Great British Railways
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for open access operators following the creation of Great British Railways.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the Minister, the speaking time limit for the following debate is four minutes. When the screen flashes, your time is up.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, for a debate on open access, many noble Lords have applied for the vacant slots. I am delighted that the Minister is in his place to pronounce on the quality of the bids.
Open access did not exist under British Rail, but privatisation, in which I played a modest role, allowed open access train operators to run passenger services. They identify available capacity and apply to the ORR, which then consults on the proposals and analyses their feasibility and benefits. New services have to pass a rigorous abstraction test to ensure that they will add passengers to the railways and grow total revenue, rather than removing passengers and fares from existing services. Open access operators then pay access charges to reflect the additional cost that their use of the railways incurs. They get no direct subsidy and carry the commercial risk of running the railway.
Applications are considered in accordance with statutory duties, including protecting the interests of users of railway services; promoting the use of the network for passengers and freight; and promoting competition and improvements in railway service performance. The final decision rests with the ORR, and neither the DfT nor Network Rail, nor the franchised operators, has a veto.
In 2000, the first open access operator entered the market: Hull Trains. Since then, there have been real benefits from open access—especially to underserved areas that provide the only direct link to London—for cities such as Sunderland, Hartlepool, Halifax, Rochdale and Pontefract, helping regeneration in those areas. With a cancellation rate of less than 1%, open access rail operators are the most reliable. They have focused on affordable fares, with Lumo’s average £40 fare between London and Newcastle as opposed to the £195 walk-up fare. These lower fares from open access operators have in turn attracted a broader demographic to rail travel.
Importantly, we now have a mature, evidence-based, 25 year-old case study on the east coast main line, where three open access operators compete with the Government-run intercity operator, LNER. Passengers travelling to the north and Scotland from King’s Cross enjoy robust fare competition and a choice of operators. Importantly—the Treasury should take note of this—LNER’s subsidy continues to fall, despite it facing robust on-track competition.
There have been wider benefits, promoting the Government’s growth agenda. FirstGroup has invested £0.5 billion in new rolling stock, securing jobs in the north-east, with a further £0.5 billion awaiting a decision. Open access operators account for around 19% of all new train orders placed in the UK in the past five years, although they provide only 0.9% of passenger services.
Last year’s Office of Rail and Road report said:
“An economic appraisal of the impact of open access operators in 2022 concluded that open access operators had been beneficial to the UK economy, and that this was particularly apparent for flows not already directly served by a franchised operator. Our 2023 report noted the particularly strong post-pandemic recovery for open access operators”.
All of the leading European countries with state-run operators, including Germany, France and Spain, have increasingly used open access as a vital tool in complementing their national service operators.
I turn now to the Government’s proposals, which dramatically change the terms of trade and put at risk the benefits that I have outlined. There should have been no cause for alarm because, in September, the previous Secretary of State said that,
“where there is a case that open access operators can add value and capacity to the network”,
as assessed by the Office of Rail and Road,
“they will be able to”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/24; col. 18WS.]
However, that is not what is proposed.
The consultation document of 18 February says:
“GBR will become the decision maker for key decisions on access terms that are currently led by the ORR: the duration and form of access rights, developing and setting the access charges framework and the design of performance incentive regimes contained in track access regimes”.
Then, we have the historic understatement:
“For GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions on the best use of its network, the ORR’s current role must change”.
GBR will, in due course, absorb Network Rail and all the franchised train operators. It will have a massive conflict of interest in deciding whether an open access operator should provide a new service. We know this because, in the last 10 years, Network Rail opposed all 10 applications to the ORR for open access, which then approved five of them, with the DfT either opposing or not responding. The letter which the Minister circulated yesterday—to everyone except me—opposed nearly all the applications. These are the organisations which will decide in the future.
The ORR—the final arbiter, at the moment—will have its powers curtailed. Instead of being the referee, the ORR can overturn a decision only if GBR has not followed its own processes or has acted irrationally. But those processes could include a large increase in track access charges, making a proposition unviable. It could change the abstraction rule, again making current services uneconomic. The ORR would be powerless to intervene. Its role has been crucial to the success of open access, and it will be marginalised. This would be self-harm for the railway, the regions and passengers.
Behind all this is the Treasury—the controlling mind of the new regime, if ever there was one. It is the Treasury which insisted on the letter to the ORR in January, with its primary objective of minimising subsidy, setting aside the wider obligations of the ORR to promote competition and better use of the network. The consultation document does not refer to competition law or the CMA, which will remain in place. In the absence of a strong independent regulator, there is a risk that we could see more competition law challenges, which will be inherently unpredictable for operators and GBR.
Investors need certainty and confidence about the terms with which they engage with GBR. If we want to encourage investors in schemes such as Heathrow southern rail, which will be needed if there is a new runway, there will need to be a strong and independent regulatory regime to protect investors’ rights. These new reforms remove existing certainty and could shrink freight, the private rail sector and wider economic growth.
There is a devolution angle to all this. If the mayoral strategic authorities are to be empowered to take control over more railway operations, as Andy Burnham would like, they will need confidence about the terms on which they can access rail infrastructure that they do not own, and a strong independent regulator will be needed, overseeing the prices proposed by GBR that devolved authorities will be charged, and their ability to run trains extending across their own and GBR’s networks.
I noticed with alarm the press release of the RMT—which the Government were so eager to placate last July—headed, Why Open Access Rail is Incompatible with the Government’s Rail Policy. That is, by the way, the very same union that, in 2020, demanded
“urgent Government intervention to support the open-access sector and to protect all jobs at Grand Central and Hull Trains”.
The Minister needs to make it clear he does not share the view of the RMT.
To sum up, do the Government accept the need for a genuinely independent regulator if we are to continue to reap the benefits from open access? Can he confirm that he is genuinely open to persuasion on the proposals in the consultation paper?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling this debate. Much of his involvement took place in the mid-1990s. At that time, he was my ultimate boss, and I became the ultimate student of this operation, in which, on the basis of the somewhat bizarre writing of an excellent letter, we could have been involved as well.
My simple answer to the Question is that open access should be phased out as quickly as reasonably practical. It is a bit of a shock to be informed that I am agreeing with the RMT on that matter. Rail privatisation was a product of the political doctrine of the day: that private ownership and competition would solve all our problems. My personal view is that privatisation as a generality has failed. Rail privatisation has failed, at best, bizarrely, and, at worst, disastrously. The bizarre part of it comes from the track being given to Railtrack, which is a sort of private sector company which went broke and then turned into Network Rail, which is a pretend independent company that was nationalised not by the Government of the day but by the ONS, which said that so much of it was tied-up with the Government that it was really a nationalised company. It dumped £34 billion on the national debt, which virtually nobody seemed to notice.
There was little pure competition in the railway throughout this process; open access was the closest, and was therefore pursued. There was some slack in the system and some open access operations emerged. It is my view that they undoubtedly cost the taxpayer money and that there was not much benefit. In future, they will inhibit total system optimisation.
Any operator of open access will need long-term stability of their rights, whereas the great thing about Great British Railways is that it will eliminate all the conflict in optimising the railway. There will be a single guiding mind. The only disputes in future are likely to involve open access operators, since they will be the sole source of external commercial pressure. This will absorb a disproportionate amount of management effort. The only case for open access is doctrine, and it is a doctrine I do not share.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions as my contribution. First, will he confirm that the regulator has objectives, but, in fact, all holders of the post have concentrated on the one about promoting competition to the exclusion of other duties?
The regulator costs the taxpayer £30 million a year and has 350 staff—in fact, it gives rise to much greater costs, as illustrated in the Williams review of the costs of running a railway. Because its decisions have the force of law, they compromise constructing a properly integrated railway timetable with an emphasis on connections, reliability and economic use of railway infrastructure. Is it true that the regulator allocates open access paths regardless of their impact on other trains on the network? Can the Minister confirm that this has delayed improvements to the timetable on the east coast main line for three years, costing the taxpayer a very large sum of money—hundreds of millions of pounds?
Are the regulator’s assumptions about revenue forgone and the generation of additional revenue sound? Have these been tested independently and properly verified? I believe that this is not the case and that, in fact, they are underpaying for access and exaggerating the revenue that they are generating for the system. I am not seeking to deny that there should be access from destinations not previously served by franchise operators, or to strike anybody off the railway map. I am particularly concerned that freight should have proper, guaranteed access to the network.
Railway regulation has not been a good thing for the railways. Indeed, regulation generally, as carried out by previous Conservative Governments, has been shown to be defective in almost all cases and for all utilities. We have to look only at the feeble responses of Ofcom and the power utilities to underline that case.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I feel a bit nervous speaking in this debate, alongside a former Secretary of State who was a major contributor to the railway we have; the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who ran London Regional Transport; and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is extremely wise and was one of the great modernising managers of the old British Rail. What am I going to say?
I am going to say that I do not want to see a return to a monopoly British Rail, but believe it is essential that the railways have a guiding mind and that decisions on access have to be taken in a single place if railway capacity is to be used most efficiently. At the same time, I think there should be a mechanism, as was in the Labour manifesto, whereby companies can make open access proposals that will be treated on a fair basis by the guiding mind.
It seems to me that the present system does not really work that well as an alternative to the monopoly. Open access operators pay marginal costs, not full costs, for use of the network. There is a risk that, if they are not adding to total passenger use on the route, public subsidy increases if the franchise operators are losing business as a result. That is a real problem. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Young, dismisses it. It is a real issue: it is not just the Treasury; it is a public issue as well. I would like to see something like what is proposed in the White Paper, possibly with strengthened rights of appeal. But there is a role for open access.
The key point about the guiding mind is that investment decisions have to be taken on the basis of what maximises use of the railway. There are many cases where open access proposals would make sense only if there is additional investment to provide additional capacity. I would like to see that. I agree that many provincial cities have benefited from a direct link to London, and that should not be taken away. I want to see an end to the Eurostar monopoly with more competition on services to the continent. I strongly support freight opportunities. There was a very good piece in the Financial Times yesterday about how parcel services are going to be operated from passenger stations. All that is to the good. We need a guiding mind, which we are getting through setting up Great British Railways, but we need the possibility of fair open access as well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity, which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has afforded us, to further consider the role of open access operators. Many of us were participants in the debates on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, where we had at least two opportunities to talk about this—from my point of view, always in the context of the role that open access operators have played and can continue to play in enabling the passenger railway system to have competition as an element in its activity. As I said during the course of that Bill’s passage, privatisation has not always worked. In particular, it has not worked where there has been an inability to secure competition. The key to privatisation is the link to competition. Where competition can be achieved, it is the most effective potential outcome.
In this particular instance, while the Government are, effectively, taking back into complete public ownership those areas that they regard as not susceptible to competition, it would be a serious mistake to remove opportunities for competition, because they drive innovation and better passenger outcomes. Indeed, in their briefing for the King’s Speech, the Government more or less said exactly that. The question is: are the Government now committed to that?
Only a few weeks after we completed the passage of that Bill, we found that the Secretary of State was sending a letter to the Office of Rail and Road—the Minister kindly sent it to us, to remind us—in effect saying that she had priorities. When I read the letter, I find that her priorities are not the same as what the Government said in their manifesto and King’s Speech briefing. They are particularly focused, and are intended to focus the Office of Rail and Road on what she regards as the difficulties associated with it not covering the cost of fixed-track access, which my noble friend talked about. She said that her expectation was that
“you give due consideration”—
to these priorities—
“whilst respecting your statutory duties. I wish to see the impacts on the taxpayer and on overall performance for passengers—such as potential congestion on the network—given primacy”.
This is clearly in order to say, “Don’t consider all your statutory duties. Don’t consider the statutory duty on competition”.
During the passage of the Bill, the Minister very kindly responded, saying that it was not the Government’s intention to remove the statutory duty for the promotion of competition. There is a real risk that the Secretary of State has put herself in a position where she has asked the Office of Rail and Road not to undertake its statutory function in balancing its statutory duties in considering open access applications.
Happily, the Office of Rail and Road issued its guidance at the end of January and made it very clear that it will continue to balance its statutory duties, and rightly so. I cannot see that it has any option to do otherwise. In my view, the Secretary of State’s letter was wholly inappropriate and should not have been issued. If the Government want to change the decisions being made in the interim by the ORR, they should have issued new guidance. They had the power to do so, but they chose not to.
When we see the Great British Railways Bill and changes to the Railways Act, I hope we will continue to see competition, and the benefit that open access operators can give to the network in promoting competition.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for securing this debate. I have to agree with him, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and some of my colleagues that we are in grave danger of losing sight of what we are trying to achieve: a better deal for the passengers and freight customers.
There was a very good article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, quoting people from freight—I shall mention that in a minute. It goes on to say that Great British Railways will do a good job in co-ordinating but more than one body is involved. There is the infrastructure manager, which will still be owned by the Government. There are the government-owned railway undertakings and open access railway undertakings, and there is freight. That is not a monopoly; it is four different groups of people who need some independent body, which at the moment is the Office of Rail Regulation, to determine who gets priority on the track.
It is very easy to say that there is no capacity on the track. I did not have much chance this morning to read the 30 pages that the Minister sent us yesterday, but access is very difficult in some places, as noble Lords have said. To cite the Daily Telegraph, Tim Shoveller, the chief executive of Freightliner, said that,
“giving a state-run passenger railway the responsibility to allocate routes would undermine its ability to compete with HGVs”.
He says that Great British Railways will
“inevitably favour route applications for its own passenger services”.
That is just a normal way of doing business—and this is why it is so important to have an independent regulator with statutory duties to be able to make decisions on behalf of the whole sector.
My noble friend the Minister’s latest suggestion was that the regulator would be able to recommend to Great British Railways. Recommending to government, as we all know from experience, sometimes works but not always. It is about sustaining investment in the private sector, which is still there in the rolling stock companies and in freight—all freight is in the private sector—and still there in the open access. The last thing about that is that government in this format does not have sole discretion as to which stations should be served and which trains should run where. This is a matter on which many people have different views, and I am sure that many noble Lords will keep on talking about it today.
The Minister needs to think again and retain the role of the Office of Rail Regulation as a statutory consultee in something that to most of us is a competition issue. It needs to be fair and seen to be fair—and I hope that my colleagues in the Department for Transport will look at this and not insist that they can trample over the Office of Rail Regulation and get what they want, because they would rather have an extra train to Edinburgh when, in fact, you could have cancelled one of LNER’s trains and allowed Lumo to go in. Who is to say which is better? It is for the regulator to decide. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that he is not alone in feeling a little nervous in speaking today. Like everyone else, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on securing this debate. It is an honour to briefly take part in what feels a bit like a relaunch of the band that we had for the passenger railway services Bill.
Like others, I express my gratitude to the Minister for circulating the notes yesterday. Today I would like to talk about the future confidence in open access. As recently as last month, the Minister in the other place said that open access operators “can also abstract revenue”. It is not the first time that such words have been mentioned. There are also examples of new bids being opposed by DfT. When you combine that with the noise and broader sentiment of the wider public ownership reforms, a narrative—at least to me—begins to build that one day, despite all the assurances, the beady eye of government will fall on them as the last bulwarks of capitalism, which have escaped public ownership up to now.
As has been touched on, investment from a private sector entity requires certainty if it wishes to invest and even expand. That made me think of one related example that is in the news: Heathrow. I am obviously not involved in the discussions on expansion, but surely a key part of the success of the current, and potentially larger, airport will require long-term assurances of open access, not only as part of the feasibility of the proposed expansion but for the success of what would become a larger airport, and having the connectivity it needs. The same issue of certainty applies to all providers, to secure investment and, ultimately, a better service.
What assurances can the Minister give to existing services that open access is here to stay? Current open access providers may well be safe for now, but what happens when their agreements come up for renewal? The Government state that economic growth is their priority, so when there is a discussion on the so-called abstraction of a provider, do they take into consideration the wider financial benefits that these services provide to areas as well as the negative impact that the withdrawal of the service would have on the cost to taxpayers in providing an alternative?
I am also grateful, as ever, to the Minister for recently forwarding a copy of the current rail consultation document. I do not wish to rehash the debates that we had on the rail Bill, and I am sure the Minister is unbelievably delighted that when the GBR Bill comes forward we will have plenty of the opportunities to talk about wider reform. Can the Minister give any indication of when that Bill will be introduced and when the Government see it taking effect?
Is not the point of the whole reform agenda to fix problems with our rail system? Today the Government announced that they are cutting NHS England, which has around 13,000 staff, and they are doing so for efficiency reasons. Later this year—soon, we hope—we will see GBR, but when you combine Network Rail and the TOC staff, you are potentially seeing over 80,000 staff. What assurances can the Minister give that, when we see this reform, there will be speedy change and costs will be kept down, when we have such a vast quango?
Finally, as has been touched on, the consultation refers to the importance of freight and says that there would be a growth target, which the previous Government also talked about. Does that mean that that target would be included in the Bill when we see it?
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, this is a debate when we can again lament the passing of the great Lord Prescott. I came down this morning on a Prescott express. One of the greatest, most transformative achievements of the last Labour Government was Hull Trains and the way it transformed the economy in the area that I represented. I do not think that, I know it—I live there.
Since the 1850s, there has been no train from Worksop to London, other than the royal train occasionally stopping there—none, for any passenger. There is a proposal for it to be brought in by Hull Trains. A letter of 4 February says, in reference to the “Hull Trains 27th Supplemental Agreement”:
“DfT analysis suggests that the proposed Hull Trains London-Sheffield services”—
the one that would connect Worksop directly to London for the first time in nearly 200 years—
“does not meet the threshold … We estimate abstraction of approximately £1.77m per annum … with EMR most negatively impacted”.
I am mathematical economist and I should like the Minister to give me the entire economic analysis and the presumptions it is based on. That says that people from Worksop go via Sheffield to London. I know the train drivers; my office was next to the train station in Worksop. I had to decide how to get to London by train. The ASLEF national negotiators—quite a number of them because of freight—were based in Worksop and had to make weekly, often daily, decisions about how to get to London by train. Huge numbers of staff from the railway industry live in Worksop and they were in the same situation. None ever went via Sheffield. It is simply not true. I stood at the station as an MP regularly, often constantly surveying the commuters. I know who goes into Sheffield and who goes the other way. I know where they park. I know most of the people by name. They do not go that way, so that figure is based on false assumptions and false economics.
The truth is that the Government are meant to be about levelling up. When I brought businesses into my area, I argued the case for a direct train service via Retford into London—if I could have done that via Worksop, it would have been even better—and it succeeded, with major companies coming in. That was the argument—I was there; I was making the argument with those companies. Laing O’Rourke is on the Sheffield side of Worksop, by the way. There is huge new investment on that industrial estate, including it. Cerealto, which came from Spain, is there. All they wanted was an improved service down the east coast main line. No one considered the East Midlands Railway.
I have nothing against Sheffield or that route. Point to point, it is dramatically longer, which might be the reason why people went the other way. The other route is far quicker and far shorter. The Hull Trains model has brought huge economic benefits. It has shifted the housing market. The Government want loads more houses with loads of land. That area is happy to have housing. It wants nuclear fusion there, which will involve massive investment—billions—and 3,000 new jobs. Again, connecting Worksop to London is an economic objective even more than a social one. It is convenient for getting down to the football, the theatre and all that kind of thing that people might want to do, but it is about the economic basis of it. I know every single major company that came in—I was there—and I know that this was part of the argument. These figures are wrong. There needs to be that flexibility.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing this timely Question for Short Debate. It is a topic of much conversation in transport circles, as this debate shows. Open access railways have allowed private companies to operate train services independently of government contracts, and to date they have been competing with franchise services. However, they are going to be competing with the publicly run Great British Railways services, and that is where the rub may be.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, flagged some serious questions about regulation, which I hope we will hear clear answers on today. Noble Lords will recall that, at all stages of the passenger railway services Bill—it feels like a reunion here today—my colleagues and I stressed from the Lib Dem Benches that we were agnostic as to who actually runs the railway. We want real improvements, centred on the passenger.
As I read the DfT’s consultation paper, A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future, the Government are clear that a new, simpler framework will enable GBR to take decisions on the best use of its network. It goes on to say:
“GBR will take access and charging decisions in the public interest”.
In addition to those obligations, the Secretary of State can issue specific directions and guidance on access to and use of the railway when relevant. Presumably, those directions could be for no open access passenger services at all, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the RMT would support. Presumably it would be at the whim of whoever is Secretary of State, depending on what their view is of open access and what is allowed.
The only thing that is certain is that open access operators will have to fully pay towards long-term maintenance costs for the network and central support costs, which is something we would probably all agree with. However, the only open access that seems to be protected is around freight services—although, if you talk to the freight sector, it is not confident in that at all. There is nothing in this paper that suggests there is any future for open access operators. What assurance can the Minister give the sector today about its future? Even if the Government do not want to see any new open access operators, what guarantee can they give to the routes that already exist today, which, as we have heard, do so well serving places such Hull, and despite the quote that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, read from the Labour manifesto, which showed some commitment to open access?
The other issue I want to pick up, which is the crux of this debate, is that it may come at a cost to the taxpayer in attracting passengers away with open access trains, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, pointed out. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Young, provided contrary evidence that that was going to be a threat. I thought that I would add some international experience. Last year, a European Commission study looked at Spain, France, Sweden, Italy, Austria, Germany and other examples of rail on the continent. It showed that ticket prices decreased overall with the introduction of open access competition; that frequency has increased hugely on routes such as Vienna to Salzburg and Stockholm to Gothenburg, as well as in other places; and that the more trains there are available, the more passengers will see trains as a viable option and will demand increases. It has shown that open access really can add to the railway.
I conclude my remarks by saying that open access operators have a role to play in our future rail system, as long as they pay their way. They can also see investment in rolling stock and innovation in a way that will be healthy for the passenger. At the end of the day, what do we want? We want a service that is reliable, affordable, efficient and passenger-centred. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for securing this important discussion.
His Majesty’s Government’s approach to railway reform has raised concerns, in particular around the potential risks of phasing out existing open access operators and rejecting new ones. Open access operators such as Lumo, which has a 96% customer satisfaction rating, have consistently delivered some of the highest levels of passenger service. On the basis that His Majesty’s Government’s stated commitment is to place passengers at the heart of the railway reforms, we naturally assume that they would wish to encourage and support open access operators, rather than restrict their role.
