years in order to invest in the sector to support farmers to make their businesses and food production more sustainable and resilient. That is why the previous Government brought in the environmental land management schemes, and why we are continuing to support them and take them forward. They will remain at the centre of our offer for farmers with the sustainable farming initiative, Countryside Stewardship higher tier and landscape recovery all continuing, because we want to give farmers and land managers the support they need to help restore nature while supporting productivity and building in resilience to climate change. That includes restoration of soil.
The final question I come to was from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is nothing I enjoy more than a gentle chide from the noble Baroness. She asked about the EA appeal regarding the river in Pickering. I have asked about that because I felt the piece in the media was quite concerning. I now understand, and it is important we get this clear, that the appeal is seeking clarification on the interpretation of the water framework directive provided by the High Court judgment. The issue is whether the river basin management plans can be strategic plans to improve surface water and groundwater for a river basin district. That has been the approach in the UK and across the EU since the river basin management plans were first published back in 2009.
Following last year’s judgment, the Environment Agency has undertaken a further review of water quality at Costa Beck and publicly consulted on measures to improve that water body, which is one of nearly 1,000 covered by the Humber area, so there is good work going on to improve that river’s status. Finally, it is important to point out that we are committed to improving our water quality both through the Bill that has recently been through this House and through the commission that is taking place.
In conclusion, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are serious about tackling the challenges of climate change and the loss of biodiversity. To those who say that the Government are not taking it seriously, I point out that we have a Minister for Nature, who was appointed because we want someone to be focused on nature and nature’s recovery. That Minister is Mary Creagh MP. She is extremely competent and working very hard on delivering on the commitments and targets we need to achieve in quite a challenging space.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Government are taking action in many areas to deliver the restoration of our valuable ecosystems while recognising the increasing threat of climate change. I look forward to working with noble Lords to deliver on our targets.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all Members of this House—all noble Lords and the Minister—for their contributions so late in the day. Very briefly indeed, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the challenge on the Government’s carbon policy. I would still say that the 2030 decarbonisation target—to make that possible, we need to be really focused—is excellent. They have a much bigger challenge on the 30 by 30. I thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for bringing a personal and human aspect to this debate. Lastly, I really like the idea of wetland cities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. The bad news is that, if we do nothing, we will have lots of wetland cities into the future. But I am optimistic. We can get this right. We can do it, both nationally and globally, with both these crises together.