A fundamental aspect of the open access system is its ability to introduce new direct routes and foster competition, ultimately enhancing the passenger experience. Of course, this must be weighed up against the potential impact on taxpayer-funded operators. To ensure a fair balance, the Office of Rail and Road applies the “not primarily abstractive” test, requiring new services to generate at least 30p of new revenue for every £1 abstracted from existing operators. This test ensures that open access services contribute genuine growth to the industry, rather than merely diverting passengers from other operators.
Let us take as an example Lumo, which launched in 2021 between London and Edinburgh. Since its inception, Lumo has generated more than 6 million new rail journeys, which noble Lords will agree is a remarkable achievement. It has driven a significant modal shift from air travel to rail travel. Nearly half of all journeys on this route are now made by rail, up from one-third in 2019.
Crucially, Lumo’s success has not come at the expense of existing operators. Revenue on the London to Edinburgh corridor increased by 55% between 2019 and 2024. Moreover, LNER’s own revenue has grown, demonstrating that Lumo has expanded the overall rail market, rather than siphoning off passengers. Similarly, Hull Trains, which has operated between London and Hull since 2000, has been a resounding success. By 2010, revenue on its route had increased by nearly 300%, and, for every £1 of revenue abstracted from other operators, Hull Trains generated an additional 51p to 67p of industry revenue—far exceeding the ORR’s minimum threshold. Since 2019, Hull Trains has seen a 42% growth in passenger journeys, significantly outpacing other operators. This success has been supported by investment in new rolling stock, enhancing capacity and service quality.
Although some may view the abstraction of revenue from taxpayer-funded operators negatively, it is vital to consider the broader benefits that open access services provide. Free markets and increased competition lead to lower fares, faster journey times and substantial value-of-time benefits for passengers. Open access operators consistently achieve higher passenger satisfaction, thanks to their agility and customer-focused approach. Even when accounting for lower fares, open access operators on all three routes examined have generated revenue well above the 0.3 NPA threshold set by the ORR. His Majesty’s Official Opposition suggest that the evidence speaks for itself.
His Majesty’s Government are vocal on the subject of growth, investment, passengers and the environment, so I must ask the Minister this: will they please put passengers first? The ORR has praised open access because of the black-and-white data.
Finally, can the Minister please advise the Committee on when we will have sight of the passenger standards authority? What will those standards be, and how will they be enforced? The appetite of the new authority to hold GBR to account is what will matter. How, in tandem, will Great British Railways hold nationalised operators to the same high standards of service that passengers expect and deserve?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on securing this timely debate on an important subject. I offer him my wholehearted apologies for the omission of the letter that I sent everybody else; it was an administrative error but I it has, I believe, been rectified. I apologise to him for that.
The context of this debate is the live consultation document, A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future, which was published a few weeks ago and on which the Government welcome contributions. I hope all noble Lords here today will respond to the consultation document. It is not immediately apparent to me that everybody has ready every word of it, from what I have heard—perhaps that is reasonable—but it is important that noble Lords respond to it because it raises some of these subjects absolutely directly.
Having said that, I am not going to repeat large quantities of what is in the consultation document, for the obvious reason that it is in the public domain. People will respond to it; the Government will then consider their responses fully. It would be better if I spent my time looking at elements of the issues in front of us that noble Lords have raised.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Young, who asked whether I share the RMT’s views. He deftly pointed out, however, that it appears to have two views that are contrary to each other at once. I can therefore say without compunction that I share some of its views but not all of them. It is entitled to its views because it represents the hard-working staff of the railways as their trade union, but they are not the determinants of future government policy.
The noble Lord expressed genuine concern about competition and asked whether I am open to listening to responses to the consultation. I am open to that; I have listened extraordinarily carefully to what noble Lords have said here today, and I believe that aspects of what they have said should influence the way we draft the legislation, following the responses to the consultation. It would be foolish and unnecessary for us to produce a consultation if we did not intend to listen to what people had to say about it.
The other thing I would say about the consultation is that it is over 30 years since a substantive railway Bill was in either House. It behoves us to do a good job this time because it may be a long time before there is another; you never know.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, had to say. His descriptions of some of the history were quite correct. I can correct him on only one material fact, which is that Network Rail slid into the public sector with a debt of £54 billion, rather than £34 billion; I remember remarking that it was higher than the national debt of New Zealand at the time I became the body’s chair. The noble Lord was right in describing that, in those days—at the time of the original privatisation of the railway and subsequently—there was some slack. It is true that quite a lot of additional services could be put into the timetable simply because there was plenty of room for them.
I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, extraordinarily carefully. He was a very senior railway manager when, sadly, I was still at school; he knows perfectly well how to run a busy, complex railway, and his memory is not diminished an inch by the effluxion of time since he did that. I do not think he is entirely correct to suggest that the ORR is concentrated on only one of its objectives—that would be doing it a disservice. But he is certainly entitled to a view about the extent to which it has balanced its objectives. He is indeed right about the east coast main line timetable. I had to answer a Question in the House only two days ago about the level of service at Alnmouth and Berwick. The last Government invested £4 billion to improve the capacity of the east coast main line. It has taken four years to get an agreement on that timetable, and that is because the number of people with rights on the east coast main line is so great that it required a huge meeting of railway operators. In the end, it also required the Secretary of State and I, as Ministers, to make a decision which on any normal railway would be taken by the railway administration. The noble Lord asked whether the ORR’s regulatory assumptions are sound and independently verified. They have been tested twice independently and found satisfactory at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned freight. The propositions about open access, whatever they are, do not apply to freight where the Government have already stated that they intend to have a target to increase freight. I believe we have also heard here that freight operators are apparently more comfortable with the regime proposed in the consultation paper.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, very carefully. I too want to see more trains on HS1 and through the Channel Tunnel, and the department is working as hard as it can to see that there are more trains and that any obstacles to further competition on the routes through the Channel Tunnel to Europe are removed. There are some things we can do, and we are proposing to do them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about what was in the King’s Speech and what, effectively, the Secretary of State wrote subsequently to the chair of the Office of Rail and Road. Opinions vary on this letter, but I think she and I are clear that what she said in the letter was not that there should be no open access. It did not say that we disagree with it; in fact, the consultation paper says that in the right circumstances, open access has a valuable part to play. But it would be negligent of her, and certainly negligent of me, not to reflect the fact that the railway post-Covid is costing the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. All of us in this Room, whatever political side we are on, cannot celebrate a railway that consumes twice as much public subsidy as before Covid. We need to do something about it. It is proper for the Secretary of State to reflect on the fact that one of the legitimate concerns of both the Secretary of State and, indeed, the ORR ought to be the whole cost of the railway to taxpayers. She talks about a balance: on the one hand, opening up new markets, driving innovation and offering choice to passengers, but also a balance that is mindful of the abstraction of revenue to taxpayers, as well as the charging mechanism. That letter sets out her views, which I do not think are anti-open access; it makes clear the role that the Government believe open access ought to have and the basis on which we are consulting.
The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, were principally about freight, which I have already covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said that the private sector was under threat. I say to him that, in fact, four-fifths of railway expenditure is in the private sector and, very largely, that will continue. The Government’s proposals to take passenger services into public ownership are not the same as taking the private sector out of the railway. Network Rail spends a huge amount of money with many private sector organisations to maintain and improve the railway and that will continue, as will freight operations and so forth.
The noble Lord also talked about the costs of GBR as a potentially large public body—I prefer that word to “quango”, having chaired two such public bodies. There is a considerable saving to the public purse from managing the railway better. The fact that every meeting on the railway needs 20 people in it to decide anything, because of the proliferation of different contracts, is a huge cost and a huge barrier to effective management of the railway.
As chair of Network Rail, I had a difficulty with the ORR, because we were told at one stage that there was a belief that the law suggested that there were only two dates on which you could change the national railway timetable a year. That is completely inflexible and militates against the public getting a good service from the railways, simply by baking some arthritic processes into what ought to be a dynamic situation to deliver better services to passengers and freight.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, talked with considerable passion about Hull Trains, and I respect his passion about that because it is clear that Hull Trains has produced a huge benefit for the city of Hull over the years it has been working. His observations about Worksop are probably more difficult, both for him and for me, but one of the issues with some proposals that the department has seen, but which will currently at least be considered by the ORR, is that the department at least considers that they will abstract from other services. The danger, of course, is that you offer a better service to a small number of people and the result of it is a higher cost to taxpayers and/or a reduction in services to others. Those are balances that railway administrations have had on their minds since 1830 or so, and they are considerations that GBR will have to have.
One thing that is obvious to me is that, in the course of further setting out how the new railway will work, you need a really comprehensive access and use policy. The consultation document says that GBR will have to have such a policy, that it will have to behave in accordance with it and, at the end of it, if people believe that it has not behaved in accordance with it, that will be appealable. In certain circumstances, the ORR will continue to be able to direct GBR to do something different.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it is the passengers in the end—well, it is the passengers to start with—who ought to be the real consideration of the railway. One reason I am passionate about the case for reform is that passengers are not well served by the current circumstances. The railway costs too much to run, it is arthritic and it is slow—as I said, every decision needs huge numbers of people involved. When the east coast main line timetable is put in, it will justify the £4 billion of public investment put into the line because there will be a third train to Newcastle as a consequence. That is good for passengers. It will not affect Lumo, because Lumo will still run and its access rights will continue. Open access can of course add value.
I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said. I must have read most of it before somewhere, in a number of documents principally put out by FirstGroup. The only thing I would say to him is that he is of course right about some of that. There is no doubt that Lumo, which did get open access provision, has made a real difference in the air competition to Edinburgh and it is to be absolutely commended for that. The number of routes on the railway where that is true is very limited, but it behoves us to want open access where it adds to the railway—and to be careful about it where it adds to the total taxpayer subsidy and would otherwise make the railway more congested and less reliable for passengers.
I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, again for his debate. I apologise once more that everybody else got a letter addressed to him before he did—I am really sorry about that. I thank him for raising the subject and allowing me to respond.
National Youth Strategy
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in developing a National Youth Strategy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, the time limit for this debate is one hour. With the exception of the opener and the Minister winding, noble Lords have three minutes, which is very tight. When the clock flashes, time is up.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, this short debate today gives us the opportunity to ask the Minister to provide more information to Parliament and of course to the public about the Government’s plans for a national youth strategy, the nature of their consultation process and the progress they have made.
In answer to my Oral Question last October, the Minister stated:
“This Government are committed to empowering young people to make a difference in their communities and are working with them to develop a new national strategy for young people”.—[Official Report, 31/10/24; col. 1208.]
That is a positive: the Government are partnering with young people to help develop the strategy and are managing a listening exercise to enable young people to have a say on decisions that affect their lives. It was, however, disappointing—the Minister will expect me to refer to this—that the Government decided to wind down the National Citizen Service from March this year. The service was a success and had cross-party support. Its closure will leave a hole in youth services this year while we await the publication and implementation of the Government’s plans.
I am grateful, as always, to organisations with expertise in this area for providing briefings for our debate today. I know that Peers have received expert briefings from organisations including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, Girlguiding, the National Youth Agency and Youth Access, as well as other organisations.
In the run-up to the general election last year, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award launched its research paper, Youth Voices 2024. The findings showed that young people are ambitious for their own futures but continue to feel unheard and unsupported on the very issues that will define their lives and careers. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award asks that the national strategy should include a youth pledge, committing to put youth voices and representation at all levels of policy and decision-making on the issues that impact young people. Today, I ask whether the Minister will consider responding positively to that recommendation.
I note that the DCMS has launched a survey, which it describes on its website as a
“national listening exercise to let young people have their say on support services, facilities and the opportunities they need outside the school gates”.
That sounds a very useful survey and I certainly support it; it was announced eight days ago and closes on 16 April. Although it is welcome, I hope that young people will know enough about it and will want to engage with it, to make it as valuable as it can be. It is, of course, a one-off specifically related to the drafting of the national youth strategy paper. I do not criticise that, but I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the request of the DoE Award that that kind of relationship with young people should be a continuing process.
At the moment, rather surprisingly, it is unclear how the national youth strategy will work in practice—work is under way—so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the following issues. Will the deficit in funding from the closure of the National Citizen Service be restored, or will that loss of further funding from the youth sector be a permanent reduction in funding? Which measures under the national youth guarantee will be carried forward, given the closure of the National Citizen Service? Does the Minister expect that the strategy will be accompanied by funding additional to that which was detailed in the initial announcement, as we now await the multiyear comprehensive spending review this summer?
How will the strategy work cross-departmentally? That is something I have always been interested in, having been a Minister myself; I know the importance and complexity involved in that. How will the cross-departmental work align and feed into initiatives such as the Young Futures programme, the child poverty strategy, the violence against women and girls strategy, the 10-year health plan, the curriculum and assessment review and indeed the Online Safety Act?
How are the front-line youth workforces, which are out there working so hard, being consulted about the national youth strategy and how it will become operational? There is also some uncertainty about when we might have sight of the national youth strategy or indeed, I appreciate, an interim version of it.
Last November, Ministers said that they were kick-starting—I thought it was rather unfortunate to use a rather violent image, but never mind; football was on their mind, as that was the season, so there we are—the process of consultation. We heard from the Secretary of State on 16 January this year:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/25; col. 46.]
However, we then heard from the Minister, Stephanie Peacock, on 11 February:
“We have now begun our engagement with young people and the sectors that work with them, as part of the co-production process”.
On the face of it, although I do not think this was intended, it looks as though those two statements are contradictory with each other. It would be nice to have some clarity on that. It sounds as though it is cart before horse happening there.
In the February debate, Stephanie Peacock went on to announce:
“We will provide more information to MPs within the next month regarding the development of the national youth strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/25; cols. 104-05WH.]
Even by my maths, I can see that that month has come and gone, so is the Minister able to deliver that further information today? By the way, I think that Members of the House of Lords, not just MPs, would be pleased to see that worksheet as well.
I appreciate that producing a national strategy is a difficult process, especially when one has carried out a wide and clearly well-drafted consultation process. I support the Government’s intent to co-produce that strategy with those who matter—the young people. However, it would be helpful to everyone, not just parliamentarians, for the Minister to be able to clarify what information will be available and when that is likely to be. I know that spring can extend a long way into the distance, but people, particularly young people and those who work with them, want to know the kind of information that is going to be provided publicly. It is crucial that there is clarity for young people to be reassured that the listening exercise really has borne fruit and that the delivery of the strategy will be funded appropriately. I appreciate the difficulty of that in the current climate, with decisions that have had to be made because of our need for the defence of this country, and of course we debate those matters elsewhere.
If a shortage of time prevents the Minister from answering all our questions today—and I suspect it might—then I would be grateful if she might respond to noble Lords in writing and place a copy in the Library of the House. In the meantime, I look forward very much to hearing all other noble Lords who are contributing to this debate.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, this is such an important issue. We have let down a generation of children and young people. The National Citizen Service, good as it was, and the International Citizen Service, good as it was, were never going to be a replacement for decent youth work activities where young people live, grow up and go to school. Therefore, we have seen disadvantaged children in this country fall behind even further. There are more of them living in families that have poverty and lack of opportunity these days, and I am shocked at how the eye on what was happening was taken off the ball in the past 14 years.
We know that children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods make significantly less progress at both primary and secondary school. We know that they are more likely to be in lower-income households and that they are subject to more violence. There is a concentration of the poorest families and children with the poorest outcomes living in a clear set of neighbourhoods. I urge the Government and the Minister to think about this as they develop their strategy.
I really welcome the strategy—there is quite a lot of information for parliamentarians on the website, if you read it carefully, about how they should be engaging with young people in their constituencies or localities on what sort of services are needed and what is missing. It is important that they are invited, and we are invited, during the consultation to do things to help that along—and I shall be doing some of that work over the next few weeks. Will the Minister work on the cross-government involvement and the involvement of civil society?
I was at an event yesterday with AllChild, a place-based children’s and young people’s charity doing really interesting work. It is very enthusiastic about the strategy and needs to be involved. I hope that the Minister will talk to the DfE about training and skills development for those who will be needed to work with young people, whatever we come out with. As somebody who did that for a decade before I came to this place, I could cry when I see how much it has been neglected of late. Furthermore, will the Minister make sure that the Government recognise and understand the importance of place-based work for young people, so that where they grow up and where they go to school there are services that open up opportunities for them?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the national youth strategy, particularly as it has a significant amount of co-production with young people themselves—although I find it hard to pin down what they will actually produce.
Like others, I have received helpful briefings from a number of organisations, including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award—which calls itself DofE these days, rather confusingly—as well as the Scouts and OnSide, which runs 15 youth zones across the country. I will focus on enrichment activities carried out by organisations such as these, including sports, arts and cultural activities, volunteering, social action and adventures away from home, which I hope will form a prominent part of the national youth strategy.
There is clear evidence—for example, from a recent DofE report—that these activities can help to address some of the major challenges facing young people and schools. Such challenges include: absenteeism from schools; the growing numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training; mental health challenges; and the lack of essential life skills that are needed for work, which employers so regularly complain about. Enrichment can be particularly valuable for young people with special needs or from disadvantaged or challenging backgrounds, who may need the extra support that youth organisations such as OnSide can provide. Much of its work is targeted at young people needing extra support.
All I have time for are some more questions for the Minister. First, how will the strategy ensure that the benefits of enrichment activities are fully available to all young people? Will the Government consider the idea of an enrichment guarantee, as proposed by several youth organisations?
Secondly, how does work experience, surely a key enrichment activity, fit with the national youth strategy? Having run work experience programmes myself, with both schools and other bodies, I know how crucial it is in preparing young people for employment, and quality is just as important as quantity.
Thirdly, I was concerned to hear Professor Becky Francis, the chair of the curriculum and assessment review, say at a recent APPG meeting that enrichment was outside the review’s terms of reference. How will the Government ensure that enrichment activities, including work experience, are recognised as an essential complement to, if not part of, the curriculum? Might they consider providing guidance to schools on the use of enrichment activities to improve attendance and tackle other issues facing schools?
I am rapidly running out of time, if not of questions, so I will just end with one more. How will the success of the national youth strategy be defined, and then measured?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the announcement of a national youth strategy which will be with us by the summer is good news. The Minister will therefore forgive me if what I have to say may sound a little carping. I have three areas of concern. Where is the funding to come from? What plans are there to co-ordinate the different government departments that may be involved? How is the success of this venture to be evaluated, even in the short term?
On funding, the Government have committed £85 million, plus £100 million to come from a frozen assets fund. The demise of the National Citizen Service will remove perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds from the wider sector, including funding for about 250 youth organisations, much of which was due at the beginning of the new financial year in April. Are the £50 million savings predicted by the removal of the NCS additional to the Budget figures announced?
A further worry is which department is responsible for dispensing the budget. It would seem that the broad remit described would involve several government departments—for example, employment, health, mental health, crime, justice, education and other youth work would, by my count, involve at least five different government departments.
We all know that the best policies in the world can get lost, or modified beyond the original aims, in the business of governance. I have long argued that a Minister for children should be appointed at Cabinet level, thereby giving the planned strategy the weight it deserves and the guarantee of implementation across government. What assurances can the Minister give that the report scheduled for the summer of this year will be implemented in its entirety?
Last November, and before the announcement of the national youth strategy, UK Youth convened the Joined Up Summit. Some 500 leaders and decision-makers from all sectors, together with a representative group of 16 to 25 year-olds, discussed what, in their opinion, the strategy should include. After 15 years of brutal cuts to local government youth work budgets—by about three-quarters since 2010—the consensus was that major investment was now needed. It was agreed not only that such a strategy had to go beyond engagement to empowerment but that young voices must be heard and included from the design and implementation to the evaluation stages. Can the Minister say that this will in fact happen, despite cost and co-ordination issues that may arise?
Finally, I will look briefly at priorities. Who is doing the prioritising and what might the criteria be? It is estimated that three-quarters of youth clubs have closed down. The impact of this is profound. If young people, especially in rural areas, have nowhere to go where they can be both safe and engaged, the inevitable result is street gatherings. Recent research demonstrates that violent gangs and knife crime are significantly more frequent and more serious in those urban and rural areas lacking any youth facilities. I am sure I will get into trouble over this, but I must just say that surely somewhere for the youth to go must take precedence over, for example, one-to-one therapy on gender-change issues?
Recent surveys of generation Z people indicate support—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness has reached her time limit.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I am speaking so fast that I can hardly hear myself talk.
My most important point is this. In view of the fact that our youth is somewhat disillusioned, which we know from research, whatever else we do, we have to get this strategy right.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, my contribution will be a little tangential to this history of what I would call a civic service.
A year ago, on 7 March, I put down an Oral Question, taken on the Floor of the House, about whether His Majesty’s Government had any plans to introduce compulsory, or some other form of, military service. The answer came back clearly: “No. We rely on people being recruited and being volunteers, and we have very good Armed Forces”. At the time, I said that it seemed to me that “warning signals” were coming up and that we would need to review this.
The timing, a year on, is absolutely dead on. Now we move on a year and what do we find? We have a serious lack of men and women for our Armed Forces. We also know from looking at the television that, in today’s world—including in what is happening on the front in Ukraine against Russia—it is men and women and the numbers on the ground that remain important, not just armaments and things flying through the sky. The time has come when we might have to look again at some form of youth service, though not through a copy of the 1948 Act.
I remind the Minister here of what the Minister at that time, Mr Isaacs, said during the passage of the then Bill:
“Primarily, the need for the Bill arises from the fact that the regular components of our Forces have seriously run down, owing to the fact that there has been no regular recruitment during the war”.
Our forces are the same but for other reasons. He then referred to
“the need for the nation to build up efficient, well-trained reserve and auxiliary Forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/1947; col. 1671-73.]
That was rightly accepted on an all-party basis.
Today, our country and Belgium are the only two countries that have no form of military training. Everyone else in NATO has all sorts of different kinds. My request to the Minister and the Government—which will, I am sure, have the support of my party—is that this matter be looked at in the context of today’s situation on the ground. I repeat the final words that Churchill said, having supported the then Bill all the way through:
“We should have carried far more weight in the councils of peace if we had had national service”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/1947; col. 1697.]
We have a Prime Minister who is carrying weight in the context of what I am talking about. The challenge is there for the Government. All I say for myself is that I will do anything I can to help on that front.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests: I am the chair of trustees for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and I chair Sport Wales.
As the chair of trustees for the DoE, I see at first hand how deeply young people care about their communities and how they want to shape a better world for all of us. We have put young people at the heart of all our work; I hope that the Government will continue to do the same. Yet, as a generation, they continue to face unprecedented challenges: the lasting impact of Covid-19, rising levels of anxiety and mental health problems, and the cost of living crisis, not to mention a politically turbulent global landscape—and all the while trying to navigate an increasingly digital and atomised world.
At the DoE, we are proud to be part of the Black Youth Alliance, a coalition of leading youth organisations. Together, we share a vision: a future where young people feel safe, respected and heard, and in which they can successfully navigate the undeniably tough time that is adolescence, developing the skills and capabilities that they need to thrive in life and work. Now, more than ever, we need to step up and recognise that young people need and deserve a truly sustainable and effective youth strategy that puts young people at the very heart of policy.
We should perhaps learn from the work happening in Wales. In 2016, Wales set a global precedent by appointing the world’s first Future Generations Commissioner, a role dedicated to safeguarding the interests of young people and future generations. At Sport Wales, we have continued proudly to support the commissioner’s work, and our School Sport Survey shaped the Vision for Sport in Wales. The School Sport Survey 2022 gave young people a powerful voice on sport and well-being, as well as providing an insight into their attitudes and behaviours. It has helped the wider sector better understand how to create a more inclusive and impactful sporting opportunity for young people.
I commend the Government on prioritising the views of young people at the current stage of this consultation. I ask the Minister: can our Lordships’ Chamber be assured that they will continue to engage with young people at every stage of this process to ensure that this will be a youth strategy that delivers equal access for all?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the idea of asking young people what they want is obviously a great one, and I support the national youth strategy as far as it goes. My problem is that a lot of young people simply do not know the opportunities that should be available to them. Some have a very privileged life and go to great schools where huge numbers of facilities are available to them, and some do not and do not get the opportunities to go to the theatre or play an instrument. If they knew much about them, they would probably find them life-changing. The schools into which Andrew Lloyd Webber has gone, with his mission to give everybody a musical instrument, have benefited hugely from that. But did those young people really know that their lives would be changed by playing in an orchestra? I suspect not. It is that sort of issue that needs addressing, and that is why a children’s Minister in Cabinet might well be a good starting point.
However, the starting point that we have now is a national youth strategy to which the nation’s youth will be asked to contribute. I shall therefore contribute remarks relating particularly to the idea of democracy, which is what this is all about. A survey from the Electoral Commission this year found that a third of 11 to 17 year-olds had not heard any mention of politics in their school in the entire last year. That is a year in which there was an election in this country and in the United States—one of the most important in a long time—and their schools did not even talk about it. So it is not surprising that, when the Electoral Commission asked 11 to 25 year-olds whether they would like to know a little more about how politics and democracy work in the country in which they live, 74% said that they would.
My question to the Minister is: what will she do about enabling those children and young people to understand the democratic process, before going deeply into the national youth strategy and asking them all to opine on any number of things? The Electoral Commission found that the majority do not believe that the Government do anything very much and a third do not understand at all what the British Government do. It is not surprising if they feel completely alienated. My suspicion is that this exercise risks only increasing the cynicism among a large number of youngsters.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, three minutes is not enough time to cover all aspects of the subject we are looking at, but it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I will focus on employment for young people. Whatever youth strategy is developed, agreed and delivered, it must help to stop the flow of young people becoming NEET. Nearly 1 million of our young people are in the NEET group. What does that cost in finance, in economic terms for business, in personal issues and, of course, in social cohesion?
Many young people today grow up in families where they are loved, nurtured and supported at different times in their journey in life. But let me tell noble Lords this: many young people are not—I have met them. Many young people, sadly, are left to their own devices, with no guidance. They do not have a clue what life holds for them. They have every potential to become NEET, to be involved in crime and gangs, to have health issues, and to be economically inactive. I could go on.
I met someone from the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme—the young man is over there—and he showed me a quote from a young person who said, “Is it a surprise I’ve got mental health issues, when I haven’t got enough money to live on?”. The issues that they face are absolutely phenomenal. Young people are on a journey. Whether it is starting out in their early years, or whether they are categorised as NEET, it is a journey, and it is one on which they need somebody to be with them, to take them through the highs and lows of life.
In my book, it is about the destination. For me, the destination is that, whatever services a youth strategy provides, it should help young people to transition into the labour market, not leaving them at any point if something goes wrong. I have seen it work: it is cost effective, and if we measure the return on the investment needed, I am telling you, it is magic. I will give your Lordships just one example. I worked on a project where 76% of the young people we got into work were still there a year later. They did not fall out, and the money we invested in keeping them there was well, well worth it. Eighty-five percent of them drastically improved their attendance at school, and 60% of them got five GCSE’s at grade A to C. Ninety-six percent of them are currently involved in education, employment or training. The youth strategy will cover a number of things, but let us get them into work, keep them there and give them a future.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, in my limited time, I shall reflect on how the arts can empower the next generation, particularly in light of the lasting harm caused to young people by the previous Government’s misguided EBacc policy, which systematically diminished the value of creative subjects in schools.
As the Government embark on their ambitious national youth strategy, we have a rare opportunity to put arts, culture and creativity at the forefront of national renewal. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, these are not just enriching experiences, but essential tools for fostering confidence, ambition, collaboration and the generation of ideas—vital skills for a challenging world. They bring out the best in every child, rather than excluding those who do not fit the mould.
The national youth strategy is rooted in a simple but powerful idea: young people should have a say in shaping their own futures and communities. We often discuss youth policy in terms of crime prevention, mental health and economic mobility, yet arts and culture also serve as powerful tools for tackling these challenges. They can also help to solve the special needs crisis, which consumes so much local authority spend. Creative engagement supports mental well-being, reduces anxiety and fosters social connections. Most of all, it bolsters self-esteem.
In our efforts to dismantle barriers to opportunity, we must support initiatives such as the better youth spaces programme, ensuring that every young person has a safe, inspiring place to create and collaborate, regardless of their postcode. The expanded creative careers programme will provide real pathways into industries that contribute over £125 billion to the UK economy.
Through practical guidance, mentoring and work experience opportunities, the programme connects education with industry while breaking down historical barriers to entry in creative fields. This approach recognises that, while talent exists everywhere, opportunity does not, and aims to bridge that gap. At a time when our society can feel divided, the arts offer us a shared language to celebrate diversity—including neurodiversity—bridge differences and cultivate pride in our local and national identities.
The Fabian Society’s recent report Arts for Us All by the independent Arts and Creative Industries Unit rightly advocates for a cultural pass for young people, mirroring successful models in France, Germany and Spain to increase cultural participation among young people. Let us ensure that every young person in Britain can access the creative experiences that will shape their confidence, career and community, regardless of where they come from.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect and patron of the Royal Life Saving Society UK. A new national youth strategy that engages and empowers young people is not only welcome but essential. This approach, which rightly seeks to place decision-making power in the hands of those affected, offers a valuable opportunity to learn to nurture the future pillars of our nation. I commend the efforts made thus far to co-produce the national youth strategy alongside young people. The national listening exercise, the online survey extending to those with special educational needs and disabilities, and various workshops have demonstrated an effort to consult and collaborate with young people, which is to be applauded.
While the Government have committed £85 million from government funds and £100 million from the dormant assets scheme to improve youth outcomes, there are concerns about whether that funding will be sufficient to address the diverse needs of young people across the country. The decision to wind down the NCS programme from March 2025 has raised concerns about the continuity of support for young people. The new strategy needs to ensure that the services previously provided, which were working well, are effectively replaced or improved on.
The pressures of social media and new technologies are growing ever present. How will the strategy address these challenges to support young people’s mental health and well-being?
I turn to the topics of co-ordination and collaboration. Effective collaboration with various stakeholders is crucial for the success of the strategy. Ensuring effective co-ordination among these groups, as noble Lords know more than most, can be complex. What will “good” look like?
Finally, following the pandemic, young people were denied valuable experiences. The strategy must address the long-term impacts of that disruption on their development and opportunities.
I am delighted to say that we welcome the national youth strategy, particularly its commitment to include the voice of young people from the outset. We also welcome the commitment to better co-ordinated youth services and policies at local, regional and national level.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this important discussion.
As my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott has highlighted, it appears that we are at a genuinely critical juncture where statistics suggest that approximately 987,000 individuals aged between 16 and 24 are not engaged in education, employment or training. This group of citizens not only face personal challenges but represent a material loss to our nation’s productivity and social cohesion.
It is of huge concern that many young people in our country appear to be in silent crisis. His Majesty’s Official Opposition recognise the huge importance of nurturing our future hard-working and upstanding members of the community, ensuring that they are equipped with skills and values while being offered the opportunities that are necessary to lead fulfilling lives and contribute meaningfully to our society.
It is therefore a great loss from our perspective that in November last year His Majesty’s Government ended the National Citizen Service scheme, introduced by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton as part of his big society initiative. The scheme had an approval rating of 93% and delivered over 1 million experiences to young people, and participants have taken part in over 18 million hours of volunteering. The programme helped our youth to feel valued and purposeful, with my noble friend Lord Cameron describing the decision as a deeply backward and regrettable step. With all due respect to the Government, His Majesty’s Official Opposition agree. On our watch, we committed to allocating £500 million over the period 2023-26 to fund the national youth guarantee, which sought to ensure that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had access to regular clubs and activities for after-school enjoyment, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer.
We have a number of questions for the Minister. What were the key reasons behind the decision to abolish the National Citizen Service scheme, given its role in engaging over 1 million young people since its inception? How does the new national youth strategy differ from the NCS in terms of objectives, funding and reach, and how will it ensure the same or greater levels of youth participation? The NCS provided structured opportunities for personal development, social mobility and civic engagement. How does the new strategy plan to replace or enhance those elements?
Can the Minister please clarify how the funding previously allocated to the NCS is now being used under the national youth strategy, and whether there will be increased investment in grassroots youth services? Lastly, given the need for consistency and long term planning in youth development, how do the Government intend to measure the success of the national youth strategy, compared to the impact assessments previously conducted for the NCS?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for initiating this debate and for her ongoing commitment to this subject. It is clear from the debate that, although there may be a difference in our views on how to deliver youth services, there is a collective understanding across your Lordships’ Committee that this is a really important issue and potentially that something needs to change. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the Committee on their interesting and considered contributions. This feels very timely, given recent announcements by Youth Minister Stephanie Peacock, mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
Like many noble Lords here, I have witnessed the crucial and transformative role that youth services play in young people’s lives. Our Government strive to support this sector so that young people are able to be part of a supportive community and have access to positive and enriching activities. This work on the youth sector will help to deliver on the Government’s missions, spreading opportunities, making our streets safer and taking pressure off health services. I was pleased to hear young people’s mental health referenced.
This work will be in partnership with the development of the young future hubs, the curriculum review and further work that our Government have committed to in order to improve young people’s lives. That is why, in November, we announced a co-production of a new national youth strategy. This aims to set out an ambitious long-term vision for young people for the next 10 years and put them at the centre of decision-making on policies that affect them. As noble Lords will be aware, we are co-producing this strategy with young people and the youth sector. This approach will be key to making sure that this strategy supports and recognises the real experience of young people across this country.
Since we last spoke on this topic, we have made excellent progress in our engagement with young people. We have identified how we can work better at reaching those whose voices may not generally be heard and at establishing our way forward. Ministers have met with iWill ambassadors and young people in Bristol. Alongside this, a variety of focus groups have been held across the country, thanks to our regional youth work units. So far, we have heard from young people that they want to see clear solutions, to have access to safe spaces and to feel like the Government are listening to them. This strategy aims to achieve that, and more.
To ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the process throughout, we have appointed 13 young people to form a youth advisory group. They have been selected for their impressive contributions in the public space. These members have experience across key areas, including advocacy, violence prevention, social mobility and mental health. An expert advisory group will work alongside the youth advisory group to help to guide the national conversation with young people, providing expertise and challenging our thinking throughout the strategy development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referenced the national youth survey, which was launched on 5 March. It asks young people what they need to be able to thrive. This survey has already had just over 6,000 responses in the past week, and we clearly hope to get many more. We will collate these and all future responses to shape our strategy, which will be published in the summer.
We are engaging with young people up and down the country through one of the most ambitious listening exercises for a generation, making sure that we reach young people where they are. An expert consortium with cross-sector partners will facilitate widespread youth engagement, working with 10 youth collaborators who are recruited to ensure that all activities are genuinely co-produced. Alongside this, the consortium is also collating data and insights via an evidence review, ensuring that the new national youth strategy builds on what has gone before.
In response to my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top on cross-government engagement—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—I say that there has already been extensive cross-government work between the DfE, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, DHSC and others. There is great collaboration and huge enthusiasm to join up on key strategies for young people. We have also shared an engagement toolkit so MPs can hold their own discussions with young people or share the toolkit with organisations in their constituencies who work with young people. I encourage Members of your Lordships’ House to do the same.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about why this had not been circulated to Peers, we had hoped to circulate the same pack through an all-Peers email but, understandably, there are very strict criteria, which I understand the pack failed to meet. I will, however, send it to all Peers present today and will place a copy in the Library.
It is vitally important that we reach young people from all parts of the country, and I welcome your Lordships’ support in achieving this aim and in forwarding the toolkit to your networks. Our national youth strategy will be designed to meet young people’s needs, so we are shaping the content of the strategy around what we learn from them. The strategy will ask 10 to 21 year-olds, expanding to the age of 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities—a group that was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We are asking young people what they need from the Government and what issues are most prevalent in their lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly mentioned cross-government liaison. We are working with other government departments to ensure that our strategy provides insights on a variety of issues, from tackling anti-social behaviour to improving physical and mental health, to help us make the biggest impact possible on young people’s lives.
On some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, among others, mentioned enrichment. The Department for Education is working to make sure that all children and young people have access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. The £3.4 million Enrichment Partnership pilot aims to improve the enrichment offer to up to 200 secondary schools in three education investment areas. It seeks to enhance school enrichment offers, remove barriers to participation and unlock existing finding and provision. As somebody who benefited hugely as a young person from music in schools and other enrichment opportunities, I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Wheatcroft, on the importance of this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised a lack of understanding or of engagement. It is important for us politicians to recognise that we are responsible for this—it is not necessarily always the young people. I think that was the way in which the noble Baroness approached the issue. We agree that it is essential that pupils develop an understanding of their place in a democratic society so that they can become responsible citizens in a modern Britain. The national curriculum for citizenship provides essential life skills to prepare pupils for adulthood. Pupils also learn the skills of active citizenship through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them within school and in the wider community. Recruitment to citizenship initial teacher training courses remains unrestricted, enabling providers to recruit future citizenship teachers without constraints from government. The Youth Parliament is DCMS’s key mechanism in the department for engaging with young people and ensuring that their voices are heard in policy and decision-making; I believe that it met relatively recently in the other place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also raised the question of whether there should be a children’s Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister has been clear that we already have one who sees their own role as the Children’s Minister, and every department in the Government is expected to care and genuinely cares about young people, championing their access to opportunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in particular, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, highlighted the importance of us addressing the need for employment opportunities for young people. The Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all young people, and we fully recognise the importance of supporting young people at risk of becoming economically inactive at an early age or struggling to find work. Additionally, through the dormant assets scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the Youth Futures Foundation has supported over 25,000 young people facing barriers to accessing quality, employment and training since 2019. As part of the Building Futures programme, up to 5,000 young people will be supported to stay in education, employment or training, with intensive mentoring and one-to-one careers coaching.
Returning to the national youth strategy funding, while the local government finance settlement for 2024-25 makes over £69 billion available to local authorities in England, we are investing within DCMS through the national youth strategy. The detail and scale of the funding commitments included in the strategy will be shaped by engagement with young people and the youth sector, and it will be dependent on spending review decisions. While this strategy will take a long-term view of these issues, we are also working hard to provide support during 2025 to local authorities, through our local youth transformation fund to build back lost capability. We have committed over £85 million of capital funding to create fit-for-purpose spaces in places where it is most needed. This includes the better youth spaces fund and completing the youth investment fund projects already started.
As referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, there have been significant cuts over the past 15 years, and spending by local authorities on youth services has decreased by 73% over the past decade. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced the reasons behind the closure of NCS. Last year, this Government made the decision to wind down the National Citizen Service programme from the end of this financial year and to close the National Citizen Service Trust when parliamentary time allows. We recognise the impact NCS has had on a generation of young people. It has enabled over 1 million 15 to 17 year-olds to connect across backgrounds, build confidence and gain vital life and work skills, and those involved should be truly proud of these achievements. However, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong highlighted in the strongest terms, the challenges young people face today are vastly different from when NCS was created. The world has changed and we need a youth strategy and youth organisations that reflect that.
Today’s complex challenges require us to adapt, focusing on cocreating a new strategy with young people to better co-ordinate funding and support where it is needed most. By working across government, civil society and business, we can empower youth more effectively. Today’s debate, which I really welcome, has focused on our commitment to a national youth strategy. This Government are working hard to deliver on our national missions. Supporting the next generation to access the right opportunities forms a cornerstone of this work. Through the new national youth strategy, we are working collectively across government to set a new direction for young people, listening to what they need and responding to those needs with both universal and targeted youth provision.
With noble Lords’ indulgence, I have just a couple more comments before I conclude. We have made excellent progress through our commitment to hearing young people on the things that matter. We have launched one of the most ambitious listening exercises in a generation and are truly excited to share the results in a few months’ time. This debate has been a great opportunity to showcase the role of youth provision in the lives of young people, and I look forward to seeing what we can achieve together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing the debate, and all Members who have attended and taken part.
Sale and Display of Human Body Parts
Lord Boateng
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the offence caused to the indigenous peoples affected by the sale of human body parts in public auctions, and their display and retention in public collections.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, this Question and its answer are not to be confused with, and set no precedent in relation to any issue with, the Benin Bronzes or the Elgin marbles, important though they are—they also demand a just and equitable resolution. This Question is about a shared and common humanity, basic common decency and the sanctity in death of the human body in all its parts, in any shape or form, of any age, race or religion. It is about respect for diverse belief systems and the spiritual longing in us all for rest and resolution. The trade in human body parts is an affront to all of the above and is, literally and figuratively, an abomination. The retention of those human parts in any shape or form, without the option of return or decent disposition according to the wishes and sacred rites of their community of origin, is deeply offensive.
The question was put this way by one affected person:
“How would you feel knowing that one of your family members is in some strange place and more importantly hasn’t been afforded the right burial? This has an impact on the psyche of a group”.
This question was put some years ago by Ned David, then chair of the Torres Strait land council. He was recalling the comments of an elder among his people. It is a good question, and I wonder how any of us in this Room would answer it. How would the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, answer it? One of his ancestors was a governor in Virginia—at that time the site of numerous skirmishes with the native indigenous peoples of the state. Another was a soldier in the Russo-Turkish war. If history had turned out another way, could the noble Earl’s ancestor’s scalp have turned up for sale in a public auction in Oxfordshire—the site of numerous attempts to auction human body parts—or on the world wide web where, I fear, scalps are on sale to this very day? If, on a visit to the Ottoman Naval Museum in Istanbul, a quite remarkable museum that I have been to on a number of occasions, he was to find his noble ancestor’s skull in the shape of a goblet—because that is the reality for many people in this day and age—how would we feel?
The offence is real and the hurt continues from generation to generation. This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease. The legislative and other obstacles to their return should be removed. I hope the Minister’s answer will give us some cause for hope that this will now happen, albeit belatedly.
As a first step, the guidance issued to museums by the department needs to be strengthened so there is a presumption in favour of the return of human body parts, whether modified or not, on request by the affected persons and originating community groups, and we need a national data base so that we know what is held in our public collections—because at the moment we do not. Will the Minister undertake to do that and convene a group of experts to advise her department on the way forward on this and other issues affecting human remains, and will Ministers ensure that the voices of indigenous communities affected are heard in this process? Will the Minister agree to meet, with me and other interested parties, some of those indigenous groups when they visit Britain, as I know they intend to, in June and October this year?
The Government of which I was a part sought, almost a quarter of a century ago now, to give effect to a joint statement by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, saying that we
“recognise the special connection that Indigenous communities have with ancestral remains, particularly where they are living descendants”.
There has been insufficient progress since that statement was made by the two Prime Ministers, albeit the Minister’s distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, produced some excellent recommendations and charted a way forward, which sadly was not followed up by the subsequent Conservative Government, despite several opportunities to do so. I hope that the expectation is that the Minister will give us some indication that, in response to this grievous and continuing wrong and this gaping hole in legislation, the need to implement our international obligations will be met and recognised by this new Labour Government.
But the good news—and there is good news—is that despite this dismal tale of theft, disrespect, and the continuing retention of the parts of fellow human beings in public institutions and their hideous and deeply offensive sale as objects of curiosity in public auction and on the world wide web, there are some outstanding examples of good practice to be found in the work of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford and of a number of charities that have worked over many years to address this issue. The Honouring the Ancient Dead initiative, or HAD, offers museums the opportunity to register the human remains that they hold, and the work of Survival International and the organisation Routes to Return are cases in point—plus the work of campaigning journalists, such as Patrick Pester, who have exposed the worst excesses of this odious trade.
We can build on this good practice, and I hope that the Minister’s answer indicates that our Government will do just that—but the bad practice needs to be addressed also, by museum trustees themselves now, as a matter of urgency. They should not have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to change their current practice and interpretation of all too often ambiguous law to do the right thing. Chief among these recalcitrants, as in other matters, is the British Museum—forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot, and ripe as an institution for long-overdue reform.
Take this as an example: the museum’s returns policy starts with the presumption that the collection will remain intact. As a result of that, it has refused to hand over several—indeed, there are seven—preserved Māori tattooed heads, as well as the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait Islands that have been decorated for use in divination. One of the descendants of those persons from the Torres Strait Islands said this:
“They are bastards, mate, bloody bastards. I can’t say anything good about them, man. They’re just—well, they’re the British Museum. I guess no one tells them what to do, eh? There’s not an ounce of humanity in that group. They’re bloody thieves. They stole it. They nicked it. There’s no way in the world they have any right to hold on to those remains”.
I conclude with that. Those are the words of an indigenous person affected. We need to hear them. We need to give effect to our signing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. We need to make ourselves an example of best practice, which we can do with the good will, talent and expertise that is to be found in the museum sector in this country.
I hope that, in her answer, the Minister will enable us to build on those relationships and that capacity so that we have a sense of pride in a common humanity—in a shared past and a lived present that is a source of pride rather than a source of shame, and which is rooted in respect for the bodies of our ancestors.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for raising this important issue and securing this short debate. I am an anatomist who led a large teaching and research department for 15 years. I am also a forensic anthropologist. So I understand the legislation surrounding human remains, their ownership, their display and the macabre fringe community that finds this subject of interest and value.
The law regarding both the purchase and the sale of human remains is fragmented and remains largely unchallenged until an incident occurs, which is not rare. This weakness is exploited by those who seek financial gain from the sale of the dead. Most human remains are housed in museums or licensed anatomical premises, where they are regulated or have guidelines for a code of conduct, but the legal status regarding those held privately remains ambiguous and open to both commoditisation and exploitation.
If death occurred within the last 100 years, human remains fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Act 2004 —the HTA. Therefore, those who died prior to 1925—in the lifetimes of my grandparents—do not carry such protective legislation. It is also important to note that the HTA requires consent and makes only sale for the purposes of transplantation illegal.
What about those remains that fall outside these restricted boundaries? There is a buoyant market in the sale of body parts from the deceased. In 2012, Etsy led the way by banning the sale of all human remains; eBay followed suit in 2016. Both deem it unacceptable to be responsible for the sale of any part of a human.
What is being bought? Where do these remains come from? Are they people or are they property? In English law, there is no property in a human body. However, if an element of skill or technical process is applied to the remains, they can be classified as an object of art and legally bought or sold—so there is precedent.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld a conviction against an individual who stole anatomical specimens from London’s Royal College of Surgeons on the grounds that the application of skill to create the specimens technically made them property and that, therefore, their removal was a legitimate theft. Is it not ironic that the law recognises the skills but not the propriety of the deceased person who became property?
Real human bones as objects of alleged art can be found for sale mainly online but also in curiosity or Gothic shops, where they have been turned into lamps. Skulls are carved with symbols and images or dentally altered to look like vampires. There is jewellery made out of human teeth and bones. There are skulls with their teeth removed and coffin nails drilled into each cavity. There are human bones turned into pieces for Ouija boards or chess sets, as well as wind chimes made out of human ribs. There are also—I apologise for the image—earrings made out of freeze-dried human foetuses. We are not just talking about the skeletons of adults; these are also the remains of children, babies and foetuses. It is shameful, deeply disrespectful and unacceptable to any decent person.
Where did these remains come from? There is an increase in vandalism of graveyards and forced entry into crypts and mausolea. Twenty-one skulls were stolen from an ossuary in a Kent church, with the intention to sell them on social media. Each human skull can sell for around £l,000, and if there is mummified skin or hair attached to it, it can fetch more. A child’s skull will fetch over £4,000. The majority of specimens in private hands, however, are the result of trade from impoverished societies. They may be trophies from antiquarians of the past or, more likely, originate from the medical supply trade of the last 150 years. At its peak, India was exporting over 60,000 skeletons each year for the instruction of medical and dental students. It was a lucrative colonial trade route, from remote Indian villages to the distinguished medical schools of the West. India placed a ban on sales in 1985 but, prior to that, almost every doctor and dentist trained in the UK had access to a real human skeleton that they had purchased.
Hundreds of thousands of human remains are in circulation, sourced mainly from India without consent. The means of acquiring these remains was unethical by today’s standards and, I would argue, by any standard. They were acquired by our medical schools and they have, in turn, been handed down to family members and frequently, of course, brought out to decorate at Halloween. Over time, though, people have started to become uncomfortable about the box of teaching bones in the attic, the skeleton hanging in the school biology laboratory or the articulated foot in the doctor’s surgery, and they wish to divest the responsibility for housing the remains of these unnamed deceased. Even the anatomical departments now shy away from the use of real human remains, replacing them with plastic teaching skeletons.
What should we do with all those real bones? Museums will not accept them without a licence and neither will anatomy departments. So the artists, the collectors and the macabre curiosity sellers will buy them and sell them—thousands of them. The Human Tissue Act 2004 provides no assistance for the management of these remains, even though they were purchased for the purpose of instruction in human anatomy—indeed, traders often quote the Human Tissue Act to legitimise their sale. The critical issue, as we have heard, is surely about dignity, decency and respect for the remains of those who have gone before us, and our responsibility, as the living, to speak for the dead and protect them from exploitation. How can we tolerate desecration or mutilation of human remains with impunity, when, as a society, we will send somebody to prison for 10 years for desecrating a statue?
We have a precedent in law that bans the sale of ivory but, ironically, we have no legislation that bans the sale of human remains, except for transplantation. Surely the overarching responsibility is to ensure respect for the deceased, and it should not be measured by how long they have been dead or whether we can attribute a name to their bones. I therefore hope that the Minister will take heed and help us take a global lead in instigating an outright ban on the sale and purchase of any part of a dead body. Surely it is unconscionable to do anything less. It should be a very simple process that would affect only the traders, because museums and anatomy departments do not sell human remains.
I think we should set up a task force of experienced personnel who can advise the Government and help find the best way forward. We could create an amnesty for the material that currently exists in our private collections, but I think that we must, surely, create a robust legal framework that bans the sale of the dead and addresses what is currently held in these private collections. It is no accident that when we choose to bury those we love, we trust that they will “rest in peace”. That should apply to all. We already have precedent and some guidance to work with; we just need to become international leaders, with a strong moral compass, through a simple mechanism that protects and prioritises the dignity and decency of, and respect for, the dead.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who made an extremely powerful and obviously expert speech. I will come back to her point about the chance of global leadership here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and apologise for missing the first few seconds of his speech—I will get my printer sorted out one day.
It is disappointing that there are so few speakers in this debate. In the Chamber, they have just finished a debate on the UK’s global position, and I had to drop out of that to be able to take part in this debate. But what we are debating here is important not just as a moral or a legal issue; it is an issue of major importance to the UK’s standing and place in the world and to the way we are regarded by particularly significant parts of the world—parts that it is crucial to work with to defend human rights and the rule of law when major global players seek instead to impose the rule of might and the cynical interests of corporations over the well-being of the human and more-than-human world.
I feel it is important to declare my own position here. I come from a white settler background in Australia, and I grew up on unceded lands that were stolen from the Aboriginal people. My speech will focus particularly on public ownership of human remains—the noble Baroness, Lady Black, already covered private ownership very well. In acknowledging my Australian origins, I will begin with a single tale—it is just one, and there are many more—of the genocide with which white settlers established themselves on the Australian continent. It is a story of one man and of barbarous settler behaviour.
On the land of the Bunuba people in what is now Western Australia, Jandamarra became a famous leader of the indigenous resistance. For three years, he was hunted by settlers and police, until in 1897, when he was aged about 24, he was cornered by the police, shot and killed, and his body was beheaded. His skull was sent as a colonial trophy to a private museum in a gun factory in Birmingham. The factory was demolished in the 1960s and Jandamarra’s skull has disappeared. Bunuba elders and researchers continue to this day to search for that skull. His story is very important to indigenous people and other people in Australia. It was first put on stage as a play at the 2008 Perth International Arts Festival and, more recently, it was staged with the Bunuba people by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. That is my telling of an indigenous story.
I also want to put on the record the words of another indigenous leader from another continent, with another coloniser: Mnyaka Sururu Mboro. Speaking for his ancestors, in Berlin, last year, he opened a symposium on colonial human remains with these words:
“Free us from the museums. Free us from the basements where they spray us now and then with disinfectant. Free us from the universities, from the clinics where they keep us on the shelves with the skulls of monkeys, gorillas and orangutans. Free us from the depots where we cannot breathe. Bring us back home and rest us in peace forever”.
At the conference where those words were said, he also told a story told to him by his grandmother about an acacia tree where she, with hundreds of others, was forced in 1900 to witness the hangings of 19 regional leaders, among them Mangi Meli. He was regarded as the most senior, so he was the last to die. After he was hanged, the Germans chopped off Mangi Meli’s head and took it for their colonial collections. There is no record of it after that.
Two different colonised nations, two different awful colonial powers, two remarkably similar stories. There is a huge issue there, which has already been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. He focused this debate on remains such as those of indigenous peoples, and I note that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations has said that it should become an offence to sell ancestral remains or put them on public display without consent, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng set out some other legal steps that should also be taken. The APPG rightly says that that would be a modest form of reparation for past wrongs—the kind of wrongs that I was telling the tale of—together with the return of the remains, whenever possible, with appropriate treatment by the communities from which they were taken.
Rightly, the APPG also points to the issue of Egyptian mummies. Perhaps, until we heard the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we might have thought that we had made some progress since the days when mummies were ground up for medicines or even to colour paint. There was a colour of paint called Mummy Brown, made from the flesh of mummies mixed with white pitch and myrrh, from the mid-18th century into the 20th century.
It is worth noting that last year the Chau Chak Wing Museum at the University of Sydney—I declare an interest as it is one of my former sites of study—decided to remove fragments of mummies from public display, and has been seeking to rename its so-called mummy room to something more respectful. They removed a mummified foot that had been donated in an old biscuit tin, the preserved feet and partial shins of a child, a partially bandaged adult head and a mummified hand that had been donated in a separate biscuit tin. As the curator there said, the ancient Egyptians are not around as a people today to object to this disrespectful treatment, but that does not mean that we should not look more broadly than just at those remains for whom there are identifiable peoples who are still able to speak for them, such as the voice I quoted from Berlin. It is not just about those remains; we should be thinking about all remains.
As I started off by saying, this is a geopolitical issue and an issue of reparations. Most foundationally of all, it is an issue about what kind of society we want to be. It is not about the remains at all; it is about us and what we are like. If we are going to be respectful of human life of the past, the present and the future; what is in our museums; what our children visit and view; what our scholars study; and how they are presented with the past, that has an impact on the nature of our society today. We often hear talk about being world-leading. If we were to take the steps outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we would be world-leading and we would also be taking steps to improve our own society.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this important debate. I will speak to the two issues posed by this Question for Short Debate separately—namely, the sale in public auctions; and subsequently the display and retention in public collections.
As it stands, businesses and auction rooms decide whether to prohibit the sales of human body parts, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Human Tissue Act 2004. There are some gaps in that Act, in that it bans commercial dealings of human tissue only in the context of medical transplantation, rather than sales as artefacts. However, in many cases—not all, but many—where a business is perceived to be in the wrong when selling human body parts, the solution is that they withdraw their auction lot. In fact, we saw this in October 2024, when an auction house in Oxfordshire withdrew human and ancestral remains from a sale following criticism from native groups and museums.
The director of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, which holds such items in its collection and is in dialogue with communities over the future of such remains, said that she was “outraged” at the proposed auction and praised the decision to remove the items. She said that the sale was “ethically really problematic” for many communities worldwide, and went on to say:
“The fact these objects were taken is really painful, and the fact that they were being put on sale is really disrespectful and inconsiderate”.
This is a live, worked example of challenging constructively and the complainants were indeed within their rights to do so. It illustrates that, generally speaking, the sensible free market appears to be operating with a measured approach and in an appropriate way that does not necessarily need to come under closer regulatory control. I quote Tom Keane, an auctioneer and valuer and the owner of the Swan auction house:
“We looked into it, we respected the views expressed and we withdrew the items”.
However, I very much take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, that there are clearly some extremely disturbing practices in other sale markets, which obviously need to be addressed.
On the display of human body parts, I highlight the great importance of museums in their educational function. Museums preserve historical artefacts, and I would hope that their trustees are sensitive to the subject of displaying human body parts; their intentions should be honourable. Through the display and retention of human body parts, we learn the lessons of the past. The British Museum, for example, has a truly magnificent collection of mummified bodies and Egyptian art, inspiring everyone, young and old, to learn about the pharaohs, the curse of Tutankhamun, Cleopatra and, most recently, Thutmose II. Through these displays and exhibitions, future Egyptologists learn about ancient burial practices and techniques.
The British Museum holds and cares for more than 6,000 human remains. They mostly comprise skeletal remains but also include bog bodies and intentionally or naturally mummified bodies, as well as objects made either wholly or in part from human remains. The key phrase here is “cares for”, whether it is the curator, the learning and participation team, front of house, the conservation or restoration technician, the museum technician or a fundraiser. While I cannot speak for everyone involved, I hope that the majority of those individuals treat body parts with the extreme respect and courtesy they rightly deserve as playing a part in the rich and varied history of the past. Losing this reminder of history could have a detrimental effect on people’s learning about the time it represents.
I quote a British Museum spokesperson, who said:
“The museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Human Tissue Act 2004, which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity”.
Most importantly, many museums, such as the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, are reaching out to communities whose human remains they display, so that the communities themselves can let the museums know how they would like those museums to care for them, or whether they would like them to be repatriated.
Finally, I highlight by way of an example—we have many different arguments here—the removal of a mummy from Spain’s National Archaeological Museum. The 11th-century remains of a 40 year-old chief of the Guanche, the indigenous group who populated the archipelago before the Spanish arrived, was moved from display in Madrid in response to new decolonisation laws. The president of the Government of Tenerife denounced the mummy’s removal to a warehouse as “inadmissible”, describing the mummy as
“a symbol of our ancestral culture … with an incalculable historical and cultural value for our people”.
Obviously, this is a subject that must be treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity. We have heard arguments on both sides of the coin. It is our wish that we try to find a workable solution that honours the views and feelings of those directly affected by this issue while attempting to retain the educational value, where appropriate, of any items by mutual consent between museums and communities. Clearly, work also needs to be done on what is acceptable for all parties involved so that everyone is happy with the outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for securing this debate on this sensitive and hugely important topic.
I begin by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister who, speaking in the other place last year, declared the sale of human body parts, regardless of their age and origin, to be abhorrent. I am personally appalled by any disrespectful treatment of human remains and agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy Prime Minister’s view. As my noble friend said, this issue is about basic human decency. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, I genuinely cannot see how we have more stringent law around the sale of ivory—the briefing I got mentioned birds’ nests and birds’ eggs—than around human remains. It feels completely out of step with where we should be as a society.
I know the Museums Minister met with Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP this morning to talk about this topic. The Secretary of State and I have also spoken, and I have read with interest the report Laying Ancestors to Rest, published by the APPG for Afrikan Reparations yesterday. Its recommendations will inform the Government’s consideration of the issues raised today and is very timely. It is clear that the practices that prompted this debate impact many people, with the potential to cause significant distress and offence to communities across the globe. As a result, this topic should be given the respect and attention it deserves.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the number of speakers in this debate, I point out that the time allowed for speakers as a result of the number of speakers means that noble Lords have had more time, which feels more appropriate than a more rushed debate. I was in the youth debate immediately before and people had three minutes each; this feels much more appropriate so that we can go into a bit more depth on this important issue. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is about the type of society we want to be.
On the issues in my noble friend’s Question, I will discuss the treatment of human remains, first in museums and secondly at public auction, before turning to what I hope are some helpful next steps we will take as a Government in the coming weeks. I apologise that some of this reflects the current position we are in and not necessarily where people might wish us to be.
Although I acknowledge that museums are operationally independent of the Government and that decisions relating to their collections are for their trustees to make, I expect them to be respectful in the way they care for and display human remains. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boateng that this country should lead in relation to best practice—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Black. Arts Council England clearly requires museums to abide by the long-established code of ethics, overseen by the Museums Association, as a prerequisite for museum accreditation. All museums in England are able to remove human remains from their collections. National museums in England, which otherwise have legal restrictions on the disposal of items in their collections, were permitted by the Human Tissue Act 2004 to remove human remains from collections, provided that they are reasonably believed to be the remains of a person who died fewer than 1,000 years ago.
My noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced the Pitt Rivers Museum, which has, for example, taken steps to remove all human remains from public display and is working to contact descendant communities to agree ways forward. As noble Lords will be aware, DCMS issued guidance for the care of human remains in museums in 2005. This encourages museums to establish an advisory framework to assist in determining repatriation claims and provides a set of criteria that need to be taken into account in assessing claims. I read this guidance this morning, and it is clearly 20 years old; the world has changed substantially, as yesterday’s APPG report makes clear. It is also clear that, sometimes, incomplete collections and databases make it really difficult to know what and where human remains are held—which, in this age of digitalisation, seemed surprising to me, although I am not an expert.
My noble friend Lord Boateng referenced the British Museum and the issue of the tattooed Māori heads. DCMS Ministers regularly meet with the British Museum’s chair and directors, and I will ensure that this is raised with them, as well as other issues raised during the debate.
As I mentioned earlier, the majority of museums in England would be able to return mummies and mummified remains. However, the cut-off date in legislation is currently a thousand years from the date the relevant sections came into force. Although many museums do undertake extensive and detailed work while looking at the return of human remains, documentation establishing the provenance of some human remains is often incomplete, lacking detail or incorrect. As a result, the research and identification process is a challenging and resource-intensive task. I am not underplaying the importance of that task; it is a vital piece of work to ensure that the human remains are treated with appropriate respect.
Since the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004, a number of successful repatriations of human remains have been made. For example, the Natural History Museum has returned the remains of just under 600 individual people to a number of countries, including to communities in Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. They are continuing with detailed provenance investigations to inform potential future returns.
I understand that museums often hold repatriation ceremonies when returning ancestral remains, to try to ensure that the communities involved feel that they have an opportunity for healing and to honour their ancestors. We are in regular contact with relevant museums and we support them in their work to return human remains. This includes recent meetings to discuss the concerns raised, the communities impacted and recommendations for further action.
The topic of the sale of human remains via auction houses, online or by any other means was spoken to at length by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome. As she made clear, while the Human Tissue Authority created by the Human Tissue Act in 2004 regulates the public display of human remains, it does not cover sales or purchases, as the Act does not regulate the sale of human remains that were not intended for transplantation.
Over the course of the week since I started preparing for this debate, I have been appalled by the type of objects that are readily available online. In my view, it is appalling and unacceptable. UK auction houses have to set their own standards and best practice in this area, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Act as it stands. As DCMS officials have already relayed to the sector’s representative bodies, the Government expect all organisations and individuals to act appropriately and respectfully in relation to these sales.
I turn briefly to the UK art market—this is not art, in my opinion. However, we have one of the largest art markets in the world and play host to some of the most renowned institutions for the study and practice of art. This Government are committed to maintaining this reputation and want us to be a global centre of expertise, both in arts and in culture.
Although the sale of human remains is rejected by representatives of the UK art market, recent events, including, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in Oxfordshire, have demonstrated that some auction houses are involved in the sale of body parts. This is hugely concerning. This Government call on all auction houses to scrutinise their activities rigorously and for anyone trading in human remains to consider very carefully the ethical implications of this deeply disturbing activity for those communities impacted.
As a Government, we must also consider how we can work together to address these issues, which cut across multiple departments. The Health Secretary met with Bell Riberio-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, in December, following concerns she raised in the other House on the topic of the sale of human remains online and via auction. In the last year, and again over the past few days, DCMS officials have raised the sale of human remains with the British Art Market Federation, the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers and the Human Tissue Authority, as well as discussing the display and care of human remains from indigenous and other peoples in public collections with representatives from the museums sector.
We are now in a position to set up a cross-Whitehall meeting of relevant Ministers and policy officials to discuss a range of options, including legislative change, to prohibit the abhorrent sale of human remains and to further protect the dignity of those remains belonging to indigenous peoples.
I once again thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for bringing this topic to my attention and the attention of my department and the Government.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—she has given a very encouraging response to the Question—will she address the question of a possible meeting between indigenous communities, when they visit the United Kingdom in June and October, and her and other Ministers, because that would be hugely encouraging to this conversation? It must be said that when in the past they have met representatives of the British Museum trustees, they have not returned with an answer that was acceptable to those indigenous communities, and it would help them to meet with Ministers.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was just coming to the point that I would be very happy to invite my noble friend to meet me, or another Minister from DCMS, to continue this conversation. I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting of the type he has requested. I am happy to commit to a meeting myself. I will pass on the request to other Ministers, as is appropriate in my view, rather than committing my colleagues to specific meetings, but I am very keen to work with him to discuss pathways forward to address some of the hugely disturbing and distressing practices discussed today, which should be for the past, not the present day.
Biodiversity and Conservation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grayling
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their strategy for biodiversity and conservation.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to launch this debate today. I am going to bring together a number of themes that I followed when I was in the other place, and which I have been very committed to continuing here. I hope that the number of noble Lords here this afternoon indicates to the Minister and her colleagues just how passionately many of us feel about getting biodiversity and conservation right.
I want to start by pushing the Minister on a subject that I worked pretty hard on in the last Parliament. Some progress had been made, but not enough, on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a way of fishing that is devastating to the creatures and ecology of the seabed. It does immense damage, and it is extraordinary that it is still permitted in many of our marine protected areas. The public would expect those areas to be protected but they are not; they are hugely exposed to some of the most industrial fishing techniques. Boats come from other countries with vast nets that drag along the seabed, causing damage to fish, other sea creatures and the ecology of seabed, whether it is plants or corals. We were not able to address this while we were a member of the European Union, but we have been able to since we left, freed from the rules of the common fisheries policy. It is an issue on which we had started to make progress. The Dogger Bank, for example, was one of the first marine protected areas to see a proper ban on bottom trawling, and I very much believe that that work needs to continue.
That work needs to continue carefully, because I am acutely aware that there are a number of communities around the United Kingdom that use small fishing boats—local people with local livelihoods—and I would not want to see those damaged or destroyed. But of course, a small trawler coming out of a port in Devon, for example, does not do anything like the damage that is done by a huge industrial trawler, so it is very possible to shape rules that leave smaller boats the flexibility to operate as they always have done in local fisheries. Frankly, in reality, those communities have always wanted to protect their surrounding marine ecology, because that is what delivers their livelihoods. However, these large vessels should not be coming into our marine protected areas, and I have two requests for the Minister today.
First, the previous Government made a start, and I was pleased with it, but they did not move fast enough, and I challenged them on a number of occasions to get a move on and extend this ban to the other marine protected areas. I very much hope that the Minister and her colleagues will do that expeditiously, because it is fundamental to our marine ecology.
I turn now to an issue that I hope the Minister will take up with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office. There is no doubt that, as part of the Government’s much-advocated reset of relations with the European Union, we will come under pressure to grant back substantial fishing rights to other countries. Without judging the rights or wrongs of that, it should not include rolling back environmental protections. I know there are those who wish to fish for sand-eels in the Dogger Bank, but to go back to that kind of fishing would do huge damage to what is a very precious ecology. I do not believe that any of us, whether a Brexiteer or a remainer, want to take a step back on environmental standards. To walk away from the protections that have begun to be put in place as part of that negotiation would, in my judgment, be a huge mistake. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues to make sure that that does not happen.
That is my first priority: that we get on with the protections that are needed for our marine protected areas and make sure we do not step back from them. The second point—which is very topical this week—is around the issue of biodiversity and development. This is always a difficult balance to find. There are safeguards that have been put in place. One of the things I pushed for in the last Government, and which I am glad was put in place and would ask the Minister to make sure is protected, was a safeguard against the ability of a developer to clear a site before they apply for planning consent. I suspect those of us who have been in the House of Commons have all experienced this—a developer buys a small plot, completely bulldozes it and gets rid of any nature on the site before they even get planning consent. There have been very real examples of serious ecological damage being done. There was a case in the south-west—I used to be the hedgehog species champion in the other place—of a large number of hedgehogs that were killed by industrial strimming of a site to clear it ahead of development before planning consent could even be granted. So, whatever comes out of the planning Bill, I ask the Minister not to compromise on that.
There is another particularly worrying concern in the planning Bill. Departments do not always read across what others are doing, as I know, so I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention. I cannot believe it is an intentional consequence of what has been brought forward this week, but it is a real consequence. In a system in which each developer has to pay a fixed tariff into a nature restoration fund for a particular type of site, with no flexibility in it, a developer with a good record of trying to look after the environment, who would spend money on a nicely landscaped pond, wooded areas and amenities among the housing, has to pay the same tariff as somebody who comes and bulldozes the site and builds over everything. That makes no sense at all. Every developer would then have the incentive just to bulldoze. I am sure that is not what the Government intend, but as the measure comes forward, I would ask her to talk to her colleagues and officials and see whether that can be addressed. None of us would want that situation; we want developers to behave in the most responsible way possible. We want to see a proper balance, so that we see proper investment in nature and developers treating nature sensitively.
There is one other big question around conservation that emerges from this week. None of us really understands where biodiversity net gain fits alongside the new systems being put in place. Biodiversity net gain was one of the things that I felt was a positive step forward taken by the last Government. It takes away from the developer to ignore the nature side of things. There are now established structures in place that not only put money into compensation funds—that is one avenue—but invest in specific projects around the country. I do not think it is clear yet—and it is certainly causing anxiety—what the role of biodiversity net gain is alongside the new funds that are being put in place. We have legally binding targets for 2030. The Government’s idea of having funds that can be reinvested in nature and facilitate development without ignoring the nature issues is potentially beneficial. We will debate the detail of that as the legislation comes through the other House and this House. But it is important to explain early on precisely how that fits together with what is already there.
There are two or three points to wrap up with. On the farming front, there is obviously a significant question around the changes we have seen this week. We must not see a situation where farmers lose the incentive to look after their land in the most nature-positive way. Clearly, we want them to grow food successfully and effectively. I am a passionate believer in regenerative farming, for example. The Minister’s department needs to take great care that, in dealing with some of the funding challenges that I know it has, it does not disincentivise or halt investments that would otherwise take place.
There are also issues in the planning system that could be smoothed out. For example, at the end of the previous Parliament, we heard a lot from farmers who said, “I’d quite like to address my water issue by building a small reservoir on my farm”, but the planning complexities in doing something like that—even though it could help solve some of the pollution problems in nearby rivers—are enormously difficult.
Finally, I have two quick requests of the Minister. First, the work on deforestation and forest risk products has not yet been completed and finished properly. We very much want to see that happen quickly. Secondly, there is a piece of unfinished work on ensuring that the due diligence principle also applies to financial institutions that invest in forest risk areas. I would be grateful if the Minister and her colleagues in the Government could make sure that that happens as well.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for opening this debate, which I very much welcome. Following on from his many detailed points, I am going to speak more broadly about the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, launched in Rome last week.
I am going to speak broadly because, to me, if we have this strategy, at least we know the direction in which we are going. In any strategy to reverse and halt nature loss, we have to be clear on three things: first, the aspirational outcomes; secondly, the actions that we will take to achieve those outcomes; and thirdly, a way of measuring progress towards achieving them. I believe that, in the UK, we currently have the first and second in place through domestic legislation and international commitments, as well as the policies that they have borne, but we are still a long way off the third—namely, measuring progress towards achieving these outcomes and understanding the most critical question in saving nature: what works?
In the 120 years since the first nature reserves and national parks were created—we have been trying to do this for 120 years, so it is quite easy to look at this as an historical timeline—three different strategic aspirations associated with reversing and halting nature loss have developed, all of which are in use today. The first aspiration, which emerged around 120 years ago, was to save and protect the most rare, vulnerable, threatened and iconic aspects of nature, be they species, habitats or landscapes. Historically, this was done by creating national parks and AONBs; the modern equivalent is absolutely our 30 by 30 commitment. That is what we are trying to do. In the past two years, many statutory instruments have come through under the Environment Act. We know where we are with them. Broadly speaking, we also know how we are doing; in most cases, it is not very well, but at least we can measure how we are doing.
A second framing emerged in the 1990s. This had a strategic aspiration to reverse and halt the loss of nature by conserving and restoring the ecological processes that underpin biodiversity. It was argued that, without these, we would not have thriving, resilient nature. Here, I am talking about rewilding, restoring large herbivores as ecosystem engineers—beavers, even—and creating wildlife corridors. However, as far as I can tell, we still do not have in the UK the metrics for measuring the success of the measures that we have put in place.
I give noble Lords one example: the rewilded Knepp estate. I do not how many noble Lords have been there but, if you visit it, you really understand what a thriving, biodiverse environment looks like, as well as how we have halted nature loss and restored after its decline. However, if the estate’s success is measured using the BNG tool and/or the species abundance list, as we are supposed to do and as people have done, it comes out as a low-quality habitat full of obnoxious weeds. So we do not have a way of measuring it.
The third and final framing came out in the early 2000s, with the strategic ambition to halt the loss of and restore nature that provides important ecosystem services that are essential to human well-being. This includes things such as creating wetlands to clear nitrates from rivers and creating a carbon market. Policies associated with this include ELMS and, in cities, policies focused on restoring green spaces for people’s health and wealth-being. We have signed up to this aspiration. Target 11 of the global biodiversity framework is:
“Restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people”.
However, as far as I can tell, we are not measuring that either. We have no metrics in place to look at this issue.
We have all of these strategies, ideas and aspirations in our most recent UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is great—it was celebrated in Rome last week—but, at present, we are simply unable to determine how two out of three of these aspirations are working. That is a big problem. I urge the Minister to come up with new ways of measuring progress on those two framings because, anecdotally, two of the ecological processes—ELMS rewilding and corridors—are working a lot better right now than protected areas. So we really need to understand what works and how we should move forward.
I have one final point. I know that I am over the time limit, so I will soon be quiet, but I really welcome the Government’s statement this morning on AI. It is a tool that we should be using in nature, such as using datasets to work out what works. We should use this as an opportunity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on getting this debate. I am sad to say that nature does not seem to play much of a role in Labour’s aspirations for its term of office. The Prime Minister cannot stand tree-huggers like me and Rachel Reeves talks as if she wants to squash frogs and newts under the wheels of progress. It does not look good at the moment. Lots of people enjoy the countryside, litter-pick and clear paths. I do not think that they understand where Labour is going regarding biodiversity and nature; they see this as an issue that Labour cannot connect with.
Only yesterday, riverside campaigners discovered that, under new rules proposed by this Government, the precious waterways that they seek to clean up and protect would be unlikely ever to achieve bathing water status and thereby win the extra testing and safeguards of the Environment Agency. If these rivers are not safe for people, they are definitely not safe for wildlife. They are not great for fish and all the other ecosystems there. This is only a small issue, I guess, but this Government are aiming to undermine attempts by campaigners to use the EU-derived Bathing Water Regulations as a driver to clean up our toxic rivers, which of course suffer from sewage pollution, agricultural run-off and urban run-off.
Another proposed change by the Government is in their Planning and Infrastructure Bill. They want to move away from individual ecological assessments in the planning process and look at big plans, with lots of money being spent on nature somewhere else. This could inflict significant damage on UK biodiversity, as the developer will be allowed to erase biodiversity in one place as long as they do something that looks good in another place. I saw this at work when I was a councillor. It is a scam. Nature always loses out. Labour is moving in absolutely the wrong direction. Of course, this approach would violate international and domestic, legally binding commitments to restore and protect nature.
I want houses built and I want our energy system upgraded to cope with a massive increase in renewable energy. I also want those houses and renewable energy sources to be owned by local communities, not by developers who slow the whole system down. However, this Government appear to want to bypass the communities that protect their local landscapes and their rivers and biodiversity. When we are already one of the most nature-deprived countries in Europe, I am worried that the changes to the planning system in favour of developers—as well as the other backward steps that this Government are planning to take—will make things much worse. This is not what I expected from a Labour Government, and I do not think it is what a lot of Labour voters expected either.
I have two questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the urgency in tackling toxic pollution continues against the ongoing threat to our coastlines from underreported spills from oil and gas developments in the North Sea? We really are not protecting our marine protected areas. As I said earlier this week in the Chamber, only 5% of marine protected areas are actually protected, while the others are vulnerable to bottom trawling.
Secondly, the tanker collision is another shocking reminder of the polluting power of big oil, so I am curious as to why the Government have gone ahead with the last round of offshore oil licences in and around marine protected areas. I am more than happy to help Labour in any way if it would like some of our Green Party policies, which are so superb at protecting nature and biodiversity.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grayling for enabling us to discuss this important subject. Nature-based solutions and the enhancement of our biodiversity are our greatest ally in tackling climate change and mitigating flood risk, yet we are in the midst of an ecological crisis both in the UK and globally. Over the past 50 years, the UK has lost nearly half of its biodiversity, making it one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is not just an environmental issue; it is an economic and social one, where the integrity of our natural environment should be enmeshed with the implementation of policy in order to support our food security, public health and economic stability.
The introduction of biodiversity net gain is a step in the right direction, requiring developers to leave nature in a better state than they found it. Biodiversity net gain is already starting to drive investment in habitat restoration. However, we must ensure that it delivers real, measurable improvements on the ground. That means robust enforcement, clear biodiversity metrics and a genuine focus on local nature recovery. This is not about box-ticking exercises or distant offsetting. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Grayling said about needing clarity on this subject.
Local nature recovery projects are another crucial piece of the puzzle. These projects give communities the tools to restore their own landscapes, whether through tree-planting, wetland creation or species reintroduction. However, ambition needs funding, which is why the Nature Restoration Fund must be expanded and made easier to access. Right now, too many projects are struggling to get off the ground due to bureaucracy or short-term funding cycles. If we are serious about reversing biodiversity loss, we need to match policy ambition with financial backing.
Of course, public funds alone cannot deliver the scale of restoration needed. The private sector must play a bigger role. For that to happen, though, we need the right financial incentives. One of the most effective ways to unlock private investment is to integrate the UK Woodland Carbon Code and the peatland code into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. This would give businesses a clear, regulated pathway to invest in nature-based carbon sequestration, ensuring that woodland creation and peatland restoration received long-term financial support. At a time when public funding is tight, this is a market-driven solution that could deliver major environmental and economic benefits.
Beyond our borders, the UK must continue to play a leadership role in global nature finance. At the Cali COP, we made real progress by securing a deal on resource mobilisation and launching the Cali Fund for nature. This new funding mechanism is designed to direct financial resources into biodiversity projects worldwide, particularly in countries on the front line of ecological collapse.
Here at home, there are further steps that we can take to drive nature recovery. Much of the debate is at the broader scale of biodiversity environment level but within our natural world are populations and individual sentient animals. We must develop and manage our natural world. Here I acknowledge the important Bill that my noble friend Lady Helic will bring forward in due course on a close season for hares. I urge action as soon as possible to resolve the long-standing inconsistency in our laws for animals. A close season for hares is long overdue: the shocking screams of hares as they are shot during driven shoots in February, at a time when does are pregnant and lactating, is an anathema to an animal-loving country.
I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to this debate.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow and hear from my noble friend. I declare that I am a long-time supporter of and campaigner for the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on securing this debate and giving his cracking rallying cry at the start; it has been a fantastic debate thus far.
I want to start on a positive, as I always try to do when it is this Minister. I congratulate her because, finally, someone has delivered beavers. They have been released and, what is more, they were released on my birthday. I am very grateful for that present.
In a Question the other day, another of our furry friends was referred to. It is a heartfelt joy to see my noble friend Lady Helic speaking in this debate. I do not wish to steal her thunder—I could not do so even if I tried—but, as has been noted, she has a Private Member’s Bill on a close season for hares. Having suffered significant population decline where their wider habitats are threatened, they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. As has been said, the period is to reflect the breeding season when leverets—the baby hares—are dependent on their mothers and will not survive if the mother is killed for fun. Other parts of the country have this measure in place, as do vast swathes of the EU. I appreciate that it is for the Whips to decide when that Bill will appear for Second Reading but I would like—as we heard in the Chamber the other day, I am not alone in wanting to see something happen—to put in a plug: for those who have concerns, let us have that debate.
As has already been said, there is, as ever, concern about the future of British farming, not least with the recent announcements on SFI. I want to sense check something, because the Government, when they announced the ending of the scheme, said that it was successful—more so than ever before, they said—yet it appears to be too successful and was immediately scrapped. I do not quite understand that and I want to just check if the Government still believe in nature, not to mention farmers who are already feeling immense pressure.
Another issue, which has already been covered by other speakers, is bottom trawling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I find it bizarre that we allow this practice in marine protected areas and still call them that. We seem to be in a position in which we say these areas are protected because we are able to monitor their activity, even when the majority of the MPAs see the activity take place. If the notion of bulldozing does not make Governments move—and I use the word “Governments” because it happened under us, I am afraid to say—then what about the economics? One report said there could be a benefit of between £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion over 20 years if the sites were protected from all damaging activity. Can the Minister say whether there has been any assessment of the benefits to sustainable fishers from the UK banning bottom trawling? Can the Minister give reassurances that we will not cave to the ramblings from nos amis français, will not retreat in the so-called EU reset and will learn from the Greeks, who are seen to be much more ahead and stopping it completely?
I will make a broader final point about nature and, crucially, rewilding. In a few days, it will be World Rewilding Day. We can make a difference on nature and biodiversity, but it is not only because we should feel better about ourselves—it is real. It is jobs and growth, health and food, it can educate and inform, and everyone can play their part, because nature is our ally. It is why beavers, rewiggling rivers and putting in nature help tackle the effects of weather, but also what we do to our country. It is about finding a way for man and nature to work together. I know we will study this when the planning Bill is discussed, but I am frustrated to hear endlessly some Ministers say that nature is blocking the building of homes—that, in effect, we cannot have both. The two are totally compatible and can prosper together.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on introducing this debate and I thank my noble friends for supporting my Private Member’s Bill, but above all for supporting hares. I recognise the Minister’s personal commitment to biodiversity and conservation, and I really welcome it. I thank her for all our conversations; I have walked away positive, but I do not know whether we are going to get anywhere. However, I thank her very much.
Global biodiversity is in freefall, driven by habitat destruction, intensive agriculture and unsustainable land management. The State of Nature report has, sadly, identified Britain as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. This is a matter of national heritage, ecological stability, and rural sustainability.
I commend the previous Government for pioneering the global biodiversity framework and embedding legally binding targets through the Environment Act 2021. I also welcome the current Government’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but if we are serious about halting biodiversity loss we must focus on specific, meaningful actions. That is why I too urge the Government to address the plight of one of our most iconic yet vulnerable species: the hare.
Hare populations have declined by over 85% since the late 19th century, decimated by modern farming, habitat loss and unsustainable shooting practices. Despite this alarming decline, this is the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season, meaning that they can be shot legally throughout the year. This is both an animal welfare and a biodiversity issue. Hares are not just part of our national heritage; they play a crucial role in biodiversity. Their grazing habits promote plant diversity and their foraging improves soil health.
The Born Free Foundation has highlighted the suffering inflicted on hares, which others have already mentioned, particularly when they are killed during the breeding seasons. Leverets, which are entirely dependent on their mothers for survival, are left to slowly starve to death or fall victim to predators. Current protections are fragmented and ineffective, and voluntary codes, although welcome, have failed to prevent the indiscriminate killing of hares.
Like many others, I believe that a statutory close season would bring England and Wales into line with the best practices elsewhere, ensuring that biodiversity commitments are not undermined by avoidable cruelty. Furthermore, studies show that introducing a close season, as elsewhere in Europe or in Scotland, has already had an impact on improving hare numbers. A close season would not hinder farmers but enhance clarity and consistency, licences could still be granted to prevent crop damage, and the legal framework would provide better enforcement against the brutal and illegal practice of hare coursing, which farmers have long endured.
With that in mind, will the Government introduce a statutory closed season for hares? Will they commit to a review of the current regulatory framework to ensure consistency across all game species? If we are serious about restoring biodiversity, we cannot allow inconsistency to undermine our ambitions. A close season for hares would be a small but vital step—practical, proportionate and long overdue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, bracken is a plant that deserves admiration. It is thought to be largely unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs and it has been found on every continent except, to date, Antarctica. It is found across the UK, from a garden to an almost inaccessible hillside.
Bracken supports specialist flora and fauna and is welcome as part of a mosaic of vegetation types. However, it can out-compete other vegetation due to several biological adaptations. If there is no effective management, this can result in dense monoculture stands with the loss of sensitive and diverse species—which, in comparison to the mosaic, are biological deserts. The Lake District is an example of an area which is suffering from this, but it is far from alone.
Currently, there is no reliable estimate of the area of bracken in the UK and of whether, and by how much, it is increasing. Farmers and land managers were able to use Asulox, which was an effective control method, especially as it was possible to apply it from a helicopter. With its withdrawal from the UK market, they believe the plant is spreading at a rate of up to 5% each year, and the many problems associated with bracken are mounting.
Bracken can block access for walkers. It reduces the amount of land available for livestock grazing and nature, especially for red-listed species such as curlew, lapwing and raptors. It provides a habitat for sheep ticks and tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, which are increasingly impacting on people, livestock and wildlife. Bracken is highly toxic and there are strong links to certain types of human and mammalian cancers. The toxic exudates from bracken risk polluting water and drinking water supplies. Bracken is a source of fuel for damaging wildfires, and in the right conditions burns at a high temperature with a long flame length, producing a highly irritating deep yellow smoke with carcinogenic and cyanide properties. Limestone pavements, a priority habitat, can be damaged, as can any underground archaeology or structure, as Historic England warns us.
Successive Governments failed to grasp the problems of this pernicious weed because Asulox was available. Now an opportunity presents itself to assess all the problems scientifically and holistically. Farmers and land managers will be only too willing to help with the delivery of an approach that keeps bracken in check, and this will help achieve the Government’s goal in the 25-year environment plan of
“creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network”.
However, farmers and land managers need to be given the necessary information, tools and support.
The proposed UK strategic bracken framework is welcome so far as it goes, but it risks looking at the problem only from the nature conservation angle, which is not good enough. As bracken is a hugely and surprisingly complicated subject, a cross-sector approach to its future management is essential. Only the Government will enable that. Therefore, will the Minister convene a conference of all interested groups so that the many issues can be addressed and placed in context, and an effective way forward identified?
I thank my noble friend for arranging this debate: it is hugely important. We will lose a lot of expertise on this particular subject when the hereditary Peers go, but I just ask the Government, when they consider anything to do with the environment, to please base it on sound science rather than emotion.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, what an interesting debate, from beavers to bracken. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for bringing this essential debate and for raising the important issues of bottom trawling, biodiversity net gain and forest risk products.
Biodiversity is the heartbeat of the planet, and famously we are one of the most nature-deprived nations in the world, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned. One in six of our species is indeed threatened with extinction. Five years on from our 30 by 2030 commitments, we have not really made progress, as just 2.93% of land and 9.92% of our oceans is protected.
My worry is, despite the strong words in Labour’s manifesto of a “nature emergency”—I welcome progress on some issues—whether we are really seeing the robust action, the legislative requirements and the funds to meet the monumental scale of the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to raise the issue of the mixed messages from Labour on growth.
We welcome the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but how does it fit with the overall government strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is absolutely right to raise the issue of strategy in this debate and ask what works. I understand Labour’s need for a short, sharp review, but this is separate from the environmental improvement plan, and, outside that framework, it is largely powerless and will soon be outdated. Will it be incorporated into the EIP? The Wildlife and Countryside Link says it is not clear whether the actions in this plan will add up to achieving the UK’s global nature commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection is clear that we are largely off-track, and the scale and the pace of the effort is not sufficient. The OEP’s recently published progress report is also very damaging. When will the Government respond to the OEP’s annual report?
We call on the Government to commit to incorporating all international biodiversity targets in the revised environmental improvement plan. This should include allocation of responsibility for delivery, along with evidence-based policies needed to achieve that delivery.
We need rapidly co-ordinated, properly funded, large-scale action. The polluter must pay. The Government must bring stronger legal protections and must provide the resources required for the Environment Agency to do the work it needs to do. We are running out of time. Fly-tipping, plastic pollution, sewage, forever chemicals, habitat loss and overfishing—the list goes on. The rapidly changing climate is compounding these problems. The window is closing fast, and we must do more to meet our biodiversity targets and commitments.
I conclude with some key points. Budgets are essential. I am particularly worried about growing pressures on the Defra budget, particularly for nature-based solutions. We must get nature-friendly farming right. We need our farmers; we must support them. They need certainty and reliability from this Government. The cut to the SFI budget, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, does not improve these relations.
When will we get a chemicals convention? We also need to stand up for climate science. The UK Government need to lead the world on this and stand up to Trump: stand up for truth.
Fly-tipping is an issue I have raised before, but when can we expect some legislation on this issue? It is blighting our countryside and is out of control. We need more on plastic pollution to encourage the circular economy. I welcome Labour’s commitment on woodlands and tree planting, but that has to happen.
I come to my final two points. Access to nature is vital, particularly in our cities. I call on the Government to include people, work with civil society and bring in citizen science; not only is it cost effective, it just makes sense.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a farmer, forestry developer, landowner, owner of fishing rights and investor in Circular FX, Cecil and Agricarbon, which provide services to the natural capital industry. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this timely and important debate on the Government’s strategy for biodiversity and conservation. As Conservatives, we hold a deep-seated belief in our responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural heritage entrusted to us; that is why we brought forward the Environment Act 2021.
I must bring up the dreadful news on SFIs from Defra this week, as it impacts directly on the topic of this short debate: we expect farmers to deliver most of these improvements. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, but this latest news adds many more who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? What impact will that have, in turn, on compliance with the legally binding commitment, delivered in our Environment Act, to deliver the 30% improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery? If incentives to benefit nature restoration and biodiversity largely target action by farmers and landowners, how can pausing them help?
The Government have committed to a nature restoration levy, which will possibly—I hope we will hear—replace the current biodiversity net gain system that we created. We on these Benches have grave concerns about its creation, as articulated by my noble friend Lord Grayling, and also about placing its administration with Natural England rather than with local authorities. How can the Minister reassure us that this will deliver better outcomes for nature?
Atlantic salmon populations have collapsed by over 75% in our rivers over the last 50 years, as evidenced by reported rod catches, and despite almost all fish being caught and released over recent years. The Atlantic salmon is a crucial indicator of the health of our river catchments and it is now on the IUCN red list. What specific measures will the Minister take to address water quality, pollution, selective restocking and habitat degradation in our rivers to support its and other species’ recovery? I urge the Minister to identify the salmon as a keystone species for biodiversity and nature restoration efforts. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, might agree with this strategy, given her comments on water quality. I note my noble friend Lady Helic’s comment that the hare is probably also a worthy inclusion as a keystone species to gauge the success of nature restoration.
I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness: bracken can be a scourge, and it is depressing that its presence is so widespread in locations where we should really be planting trees in order to fulfil our strategy of restoring our woodland cover. My noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned the renegotiation of our TCA with the EU prior to mid-2026. I agree with his environmental comments and add that we also expect this Government to negotiate a deal that delivers complete zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone for British fishermen.
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions, and as my noble friend Lord Courtown rightly highlights, we need more private sector finance to replace the public purse. It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand what role she sees for private sector finance to replace public finance in biodiversity and conservation improvements. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply to this short debate and the many questions posed, in writing if necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, just said, there have been many questions and I have only 12 minutes to respond. I shall do my best but will of course write with any outstanding remarks that I need to make. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate, with many different contributions, all of which have huge merit as we discuss how we restore biodiversity in our country. We know it will be a challenge—we have very challenging targets—but I want to assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting nature, because we rely on biodiversity for food, for regulating our climate, for pest control and for many more things that support our ecosystems.
In England, as noble Lords will know, we have committed to ambitious targets to halt the decline by 2030, to reverse the decline by 2042, to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042, and to restore and create over 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042. We are honouring commitments to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030—the 30 by 30 target; although it will be very challenging, it is extremely important.
The revised environmental improvement plan was mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the rapid review. In revising the plan, we aim to be clear on the role of the enablers—for example, green finance, which was mentioned by noble Lords. That needs to be implemented across government. We need to look at how enhancing nature supports the wider outcomes that the Government want, including for energy and growth. We will clarify Environment Act target delivery plans and update the interim targets to cover the five-year period from the completion of the review, in line with our statutory requirements. We will also clarify exactly how we intend to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Local nature recovery strategies were mentioned. Those are being prepared currently and will be published. They will cover England, and the idea is to draw on the same data and principles as the land use framework, providing a key mechanism to enable progress. It is important that we join up all the different strategies and principles that we are taking forward. However, we are not waiting for the revised environmental improvement plan or the finalised land use framework to act. We have challenging targets, and we know that we need to take action on three fronts: to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats; to tackle pressures on biodiversity; and to take targeted action for specific species. Various species have been mentioned in the debate.
We know that our environmental land management schemes are crucial to enabling much of this. A number of noble Lords mentioned farming. An announcement was made this week on the SFI. A lot of questions were asked, but there will be a Statement on this issue on Tuesday and we can explore it in more detail then.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about planning and the Nature Restoration Fund. On Tuesday, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was introduced. The idea is that, through the Nature Restoration Fund, the Bill will provide a more efficient and effective way for obligations related to our most important sites and species to be discharged, at a scale whereby that action has the most impact. This will benefit development and nature recovery, where both are currently stalled.
I turn to fixed tariffs and the importance of developers behaving responsibly towards the environment. Developers must deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity, and the provisions are designed deliberately to discourage certain behaviours. Often with such issues, we need to see what happens in practice, but that is what the provisions are designed to do. I hope that helps reassure noble Lords.
The noble Lord asked about biodiversity net gain and the Nature Restoration Fund and how they will work together. The idea is that BNG and the Nature Restoration Fund will work in a joined-up manner, to maximise outcomes. The development section of the Nature Restoration Fund specifically addresses environmental impact and biodiversity net gain and will continue to apply. This is to ensure that developers are incentivised to reduce their biodiversity impact on site and to secure future residents’ and local people’s access to nature. That is extremely important to ensure that people do not lose that. We want to continue to seek opportunities to grow biodiversity net gain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the planning Bill and the impact it will have on nature. We are absolutely committed, when it comes to that legislation, that steps will be undertaken to deliver positive environmental outcomes. I encourage the noble Baroness to read the National Planning Policy Framework, in which the environment is central.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the metrics around biodiversity. We have 55 individual measures comprising 29 indicators at the UK level. England and the UK biodiversity indicators are accredited official statistics and cover a wide range of species, including birds, butterflies, mammals and plants, in addition to habitats and the extent and condition of protected areas, as well as indicators for the response to pressures such as pollution and climate change. I hope that is helpful.
The water industry was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I assure him that we are doing a lot of work around this. He will be aware of the work that Sir John Cunliffe is doing. We absolutely recognise the importance of salmon and of Scottish businesses in this area. Clearly, we need to work together on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned pesticides. We are taking action to ensure that pesticides are used more sustainably—for example, we have committed to ending completely the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides that we know carry substantial risk to pollinators. We published a policy statement last year that sets out the next steps around pesticide commitments.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about bracken—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and others talked about beavers. I am really pleased that we have been able to set out our approach to the wild release and management of beavers in England. Beavers can bring enormous benefits, and I am pleased that we have management tools in place so that they are in the right place and can be managed properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about bottom trawling, and other noble Lords asked about it, too. The noble Lord asked whether we would complete the previous Government’s work on this. At the moment, we are considering our next steps to manage bottom trawling, along with other fishing methods, where it could damage MPA features or benthic habitats, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. We are keen to carry on working closely with fisheries and marine stakeholders, as well as environmentalists, as we develop future plans for fisheries and the marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about the impact of the EU reset on fisheries and environmental standards. I cannot talk about what we are discussing on the EU reset, but, clearly, all these things are taken into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked some questions around bottom trawling. The first two stages of the Marine Management Organisation’s offshore by-laws programme introduced by-laws in marine protected areas. Currently, our figures say that this protects 10.87% of English waters from bottom-towed fishing. Clearly, it is something that we need to be working on.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about deforestation. We recognise the urgency of taking action to ensure that UK consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. I hope we will soon be setting out our approach to this.
A number of Members asked about green finance, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We recognise the huge importance of mobilising private finance into nature’s recovery. We are doing a lot of work on this and will be grateful to work with noble Lords on suggestions for how we can move forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the Cali Fund. We are working closely with businesses across a lot of sectors to see how we can take this forward.
There were a number of other questions, but I have only 10 seconds left. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that I absolutely heard what she has been saying about hares. There needs to be consistency—we completely appreciate that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, spoke about rewilding. We have our own rewilding project at home. I personally have seen the benefits that rewilding in the right place can bring. I end by saying that, two weeks ago, we found that we had curlews.
Capital Investment and Share Ownership
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to implementing an updated public-private partnership model to attract capital investment and to open share ownership to more people.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to working in partnership with the private sector to deliver the infrastructure that our country desperately needs. We will set out our approach to unlocking greater private investment in UK infrastructure in the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be published alongside the spending review in June.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I wonder whether I can persuade the Minister to move rather faster with the suggestion, which some of us have been pursuing, that we need to review the structure of the PPPs that we had under the previous Labour Government. We need to extend it so that we have wider participation of not just government departments but cities and mayors. On the other side of the fence, we need to extend the private side and give individual citizens the right to shares in these new ventures. Is the Minister prepared to meet a small group of us to talk in advance of the review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As I say, the Government will publish a cross-cutting 10-year strategy for the UK’s social, economic and housing infrastructure in June, alongside the spending review. It will help to drive growth, deliver net zero and support improved public services by providing more coherence across different types of infrastructure than has been the case in the past. Of course, I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and the group he mentioned.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, some public/private partnerships have worked very well. The contract for difference system has been very good at getting a huge amount of private sector investment into the offshore wind sector. Others have proved far less successful. For example, there have been crippling costs for schools that have had long-term, low-quality, high-cost maintenance programmes. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House how the Treasury is learning from this. How is it involving the private sector in developing the right risk and reward structures for the right projects? How is it involving local authorities, which often end up picking up the cost of these public/private partnerships
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right in much of what he says. The private finance initiative was a specific public/private partnership model that was developed 20 years ago. The Government are actively managing the legacy PFI portfolio and learning lessons from that. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority believes that there is an opportunity for the public and private sectors to reset relationships, improve performance and deliver high-quality public facilities and services. Of course, lessons have been learned from the past. On 24 March the National Audit Office will publish a report called:
“Lessons learned: Private finance for infrastructure”.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
The PFI has been a very mixed bag, but parts of it have been highly successful. Unfortunately, the Treasury’s approach to negotiating run-off in PFI has led a large number of top-flight managers in these good PFI projects to leave the industry altogether and seek work elsewhere. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that there is no further attrition?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, many of the private finance initiative contracts are coming to an end within the next decade. It is important to prepare early for a seamless transition to the public sector to protect taxpayers’ money. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority is responsible on the Treasury’s behalf, providing oversight and support to the portfolio of operational PFIs. It carries out regular health checks and, to date, around 215 expiry health checks have already taken place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, a variety of Governments have tried to introduce private sector investment into water sector projects. The Pickering Slow the Flow pilot scheme that I was involved in at a later stage was hugely successful in factoring in a number of public partnerships. Can the Minister look at this to open up, for example, supermarket involvement and farmers contributing to flood resilience in catchment areas?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very interested in what the noble Baroness says, and I will look at that further. As I say, the 10-year infrastructure strategy will be the point at which we set out the Government’s approach to private investment in infrastructure. I cannot say more than that at this point.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Financial Secretary agree that, generally, the quality of PFI projects has improved over time, with an increasing number transferring risk successfully to the private sector and the projects being delivered on budget and on time? Given that the ONS now classifies pretty much all PFI projects as being on balance sheet, can he encourage the Treasury to provide sufficient expenditure cover in the spending review to support innovative public/private partnership proposals?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord describes, there have of course been positive examples of PFI projects. For example, more than 100 hospitals were built by the previous Labour Government’s PPP programme. The Government are absolutely committed to harnessing private investment and restoring growth. On the latter part of his question, as I said before, the 10-year infrastructure strategy will be the point at which we set out the Government’s view of that, and it will be published alongside the spending review in June.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should be wary, not least because of the experience with PPI in things such as schools and hospitals, which several noble Lords have mentioned, about the establishment of public/private partnerships? Can I encourage him to be a little more forthcoming? What does he see as the risks? How will the Government assess value for money for the new schemes, perhaps with the help of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which he mentioned, whose work I respect?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Baroness cannot encourage me to be more forthcoming. As I have said, the 10-year infrastructure strategy will be the point at which we set out the Government’s approach to private investment in infrastructure. I think she will agree with me that private investment is vital for the country’s infrastructure. The Chancellor has established the British Infrastructure Taskforce, made up of some of the UK’s biggest financial companies. That will support the Government’s infrastructure goal and ensure that the strategy is credible and deliverable.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, of course the public/private partnerships and PFIs had risks, and of course there were failures. That is almost inevitable in any new experimental and radical approach to funding services. But the truth is that over the last 20-odd years, the level of services to people in Britain has been much higher because of our engagement with the private sector. Can I therefore encourage my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues not to be deterred when it comes to infrastructure? There is no doubt in my mind that huge added value is possible if we are prepared to be bold in public/private partnerships.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for those words, and I agree with much of what he said. The Government remain absolutely committed to harnessing private investment and restoring growth. We will work in partnership with the private sector while ensuring that projects provide value for money for taxpayers, now and in the future, and that appropriate lessons are learned from the past.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the key to a successful private finance initiative the appropriate transfer of risk? To ensure that happens, it is important to have the people in the Treasury or elsewhere with the necessary skills to negotiate the appropriate contracts. In wishing the Government well in taking this forward, I ask them to give consideration as to how they will achieve that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. He is far more expert in these matters than I am, but I absolutely agree with him. Clearly, the public sector needs to be an intelligent client when it is negotiating with the private sector. That skill set is vital both within the Civil Service and in the skills we can draw on. As I mentioned, the Chancellor has established the British Infrastructure Taskforce to try to help with skills and advice. It is made up of some of the UK’s biggest financial companies, and it will support the Government’s infrastructure goals and ensure that the strategy is credible and deliverable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the disastrous Blair PFI NHS hospitals scheme. I do not think there is much awareness that about half the money is still to be paid off. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the cost to local government. The Minister is probably aware of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research figure: local government is paying £13.5 billion. The institute also found that £1 billion had been made in pre-tax profit by a handful of companies, often registered in Guernsey and Jersey. Is PFI not simply a benefit to the financial sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think it was probably a benefit to the people who were able to be treated in the 100 hospitals that were built as a result of it. As I say, the private finance initiative was a specific public/private partnership model that was developed 20 years ago. The Government are actively managing the legacy PFI portfolio, and we are learning lessons from that.
National Insurance Pension Underpayments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the number of underpayments of National Insurance pension where entitlement to that pension is based on a spouse’s National Insurance record, and the underpayment is caused by “official error” by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, everyone should receive the state pension payments to which they are entitled. This Government understand the importance of putting right any errors. DWP became aware of issues with historic state pension underpayments in 2020 and took immediate action to investigate and correct the problem. A legal entitlements and administrative practices exercise—LEAP—began in January 2021, and DWP completed the vast majority of cases by December 2024 as planned. The exercise has now closed.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer and welcome the good news. The problem is that this is only one aspect of the sheer complexity of state pension entitlement for spouses’ pensions. Because of the history, that largely affects women. Does my noble friend agree that the department should perhaps be doing more to inform people so they can find their way through the maze of entitlement?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend raises a really important point. There is a lot of complexity, particularly in the old basic state pension. With the new state pension, your entitlement depends on your own national insurance contributions in the majority of cases, so in future it gets a lot more straightforward. Most people claim their new state pension online, so getting it is mostly automated. However, under the old state pension, if you did not have enough pension in your own right, you could inherit it from a civil partner or a spouse, or a divorced partner or a late spouse. That has led to all kinds of complexities. We are making sure that before someone reaches state pension age, the Pension Service writes to them to tell them what they have to do to claim their state pension. As part of that process, they have to give us the details that enable us to work out if they are still carrying forward any entitlements from partners’ contributions as well as their own.
So, we are really committed to making sure there is clear, accurate, accessible information out there about the state pension. There is lots of it online, on GOV.UK. There is even a tool called “Your partner’s National Insurance record and your State Pension”, which, while not imaginative, is a pretty clear description of what it does. If anyone would rather not go online, they can ring the Pension Service, which will talk them through it. We are really determined to help people get this right.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that beneficiaries who have been denied the benefit to which they are entitled will be paid in full, however far back it goes?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, some of the cases in the LEAP exercise go back to 2006, so this is already going back a very long way, but I can reassure the noble Lord that that the exercise went back through the book. This is really complicated, as I am sure he understands, but, in summary, the exercise specifically addressed women who reached the state pension age ahead of their husbands. That was not uncommon because, in those days, the retirement age for women was 60 and for men it was 65, so the woman got to the state pension age first. If she did not have enough pension in her own right and her husband reached the state pension age, she could then have inherited more state pension from his contributions. After 2008, that should have been done automatically by the DWP. Earlier, people had to claim, but where the DWP failed to do that automatically, the department has gone back through the entire book and made payments to all those people. That is what the system has been doing.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, there seems to be errors and more errors—a tower of errors without end. State pension underpayments have also arisen where there are errors in NI records, because of missing home responsibilities protection. The Minister mentioned pensions for women. Can she tell us how much the department has so far paid in arrears to those affected mothers? When does she expect this correction exercise to be completed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
That was slightly different: it was about an error in people’s national insurance records. The DWP itself discovered during a fraud and error exercise that there were some historic errors in recording where people should have had home responsibilities protection in their national insurance record, which in turn would have affected their pension record. The Government have now contacted all the people they have identified as potentially missing HRP and invited them to make a claim for those missing periods. HMRC issued over 370,018 letters to potentially affected customers, and there have been approximately 493,813 hits on the GOV.UK HRP online checker. So far, the DWP has received 19,491 cases from HMRC and processed 11,694 of them, paying arrears of £42 million. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, recent statistics from the DWP demonstrate that 13 million people are receiving state pension payments. Saving adequately for retirement remains a challenge for many, particularly, as has been said, for single women and for those with gaps in employment, such as women taking time out to raise children and people suffering ill health. That is why the previous Government lowered the threshold for auto-enrolment to 18, with an opt-out, to enable retirement savings to commence earlier. As the Minister knows, the deadline of 5 April is fast approaching, before which people under the age of 73 can apply to buy back some of those lost years of contribution going back to 2006, and those benefits could make a huge difference to people’s lives. What is the level of uptake for this? Thinking about the warm words that the Minister gave about publicising DWP products, as it were, what more can she do to publicise this and make sure that the deadline is met?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount; there have been good questions today. With the transition from the old state pension to the new state pension, it became more important that people had their own national contribution records in full, because that is what their pension will depend on in future. The previous Government set a deadline—originally April 2023, if memory serves me—by which people had to decide whether to apply to buy back missing years. That deadline was extended to April 2025, so it is coming up on 5 April. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is a surge of people wanting to buy years back; in fact, HMRC and the DWP are working together to ensure that everybody who wants to pay money to fill those gaps in their record can do so. Not only is there the online tool I mentioned earlier; customers can identify gaps and make payments automatically without even contacting the DWP or HMRC, or they can phone us. We have increased resources to about 480 people working across the Revenue and the DWP to manage the high volume of calls coming in.
To reassure not just the noble Viscount but anyone listening out there: as long as people contact the DWP ahead of the 5 April deadline, they will be able to fill gaps back to 2006. In addition, we have launched an online call-back form; people can simply register their interest and the DWP will call them back within eight weeks. Again, provided they register that interest before 6 April, they will be able to fill those gaps if they want to.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said. The Answers to some Parliamentary Questions I tabled to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, suggested that HMRC did not hold these records centrally, so I am delighted to hear that work is ongoing. May I press the Minister further on what she just said? I am delighted to hear about the increased resources, but there is an intricate calculation to be made: for some people, it will not be worthwhile paying the extra voluntary national insurance contributions if they consequently miss out on pension credit. Recognising that the timeline is fast approaching, can the Minister assure me that sufficient resources are in place to help people make that calculation?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point; I would expect no less, since she has rather more experience in this field than I do. She is right that there will be some people, in limited circumstances, for whom this becomes a marginal issue. A significant amount of information is available online from the DWP about the different sets of criteria, but I will check on the points she made and see whether we need to do anything else to make sure that the information is out there.
Independent School Fees: VAT
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of imposing value added tax on independent school fees on 1 January.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for the third Oral Question, I should remind noble Lords that there are active legal proceedings relating to the policy of applying VAT to private schools. Part of my role is to decide whether, in specific circumstances, it is appropriate to waive the application of the sub judice rule, under which we do not debate matters before the courts. In view of the national importance of this issue, I have decided to grant a waiver of the rule to allow reference to this matter on an ongoing basis. It is relevant to my decision that a similar waiver has been issued in the House of Commons.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association, whose 700 members—mainly small schools—are now at serious risk of damage or closure.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the result of imposing VAT on school fees has been to help raise revenue to fund the Government’s objective that every child has access to high-quality education, including the 94% of children who are educated in the state sector. The Government have published a tax impact and information note setting out an analysis of the impacts of this policy. The Government’s costings, set out in a detailed costings note, have been certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. We remain confident in those assessments but will of course continue to monitor the impact of the reforms.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government to say to the mother of a child with special needs whose independent school is closing because of their education tax? She writes to me: “Shell-shocked does not cover it. My child is autistic. State secondary was an utter disaster. She felt safe and happy. Her heart is now broken”. What are they to say to the head of a small independent school in Derbyshire with 120 pupils, who writes to me: “I am battling to save my life’s work”? How would members of the Government feel if they were forced to move their child to a new school in the middle of an academic year, particularly if exams were in the offing? How should the sudden imposition of an unprecedented education tax on 1 January, after a rushed consultation last summer when schools were on holiday, be described? One word does it: cruel.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and I pay tribute to his involvement in this sector. As he will know, probably better than me, there has historically been a significant turnover within the private school sector, with around 3% of private schools—roughly 75 in the UK—opening and closing each year, with the overall number of private schools remaining stable. Since this policy was announced in July, private schools have continued to open in England in line with historic trends.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for their recognition of the unique role that the Music and Dance Scheme schools play in enabling talented young dancers and musicians to pursue their dreams, whatever their background. Is the Minister aware of the recent demonstration of the success of that scheme in the outstanding achievements of Jakob Wheway Hughes, who is a student on the scheme at Tring Park School for the Performing Arts? He won not one but three of the prizes at the prestigious international ballet competition, the Prix de Lausanne. Will the Minister join me not only in congratulating Jakob on his success but in noting the role that the Music and Dance Scheme has played in achieving that success?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Of course, I will join her in congratulating Jakob. As she knows far better than I do, the Music and Dance Scheme provides grants and help with fees at eight schools and 20 centres for advanced training. The Department for Education has decided to adjust its Music and Dance Scheme bursary contribution for families with a relevant income below £45,000 a year to account for the VAT that will be applied to fees, ensuring that the total parental fee contribution for families with below-average relevant incomes remains unchanged for the rest of this academic year.
Lord Addington (LD)
I am not a Tory, thank you. I remind the House of my declared interests in this field. Special educational needs is one of the big sectors where the private system has been used by the state system to reinforce its own effectiveness. You get support only if you have an EHC plan. These are agreed by everybody as being extremely expensive and difficult to implement. Why are the Government giving support only to those with special educational needs who ask for such plans to be imposed on the state system and encouraging people who do not have them in the private sector to take them out?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The policy remains as it was. It will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs. Where pupils’ places in private schools are funded by local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales because their needs can be met only in a private school, local authorities will be able to reclaim that VAT. In terms of those without one of those systems in place, on average, the Government expect private school fees to increase by around 10% as a result of this measure.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am not a Tory either. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the scare stories coming from opposite, like many of their scare stories, have been proven to be wrong? The Press Association’s review of schools has shown that there has not been a major transfer from the private sector to the public sector. In fact, in the public sector in England, more pupils have got their first choice of school this year than last year. The private schools that are closing are doing so for reasons other than the increase in fees. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is shaking his head, but he is wrong.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As always, I agree with everything that my noble friend says. All the comments that we have heard to date about the Government’s assessments being incorrect have been proven to be wrong. On the number of pupils who would move from one sector to another, that is absolutely in line with what the Government’s assessment said. On the amount of VAT that would pass through to the fees that parents pay, that is absolutely in line with what the Government said. On the number of schools that would close, that is absolutely in line with what the Government said. As my noble friend said, many councils now say that there has been no obvious impact from the addition of VAT on private school fees, and more pupils are receiving their first choice of school than they did last year.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and then we will go to the Conservatives.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, while I welcome any relief for the music and dance schools, does the Minister accept that the £45,000 cut-off point for a whole family is too low? When will that be reviewed? Should not the Government do everything possible to encourage UK students into our creative schools, including the Yehudi Menuhin School, whose remarkable students we had the privilege of hearing in the Lords last week?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question. I agree with the second part of it that we should encourage people into those schools. In terms of what the Government can do, the Department for Education has already acted and adjusted its scheme, and it will continue to maintain that for the rest of the academic year.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Many of our Armed Forces educate their children privately because that is the only way they can ensure continuous provision of education because of the extraordinary lives we ask them to lead and the sacrifices they make for the safety of our nation. While the MoD pays a continuity of education allowance, that covers only a proportion of the parental cost. The imposition of VAT on private school fees has added to the expense of the balance which Armed Forces personnel are paying, magnified if they have more than one child being educated. Is this really the best we can do for our Armed Forces personnel?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with much of the sentiment that the noble Baroness expresses. The Government greatly value the contribution of our diplomatic staff and our serving military personnel. The continuity of education allowance provides clearly defined financial support to ensure that the need for frequent mobility, which often involves an overseas posting, does not interfere with the education of their children. As the noble Baroness will know, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have both increased the funding allocated to that allowance to account for the impact of any private school fee increases on the proportion of fees covered. The noble Baroness raises the proportion of the fees paid by the parents. As she will know, on average, the Government expect private school fees to increase by around 10% as a result of this measure, but many schools, as we have seen so far, have fully or partially absorbed VAT costs. How individual schools fund this additional cost is a commercial decision for them.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that, although this is a critical area, it should be confined to those serving overseas and should not include those spending a substantial amount of time in the UK but still having their fees subsidised by either the MoD or the Foreign Office?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As I have said, the continuity of education allowance is designed to provide clearly defined financial support to ensure that the need for frequent mobility, often involving overseas postings, does not interfere with the education of the children involved.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, VAT on independent school fees is an unpleasant, class-based change of the kind sometimes adopted by the party opposite. This increased private school fees by 12.7% this January, according to the ONS. We will debate this matter next week with the Finance Bill, but does the Minister not feel rather embarrassed that his Government are the first one to tax education?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
If the noble Baroness wants to talk about what she is embarrassed about, I am very happy to talk about the previous Government’s record over the past 14 years. This was a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including for the 94% of pupils who are in the state sector.
Tell MAMA: Funding
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask His Majesty’s Government why they have ended funding for the charity Tell MAMA.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare that, while I chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I am speaking in a personal capacity today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, funding for Tell MAMA has not ended. We have made £1 million available for Tell MAMA this year, subject to it signing the grant funding agreement. I had a constructive meeting with Tell MAMA yesterday. It would be remiss of me to disclose the details of that conversation, but I am hopeful of a swift resolution. Combating hate towards Muslims is a priority for this Government. We will soon open a call for grant applications to provide a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims. We encourage Tell MAMA to apply.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but does he agree that, when Ministers have meetings with parliamentarians to discuss government policy, this should be done in good faith and with candour? Last week he had a meeting with parliamentarians to discuss his Government’s advisory group on Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred. I asked him a direct question about Tell MAMA and its lack of inclusion in the Government’s advisory group. He was evasive at best, so I am delighted that he has confirmed to the House today that he has not ended funding for this moderate group that does vital work in the community. Will he also confirm that the funding will be forthcoming immediately, as Tell MAMA had the grant confirmation letter in September and is running out of money? Will he also reassure the House that moderate Muslim groups are as worthy of the government support as the others that they have hand-picked for their advisory group?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me clarify that the meeting we had last week was a drop-in for all Peers and parliamentarians, where I spoke specifically about the work we are doing to define anti-Muslim hatred and the commission that has been set up, chaired by the former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve.
On the question that the noble Baroness asked, all organisations must sign a standard government agreement before receiving government funds. Following extensive negotiations, we reached agreement with Faith Matters on its grant funding agreement, but the organisation has yet to sign it. As soon as it is signed and returned, we will instruct payment. Following yesterday’s meeting, I am confident this will be resolved soon.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister is able to say, given the current situation. I understand that there are two concerns about this organisation. First, there is a lack of community engagement: they seem to be self-appointed spokespeople. Secondly, there were concerns about financial irregularities. This is a sensitive area. What can the Minister tell the House about those two concerns around this organisation?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord made an interesting point, but it would be remiss of me to comment on negotiations we are having with Tell MAMA. I had a very productive meeting with Tell MAMA and its legal representative. It was very productive and hopefully everything will be resolved soon.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to let us know, and publish and put a letter in the Library about, the terms, conditions and criteria that are applied not only to this group but to similar organisations? The Community Security Trust does similar work for the Jewish community. It might be helpful to have some clarity on that, so there is no risk of other organisations finding themselves in the same situation.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, because this is a competitive bidding and an open-ground process, that will be published as we open that process for people to apply for government services. Everyone is welcome to apply. The service is going to continue and everyone is invited to apply, including Tell MAMA.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said. Could he confirm—he has probably said it already, but just to make it quite explicit—that, first of all, there is a commitment from the Government that they want to see an independent third-party reporting system for anti-Muslim hate, in which members of the public can feel confident? Secondly, could he confirm that the Government are seeking to ensure—as any sensible Government would—that they are getting the best value for money from a bidding process that ensures that the services are effective and highly respected?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point. We remain steadfast in our dedication to delivering comprehensive monitoring of anti-Muslim hatred and providing support for victims of it. We are committed to providing a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and provide support. We will soon be opening a call for grant applications for future work in this area. Further details will be provided in due course. Moving away from directly awarded grants to an open, competitive grant process will ensure greater transparency and value for money in our grant partnerships.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the decisions on funding for third parties can often be very challenging. Obviously, the Minister cannot give us details of what is being discussed at the moment. I am very pleased to hear that discussions are still going on with Tell MAMA. What concerns me about the Government’s new way of working with third-party funding is that there could be a period of time when these services are not being provided, as you move from one provider to another. Tell MAMA measures and monitors anti-Muslim hate crime very well. I would want to know that the Government are still doing that, if there is a period of time with nobody there. More importantly, I would want to know that the support that Tell MAMA gives to the Muslim community and victims of hate crime is still there.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the service of monitoring and reporting of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred will continue. I understand the point the noble Baroness made. Of course, I cannot predict the future of applications. The process is going to go live and open for a competitive bidding process to secure the best value for public money.
The world has changed since 7 October and the Southport disturbances. It is only right for us to have the opportunity to go out to the market and find the best value for money. But I can confirm that there will be a continuous service of reporting and monitoring of anti-Muslim hatred.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s launch of a new working group to provide a definition of Islamophobia. I ask the Minister: whom does this group plan to consult, both within and beyond the Islamic community, to inform that definition and ensure that it accounts for the lived experience of the Muslim community?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate asks a very important question. It is an independent group chaired by the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve KC. It is for him to decide, but it is pretty clear that any definition of anti-Muslim hatred or Islamophobia should have multiple perspectives from multiple communities and absolutely uphold our fundamental right of freedom of speech.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the Minister for attending the launch of Muslim Heritage Month earlier this week. I also commend the Government on starting the work on the definition of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim prejudice.
I am really glad that the Tell MAMA funding has been reviewed. I had been raising red flags and concerns about the Tell MAMA project for one year, with a 10-page letter and 30 questions—Oral Questions and Written Questions. I am glad that has now resulted in an open bidding process. By the way, it is not a charity. Can the Government provide assurances that whoever is selected has community buy-in? Hopefully, it will be several organisations, because the Muslim community is very diverse and large.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I confirm that we will set out further details soon on the open bidding process.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on launching her Muslim Heritage Month. We appreciate the work Tell MAMA has done. It is a providing a very important service and it is welcome apply to the open grant process.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, the press reports that the police have expressed alarm about this cut. Could the Minister confirm this will be taken into consideration when the Government are looking at the matter in the future?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot comment on particular press reports, but the question of police views is a very important point. Any monitoring or reporting of hate crimes for any religion should always have a good relationship with police forces across the country, wherever that occurs. To add to the point that the noble Baroness made, it is important that the community feels confident during the whole process to report any instances of hate crimes. We want to protect everyone, whichever religion they are from. Everyone should be safe and made to feel safe.
North Sea Vessel Collision
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and am glad to be able to respond to him in place of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who is unable to attend the House today. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her reply to my question on this topic earlier this week as the incident was first being reported. The Official Opposition are grateful for all the efforts that Ministers have made to keep us informed of developments. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that sympathy goes to all those who have been affected by this tragic incident, especially the family and loved ones of the sailor who has been lost at sea.
I also thank the selfless emergency workers and volunteers who responded to the incident, including our land-based emergency services and His Majesty’s Coastguard. I especially wish to mention the bravery of the crews of the Bridlington, Cleethorpes, Mablethorpe and Skegness lifeboats, who set off without hesitation into that vision of hell that we all saw reported. The RNLI is a universally respected institution, and I am in awe of the commitment of its volunteers to saving lives at sea, often at great personal cost.
The Minister in another place was able to confirm that the “Solong” had broken free of the “Stena Immaculate” and was not likely to remain afloat, with tugboats on scene to ensure that the vessel remains clear of land. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on the status of the “Solong” and the “Stena Immaculate”? When this Statement was given in the other place, we did not have much detail about the events that took place in the lead-up to the collision. Can the Minister set out in some more detail the Government’s understanding of how this collision occurred? I appreciate that the captain of the “Solong”, a Russian national, has been arrested and that part of this incident is consequently sub judice, but your Lordships’ House would like reassurance from the Minister that lessons are already being learned, even at this early stage of the investigation.
I turn to the environmental impact of this incident. Reports of a jet fuel spill are very concerning. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have established the cargo of the “Solong” and any associated risks to the environment? Has there been any material leak of bunker fuel from either vessel and has that risk now been avoided? Can he indicate the risks to marine and bird life that are currently of concern to the Government and what actions are being taken to mitigate them? Are local communities and fishermen being adequately informed of what they need to be aware of and what they can do to help?
Finally, I hope that the undoubtedly substantial costs of dealing with this incident will be recovered from the insurers of the vessel or vessels found liable. Can the Minister confirm this?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the scenes that we have witnessed in news reports are deeply concerning and our thoughts are with all those affected, particularly the family of the crew member who is presumed dead. The situation has moved on considerably since Monday. It is not even the front page of the news. I also pay tribute to the Humberside Local Resilience Forum, the emergency services, the Royal Navy, Border Force, the Environment Agency and all others who are working tirelessly to manage this crisis. Their swift response has been vital in minimising loss of life and limiting environmental damage, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.
This event is a stark reminder of the immense risks faced by those in the maritime sector—men and women who work long, demanding hours to keep our country moving, often without recognition. While investigations are ongoing and the internet is awash with different theories, from technical faults to human error and worse, urgent government action is required to reassure local communities and mitigate the wider impact. My right honourable friend in the other place, Alistair Carmichael, Member for Orkney and Shetland, highlighted the devastating impact of the MV “Braer” disaster off Shetland back in 1993, underscoring the justified fears that are now felt by communities along the North Sea coastline, which will be hoping for reassurance that the incident can be contained.
This incident also raises serious concerns about maritime safety, regulation and enforcement. Reports indicate that one of the vessels involved may have had failed multiple elements of routine safety inspections, including unreadable emergency steering communications, inadequate alarms, poorly maintained survival craft and improperly marked lifebuoys. Given these alarming deficiencies, will the Government review the effectiveness of port state control measures and enforcement procedures to prevent substandard vessels from continuing to operate in UK waters? What is the timescale for any such review?
Beyond safety concerns, as we have already heard, the environmental impact of this disaster could be severe. I welcome the formation of a tactical co-ordination group and its engagement with key agencies, but greater clarity is needed on how the Government intend to address the environmental challenges arising from this incident and supporting affected communities.
What immediate measures are being taken to protect the east coast marine life and fragile ecosystems from potential pollution? Furthermore, can the Minister provide assurances that financial support will be made available to cover the economic and environmental losses, particularly for those whose livelihoods depend on these waters?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their responses and their commendations of those involved, which I echo. I offer my sincere thanks, and, I am sure, the thanks of your Lordships’ House, to all those who have responded to this incident on the front line, from His Majesty’s Coastguard to the local emergency services, merchant vessels in the vicinity and those who crew them, and the RNLI, which is a wonderful institution.
This is a challenging and ever-changing situation, and I hope that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that the continuing efforts are both brave and hugely appreciated. I also thank our international partners for their many offers of assistance to the United Kingdom, and for the support from the maritime community. Finally, I thank civil servants from across government in several departments working on the response. Their efforts are also greatly appreciated.
Following the collision of the motor vessels “Solong” and “Stena Immaculate” in the North Sea on the morning of 10 March, my department and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have co-ordinated a government-wide response. The current position is that salvors are assessing the condition of the vehicles to plan the next steps of salvage operations. Concurrently, the Government are conducting environmental assessments to ensure that all risks are appropriately mitigated and that the effects of the incident are effectively addressed. There is currently no evidence to suggest that there are national security implications, but as the investigation continues that possibility will be constantly borne in mind. Both vessels now appear to be relatively stable and salvors are assessing their condition. There is no suggestion that, apart from what has been widely shown on the media, there is any substantial pollution. The aviation fuel which did not combust appears to have evaporated. I have read suggestions this morning that containers have fallen off the “Solong”, but that does not appear to be the case.
I turn to the noble Lord’s questions. We need a proper investigation to assess how this occurred. One might be able to draw some conclusions from the fact that one of the two ships was at anchor, but it would be wise to wait for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to conclude its investigations. Although one of the ships is US-badged and the other is Portuguese, both those maritime agencies have rightly concurred that the MAIB should have precedence. The noble Lord referred to the arrest of the captain of one of the vessels, which renders that subject sub judice.
Will lessons be learned? Yes, indeed they will. One of the purposes of a thorough investigation is to ensure that lessons are learned. As with every accident investigation, some of them you might conclude immediately while some will take a great deal of research to work out what happened, why it happened and how you stop it from happening again.
The current environmental impact is mercifully small, and we are very lucky for that. There does not appear to be any significant spillage of either the jet fuel from the “Stena Immaculate” or any of the fuel or oil from the bunkers of either of the vessels concerned. Consequently, the current effect on marine and bird life does not appear to be significant, but I can confirm to the House that everything is ready in case that subsequently proves not to be the case. There is a lot of activity, including activity across nations, to make sure that we are ready in case anything like that should happen.
For example, the German coastguard has provided the support of a specialist counterpollution vessel, “Mellum”, which can operate in toxic environments, as well as additional surveillance aircraft. That vessel has been tasked to stand by and undertake air monitoring of the “Stena Immaculate”. However, no air quality measures have been reported, and it looks as though currently—due to the wind direction and distance from the coast—there is a very low risk to public health from either the plume or the spill.
I can assure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we seek to ensure that every possibility is considered, both looking backward from the time of the accident and from now looking forward. This includes keeping the local community in general, and those who use the sea and care about marine and bird life, fully informed about this so that they can gain confidence from the actions of this Government and the other nations involved. As would normally happen, we will seek for the cost of all of this to be recovered from the insurers of the vessel or vessels found to be at fault. I hope I have covered all the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised, but if I have not, no doubt they will come up in further questions.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. He said, correctly, that we have been very lucky on this occasion, in the midst of what is a tragic misfortune, in the sense that the fuel dispersed was aviation fuel, which has a propensity to evaporate compared with other fuels that would have been a real disaster for the environment. On a separate issue, has it been necessary to take any measures to ensure the openness and safety of shipping lanes or routes, and if so, what measures have been taken?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I omitted to say, which was entirely my fault, that we must all be extraordinarily sad about the plight of the missing seaman from one of the vessels, who is now unfortunately presumed no longer alive, despite the massive and brave attempts of the maritime community—the RNLI and others—to seek to rescue them. I am sure the House will join me in great sorrow about that.
The shipping lanes are now open again; there has been no need to take any measures to reopen them. One of the vessels is still where it was moored, and the position of the other is being constantly monitored to make sure that it is not a hazard to more shipping and that it is under control. There is a tug with the “Solong” that is able to control the latter’s position. The shipping lanes in and out of one of Britain’s most important ports are open and functioning.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am very happy that the Minister reported that there does not appear to have been much environmental damage. However, we see again and again that these cargo ships are often quite badly maintained. When crashes happen, the spillage and the environmental damage from them is very severe, but the ships’ insurance can never cover all the impact on marine life and coastal areas. Are stronger regulations part of the Government’s thinking so that, when this sort of thing happens next time, the insurance companies bleed through the nose for the cost of keeping an inadequate ship afloat?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will say two things. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the previous defects on the motor vessel “Solong”. Although those defects were identified in an inspection made in Dublin in July last year, we also know that a more recent inspection of that ship in Grangemouth last October showed that those defects were rectified. That is a good reassurance; it does not completely answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about whether the ships are perfectly maintained at all times, but it does show that the inspection regime appears to demonstrate some characteristics that I am sure the House would welcome.
On the noble Baroness’s point about insurance, this will not, we hope, be the incident that bears out her theory. Of course we should be concerned that maritime insurance is capable of covering all of the consequences of an incident such as this. I will reflect on what she said and talk to my honourable friend the Maritime and Aviation Minister about whether there is anything the Government feel they need to do as a consequence of this incident in respect of insurance.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister comment on the role of professional salvors in a situation such as this?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
All I can say is that they are a completely necessary set of organisations and have some pretty brave people who assess on a continuing basis what can be done. They are an essential part of the maritime community, if only demonstrated by an event like this.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is very disturbing to see the visual displays of the Portuguese-registered vessel heading directly to the tanker. One sees this and, having a little knowledge of aviation, it would seem that someone in authority must be watching the movements of maritime traffic in a similar way to avoid this sort of collision taking place. Was anybody or any authority watching a screen as the Portuguese ship closed on the tanker? That seems to be very alarming, particularly in our own waters.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord’s observation is very reasonable in the circumstances. However, I am not tempted, and I do not think your Lordships’ House should be tempted, to draw any conclusions about how the accident occurred, nor what might be put in place to stop something like this happening again. Clearly, if you are the master of either of these vessels, or of any other vessel in the ocean, you are responsible for the conduct of the vessel and the way it is navigated. We should leave this for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to properly investigate and draw some conclusions. If there are conclusions that need action from any government body, your Lordships’ House can be reassured that the Government will take that action.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I served on the board of the Harwich Haven Authority for six years. During that time, we had a lot of difficulty with local authorities that, for financial reasons, were reluctant to run robust emergency planning exercises, but what has happened really demonstrates their value. Could the Minister do some checking to find out what the current position is with the emergency planning and local resilience fora?
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the VTS systems have sight of the entire seaway but operate within their own zones. This incident happened outside the Humber authority’s zone, but it would have had sight of it—perhaps there is another question there for the Minister. Finally, on the point from noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about port state control, it is always worth remembering that these are international matters carried out by the International Maritime Organization. Perhaps the Government can have a conversation with it to ensure that, where defects are picked up, they are constantly monitored to having been rectified.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I defer to the noble Baroness’s knowledge, which in this area—the latter part of what she just said—is greater than mine. The information I currently have is that the Humber Local Resilience Forum was stood up very quickly and has held a strategic control group. The membership is widespread and includes the police, fire and rescue, local authorities, the Red Cross, the health service, MHCLG, His Majesty’s Coastguard, the Royal Navy and other organisations. By all accounts, this seems to have worked very well in this circumstance, and there cannot be any criticism of the bodies that have come together and worked extremely hard—and are still doing so, because this event is not over yet.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his update, but we seem to have been extremely fortunate in this incident. From a lifetime in shipping, I know that a conflagration involving a cargo of jet fuel is one of the most serious things that can happen at sea, so we have been extraordinarily successful and probably fortunate. It is early to be congratulating anybody, but it appears that all the emergency agencies—the MCA, the coastguard, the RNLI and the local environmental resilience plan—all seem to have functioned extraordinarily well, so we are very grateful for that. But this points to the dangers to so many ports around the UK of potential grey action. Will the Minister be thinking about that following these events?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I concur with the noble Lord, and I will.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, these vessels have massive momentum due to their huge size. Can the Minister please inform the House whether there are speed limits of any kind in these shipping lanes, particularly off the coast or near ports such as Hull?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not aware of the answer to the noble Lord’s question, so I will write to him.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, first, can the Minister confirm that the SOSREP system instigated in the report by Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas, is in place?
Secondly, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord West, we have at least three maritime experts in the House of Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, was a Royal Navy submarine commander; the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, recently retired as chairman of the Baltic Exchange; and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is an Elder Brother of Trinity House. Can the Minister explain why the Government want to get rid of them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention convened a salvage co-ordination unit yesterday morning to oversee the salvage response to this incident, working alongside the vehicles’ owners, insurers and salvors. Following the separation of the two vessels, an operational decision has been taken to form two salvage co-ordination units, one for each vessel. I believe that competently answers the noble Earl’s first question.
The second question is being discussed in this place most days of this week, next week and the week after, and I will defer to the Leader of the House on that one.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I would not dream of adding my name to those my noble friend Lord Attlee just mentioned, but I did spend all my commercial life in the shipping industry, so I may have a slight knowledge in this subject. Can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will look into the question of negligence, be it on the part of the owners—he referred to the state of the vessel—or the captain, because either could have been negligent in this context?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have every confidence that the inquiry will look at all the relevant aspects of this really significant incident and will include all the parties, including the two that the noble Lord describes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will the Minister confirm that he can take advice from every source and all the experts? They do not have to be Members of this House to give advice.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The answer is that a significant number of experienced bodies and people are involved in making sure that the consequences of this incident are fully investigated, and that the safety of the environment, the two ships and their remaining cargoes are looked after. I do not think there is any doubt that the nation is served well by a number of the bodies I have mentioned and that they are working professionally and extremely hard to resolve this incident with no damage to the environment and no—or, sadly, at least no further—loss of life.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned the “Braer” incident, and I remember well the “Ascania” incident off the coast of Caithness. Both events led Alistair Carmichael and me to lobby for a tug to be based at Kirkwall. Can I follow up with the Minister on an answer he gave earlier? Like many who live on the coast, I follow the shipping, and I see it on the horizon or one of many radar apps. Is it not now time to look, in busy shipping lanes such as the channel, the North Sea and the Pentland Firth, at some form of equivalent to air traffic control, so that somebody has an eye out and some form of warning can be given based on that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is very tempting, in an age when so much is instantly available on every sort of media, including social media, to draw some conclusions about not only how this incident occurred but what should be done to make sure that such a thing never happens again. It is really important for us all to be continent and to allow the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to do its investigation, draw all the necessary conclusions and follow through on the actions required from those.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this was a never event: it really should not have happened if the AIS was working properly. I am conscious that the MAIB will be investigating this carefully, but from what the Minister has said I hope that the Nairobi convention has now been triggered and that a wreck removal notice will be applied so that the costs can be fully recovered. Going further back to the points made about the assessment in Grangemouth, it is concerning that the safety of seafarers was not rectified before MV “Solong” left that port. As a consequence, one crew member from that boat is now assumed dead. Will the Minister consider working with the Minister responsible for maritime to re-evaluate the criteria on which boats will be released when the safety of crew is at risk?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As I have said, we should wait for the investigation to draw conclusions, because that is the proper and only way of dealing with this. On the defects of the motor vessel “Solong”, I did not say that the defects identified in the inspection made in July last year in Dublin were not rectified until the more recent inspection; I said they had all been rectified by the time of a more recent inspection. Again, we should not draw conclusions. The investigation will look widely at all the causes of this and the conditions of these vessels. Speculation on some of this is, frankly, very unhelpful. We need to leave all the professional and brave people to deal with this incident as it is occurring, and we need to leave the Marine Accident Investigation Branch the time and space to carry out the proper investigation so that we learn all the things that need to be done as a consequence of this incident.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has rightly said, we should not leap to any conclusions or make any speculative changes right now, but these two maritime ships surely would have contained black box recorders. Where are we on finding those recorders to mitigate these disasters in the future?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My understanding is that vessels such as these have such a thing, but currently neither has any crew on board, clearly, and the activities are primarily based on keeping the vessels floating and preventing the terrible consequences of any part of what is on them or in them polluting the environment. Of course, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will look for those as a matter of urgency, will hopefully find them intact and will therefore be able to have a really good understanding of what went on on each vessel in the hours and days leading up to the incident.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the issue of emergency planning exercises, there has been a long gap since the last disaster in the North Sea, but we had the “Herald of Free Enterprise” disaster, which was catastrophic, and then the fire on board a DFDS ferry as well. The level at which these emergency exercises are taking place seems to be fairly patchy. Is there a role for the Emergency Planning College at Easingwold to co-ordinate these activities to ensure that they are happening across the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not have information in front of me about how long it has been since there was such an emergency planning exercise and how often they have taken place. I am sure that, in general, there must be a role for the college at Easingwold, which has a very high reputation both nationally and internationally. The Government will of course look at that, but I hope your Lordships’ House will take some considerable comfort from the fact that, actually, the deployment of all the people who needed to be deployed to deal with this was very immediate and appears, at least so far, to have been very successful.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that the “Stena Immaculate” was at anchor, and it seems clear that it was. We know that a lot of large ships are often at anchor off estuaries. Can the Minister at least confirm that the “Stena Immaculate” was anchored in a normal place, or was its place of anchor rather abnormal?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure that I can confirm that without leafing through the vast amount of information in front of me. I believe that what the noble Viscount says is true, but why do we not leave all the detail of this to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, so it can properly assess all the factors that have gone into the incident occurring and what has happened since then? That would be absolutely the right thing to do, because the more speculation there is at this stage, the harder it is for it to distinguish the facts from the speculation.
Syria
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for this important Statement on the situation in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place:
“This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/25; col. 664.]
We have witnessed some of the deadliest violence in Syria in recent days, since the beginning of this dreadful conflict.
The reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including many Alawite civilians, is, of course, deeply troubling. I am sure we have all seen the horrific videos of that violence that have been circulated. The Syrian people have now suffered 14 years of conflict and, of course, decades of oppression. The situation will need to be monitored closely to prevent backsliding into further conflict on ethnic and religious lines.
The Government have decided to establish contact with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with the interlocutors in the current Syrian Government, and if so, whether our Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations of how the temperature should be taken down and how stability can be restored? Are there plans for Ministers to visit Damascus any time soon, for instance?
We note, of course, that the Government have announced that they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the terrible violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Government lifted them, did they consult US and European allies or partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive their various decisions?
On the vital subject of HTS’s progress in countering drug trafficking, does the Minister know whether Syrian Captagon, an extremely harmful pharmaceutical drug, is still in production, or has HTS managed to prevent Captagon being produced in Syria and distributed to the wider region?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. Obviously, we have national security, regional and humanitarian interests in respect of Syria, and I wish to ask the Minister questions on all three areas. It very welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, from the Home Office, is also present. First, on national security, it is worth noting that there seems to be positive news on Syrian internal security, in the form of the agreement with the Kurdish groups, but it is too early to say what the consequences will be. Part of the UK interests has been working with our American allies to ensure that detainees who were recruited by Daesh and were active members are not presenting any future threat to the United Kingdom. What reassurance have we received from the US Administration that troops will still be in place? What contingency arrangements will the UK have for our national security if the Americans pull out?
On the loosening of sanctions, is there a public statement on our assessment of the groups that form the functioning, de facto Government of Syria, which we had previously considered to be terrorist organisations? How will we ensure that the loosening of economic sanctions does not result in profiteering by those considered to be terrorist groups? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that, as I called for previously, we support local civil society groups that are helping the local communities, rather than channelling through to what until very recently had been—and in many respects still are—terrorist organisations that want economic support for their own groups, rather than for the benefit of the people of Syria?
A critical part of ensuring that we are safe is reducing the prospects of recruitment for terrorist organisations within Syria, so what support are we providing for transitional justice mechanisms as a result of responding to the crimes of the previous Assad regime? Are we supporting an enhanced UN transitional assistance mission? It is welcome that the UK will be participating in the pledging meeting that Minister Falconer has referred to. It is worth noting that UK support for the Syrian crisis had been at scale. As recently as 2019-2020, the UK had committed £380 million. This year, it is £103 million. According to HMG’s Development Tracker website, that is likely to go down to £55 million in 2028. Therefore, are we proposing new additional funding at the donor conference, or are we simply going to reassert our committed funds as part of the £103 million?
With regard to regional interests, the territorial integrity of Syria is of significance to the UK. What reassurance have we received from the Israeli and Turkish Governments that they believe in the territorial integrity of Syria, especially when it comes to Lebanon? Are we supporting the reconstruction of Lebanon? I would be grateful if the Minister considered meeting with me and a number of Lebanese MPs with whom I am in contact, especially female MPs, who are seeking ways of reconstructing Lebanon—especially the border areas—that avoid enhancing confessional divisions. We have a potential opportunity to look at Syrian and Lebanese reconstruction, and I hope the Minister will respond positively to that.
I hope the Minister does not mind me raising an issue of concern. Last week, I asked a question about the ODA commitment to vulnerable countries where UK interests could be at risk. I raised concerns about countries such as Lebanon, where UK support is likely to reduce dramatically as a result of the Government’s decision. The Minister said —I can quote from Hansard—that I was talking “complete nonsense” and my supposition was “frankly, ridiculous”. I looked at the support for Lebanon. In 2019-2020, it was £188 million; last year, it was £6.75 million; this year, thankfully, it is £47 million; but next year and the year after, it will be zero. So when I ask questions to Ministers in this House using government information that is available today on Development Tracker, I hope they will respond in a temperate manner.
Finally, when it comes to humanitarian support, I strongly welcome the stated position of the Government that seeks an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government, but I know that the Minister will recognise that that is some way away. So, with regard to the support that we are providing to the Syrian people for education, can we find ways of benchmarking UK engagement, both diplomatic and for education and humanitarian assistance, so that education reform can include independent oversight of curriculum reform, the removal of content inciting hatred or violence, and fair representation of women and minorities? There is an opportunity for our support to be linked with development assistance that can benefit all parts of Syrian society and move away from the hatred and violence which have afflicted the country so badly in recent years.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their words. I think we all agree that the situation in Syria is incredibly fragile, to say the least, and that we all want a stable elected Government to be in charge in Syria. We are some way from that at the moment, and everything this Government are doing is aimed at bringing about that situation, which we all want to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked why this is our first Statement on Syria. I kindly and gently point out that there are mechanisms within the procedures of this House for him to raise whichever issues he wishes, and I would be very happy to arrange some training for him, should that be welcome.
There is clearly deep concern about the events of recent days, and we are working closely with our allies and partners in the region and beyond. Noble Lords asked whether we have spoken to the interim Government in Syria. We have and, as the noble Lord encouraged us to do, we have raised our concerns about these events and have sought to bring about the peace and stability that we all wish to see. On his question about ministerial travel, I will not comment on our intentions about ministerial travel to this part of the world. There are obvious reasons why we do not always announce ministerial travel ahead of time.
On sanctions, of course we keep our sanctions designations under review. The decisions that we made following the fall of the Assad regime were to remove the designation from some entities, such as the Central Bank of Syria, because we want to enable the reconstruction and economic development of Syria, which has been so badly harmed for reasons that we all know. It is important that the new regime in Syria and the Government we hope will follow will be able to invest in their country to grow and prosper in future. We took that decision, but, clearly, we keep all these things under review.
On chemical weapons, we are working with the OPCW on that. We are very concerned that chemicals do not fall into the hands of people that none of us would wish them to, so we are working with others on that.
On the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we agree and welcome the statements from the PKK about downing weapons, but, as I said, the situation remains incredibly fragile. On troops, it is for the future Syrian Government to determine which nations, in what capacity and where they may have a presence in Syria. Since December, we have spent more than £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance, which will include support for justice measures so that evidence can be obtained and secured for use in future proceedings.
The noble Lord is correct when he makes points about national security. I do not think I have ever been intemperate in this Chamber, but I am entitled to call nonsense nonsense when I hear it. That is not intemperate. That is in the spirit of frank exchange, which I think we all wish to engage in. I felt that in his question last week the noble Lord was asserting that we were not putting national security front and centre in our decision-making. I was pointing out to him that our decision to reduce the overseas aid budget was done to support our defence budget, which I argue is in the interest of national security. If he found that intemperate, I am glad that he was never in the other place, where I think he would have had a very difficult time.
This is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. On justice and accountability, following what the charity Aid to the Church in Need has described as a “black and painful day” for Syria, with entire families killed in the violence, does the Minister welcome the importance of the decision by Syria to appoint an independent commission of inquiry into the horrific atrocities committed in the coastal areas against ethnic and religious communities, including Druze, Christians, Alawites and Ismailis, and welcome the arrest of some of the perpetrators? Can we give direct support to this holding to account, the collecting of evidence, reporting mechanisms, transparency and measures necessary to prevent similar incidents in the future? Might we be able to work with others to create a route through which the UK can monitor the situation of egregious human rights violations and religious freedom, making UK aid to Syria and the lifting of any sanctions conditional on introducing measurable improvements in the situation of human rights in Syria, which, as we have heard, are crucial to its future?
Can the Minister also say a word about Turkish bombing of civilian areas in northern Syria and the continuing danger posed by ISIS operatives in camps in Syria, some of whom are UK nationals and the subject of a current inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I hope the Minister will agree to engage with and whose proceedings I hope she will follow with care?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, on northern Syria, of course we are acutely aware of the fragility of that situation and want to make sure that we do not see a vacuum created that is filled by Daesh and others. The noble Lord is right in what he says about Aid to the Church in Need and its work, and we commend it for it. We have encouraged the Government in Syria on the commission, the investigations and the collection of evidence, for the reasons that he gave. We can, we should, and we will continue to do that.
On the conditionality of humanitarian aid, that is a difficult situation. There are around 16 million people in need of humanitarian aid in Syria, and I think it is important that we continue to play the best possible part that we can in supporting those people, but I take the point that he makes.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the situation in Syria is very fragile and therefore it is proper and sensible that His Majesty’s Government engage with the interim Administration. However, I think it would also be useful to maximise engagement with civil society in Syria. Can the Minister say a little more about the Government’s engagement in that area, including, of course, the Christian community in Syria?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is true that in the situation that Syria finds itself in, the ability of civil society to work closely with communities is essential. My colleague Minister Falconer is talking to civil society groups and working through any agencies and relationships that he has to support this because they are vital in establishing a stable future for the country.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is aware, obviously, that Syria is facing the world’s largest refugee crisis, with a truly staggering 14 million Syrians having fled their homes. Over 6.2 million have fled abroad, including many to this country. Among their number are some of the brightest, best and most qualified Syrian citizens, who are needed for rebuilding their country. This leads on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. What steps will the Government take, working with civil society, the new President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and the UNHCR, to find a way of trying to smooth the return of many of these very able and capable people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really interesting question. It is wonderful that we are in a situation where we can even begin to have those conversations, when you consider the journey that Syria has been on. It is early days, but we will work with whoever we need to to enable the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria, not just physically but of the society in Syria. There is still a long way to go—we are in the early stages—but the suggestions made by the noble Lord are good, and I will follow them up.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister recognises the very—perhaps disproportionately—central position of Syria in Middle Eastern politics over many years. Will we not allow ourselves, as we have sometimes in the past, to be a bit marginalised? One way of ensuring that we keep our finger on the pulse in Syria is to reopen the embassy in Damascus at the earliest possible moment. I know there is a special representative, but that is not the same as having somebody on the ground who is able to keep an eye on what is happening. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking about the Government of Israel’s action to extend part of the Golan Heights beyond what was originally dealt with in Security Council resolutions to occupy some parts of Syrian territory?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On the issue of reopening the embassy, which closed I think in 2012, that is quite difficult. I do not have an update on that for the House today. The noble Lord will appreciate that these are very early days. As he would expect, we keep these things under review. On Israel, it would be right for what we hope will be the inclusive, politically diverse new Government in Syria to make those decisions when they are elected. It is right that we allow them time for that process to complete and for a new, fully representative Government in Syria to make their position known on behalf of the Syrian people when it comes to those issues.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, further to the Minister saying that the Government are consulting community workers and organisations, are they insisting that women make up 50% of those groups? At the last peace talks in Ukraine, there were no women at all, and we have made an undertaking here that women have to be part of all the peace talks. I do not believe that women would give away some of the intellectual property of their country so easily if they had any say in this, so it is important. Also, women will talk about investment, education, schooling and other issues that would never otherwise be discussed at the peace table—just closing down the conflict. We want to close it down, but we have to do it in the right way so that that country can continue, after all that has happened, to become a country of its own, where children will go into further education and its GDP will be much improved. It cannot continue in this way.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We know now, from many contexts in recent history, how vital it is that women are included and central to these processes. My noble friend has made a very strong case. It is important that women have a say and are able to lead in the future rebuilding of their country.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we of course want to see peace in Syria, but I will sound a note of caution. Recent events have demonstrably shown, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, articulated, the threat to minority faiths within Syria. Indeed, ironically, the previous dictator was secular, in that he protected and afforded protection for Christians and Alawites. The ideological base of the current leadership and organisation, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, is Daesh. The Minister talked about Daesh and its dangers; we have seen it before. We have seen it in Libya and Iraq, and we may, regrettably and tragically, see it again in Syria, so I caution that, as we move forward on engagement, let us not forget the ideological base that drives the current Administration.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think anybody is getting carried away with optimism at the moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us just how precarious this situation is. We proceed with some hope, given where we have been, but it is always worth being reminded just how fragile this is and of the dangers that remain as we go forward.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmad’s words. This is fragile but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there is potential, for the first time in decades. In their Statement, the Government are rightly looking for stronger moral leadership characteristics. They say that
“anyone seeking a role in governing Syria should demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid and the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combat terrorism and extremism”.
I hope that person exists in Syria—or anywhere else, for that matter—but, as my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked on Monday, how confident is the Minister that the chemical stockpiles will be destroyed, for the benefit of the whole region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Confidence is a very difficult thing to measure in situations such as this, but perhaps the best thing to do is to say that we are mindful of the dangers that the noble Lord outlines. It is still right for this Government to have clarity and high ambition for the people of Syria, because they have suffered so much and desperately need a Government with the qualities that we outlined in the Statement.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before we leave this Statement, may I pursue the Minister on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, raised? I referred in my earlier question to the presence in Syria of the camps, which are of course held together by the Kurds, without whom the people who were responsible for genocide in northern Iraq and northern Syria would be free and on the loose all over again. What are we doing to ensure that they are brought to justice, as has happened in some cases in Germany and Holland but not in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working with our partners and allies on this. As the noble Lord knows, decisions have been made, particularly on the citizenship of certain individuals, which I think is what he is getting at. Those decisions have been made; I do not have anything further to add today.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I ask a quick supplementary? There are Syrian community and civil society groups in this country. Will the Minister find out who they are and work with them on this agenda?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know some of them very well. Many have made an enormously positive contribution since they arrived in the United Kingdom, setting up businesses and becoming leaders in the community. For some of them, there may be choices to make now, and I am very happy to work with whoever wishes to on anything that would help improve the chances of a lasting and stable situation in Syria.
United Kingdom: Global Position
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s global position.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful in advance to those who have kindly agreed to participate in this debate—at least, I hope I stay grateful when I hear them. I am especially looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, which will follow immediately. We will all listen with the greatest interest, in view of his wisdom and experience.
We are at an extremely dangerous moment in history, when the issue is the survival of world order of any kind. Some of the wisest minds, not just in America but on both sides of the Atlantic and around the world, tell us we are at the edge of an abyss. One of the best-selling books in America has been Robert Kaplan’s The Coming Anarchy. It was published more than two decades ago, but some would say this anarchy, in international affairs, has already arrived very promptly.
This is a new world in which we have to make our way, guard and protect ourselves more strongly than ever, contribute to others, set examples, define our purposes, and preserve our unity. We can forget about it all going on in faraway countries of which we know nothing; it is all very near, on our doorstep. Forget even the language of East and West, as though they were split into two halves of an orange, the idea so favoured by American academia, or the patronising concepts of North and South, developed and developing, all implicitly dividing the world between them and us—now an utterly flawed approach in this multipolar age.
How can that idea make any sense at all any longer when scores of countries, aspiring to liberal values in their own ways and not wanting to be beholden to either of the 20th-century hegemons, America or China, are not in the Atlantic West at all? They are in the East, the South and all around the world. They call themselves the neo-non-aligned, which in fact is most of the world’s 191 nations, large and small. The danger to Ukraine is the danger to them. What is happening is not just a European issue, as some seem to think. What they want in this digital age is not great power bullying, but independence and freedom from being put in ideological boxes or spheres of influence. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former UN Secretary-General—a man I much admired and who was much underestimated—once said, everyone needs a country to love. That is one message to guide us through the labyrinth in the digital age, in direct contrast to all the talk from a past era of the great powers fixing it, of blocs to align with, or of spheres of influence to conform to.
Forget too all the patronising talk about tilts to the Indo-Pacific, or pivots to Asia and the developing world, as though we are doing them a favour. That is the language of the past, when might was still seen as right and the West thought it was the master of the world. Forget about the historic confrontation between capitalism and socialism that much preoccupied the last century, when even Russia and China now have their own twisted forms of capitalism, even if they do not admit it. That debate is over too, and another one has begun on how to make liberal market capitalism—our sort—far more stable, far fairer and much more widely shared, and how to escape its massive unpopularity, especially among the young. Capitalism, for us, ought to be not a defeat but a matter of victory.
I believe we can compare this age with the printing press revolution of the 14th century, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution all rolled into one—although, of course, it is coming far faster and affects a far greater number of the world’s people on a far bigger scale than ever before. Among other things, it has changed the nature of international influence and pressure. We call it soft power, or some do, although, of course, it goes along with hard military power and smart power—the mix of the two. This House of Lords can claim a lot of credit for opening up this debate with our seminal report of March 2014, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World. It certainly seemed to have an impact on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which promptly set up a department to supervise soft power.
We are, as a consequence of our policy blindness, still suffering from a gross underestimate of the future importance to us of the Commonwealth network: the best and largest soft-power greenhouse of all, with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies among its members. This becomes the ultimate kind of association, both of peoples, professions, institutes and Governments, and of the comity of nations which a common language, with a common culture embedded within it, sustains and nourishes. No binding treaty is needed for the basic voluntary atmosphere of friendship and instruction that lies behind it.
Under past and present Governments, there has been some distinct and welcome progress in our repositioning journey—joining organisations such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example—although the cost of that has been getting policy with our European neighbours badly wrong. Relations with greater Europe are a neighbourhood, common-sense problem. It is plain sense that we must stay on the best possible relations with our continental neighbours—all of them. Of course we must co-operate in dozens of sensible and practical ways, as I know this Government are trying to do and we saw attempted by the previous Government—not with great success. The European Political Community, of which we are an active member—in fact one of the leading members—could prove the gateway to a thousand constructive outcomes of European co-operation without getting too bogged down again in outdated Brussels procedures.
The ingredients to make all these new relationships and alliances work are trust and mutual respect, with a strong and agreed set of rules and commitments, but that is just what has gone missing. It is as if the new strongmen of the globe—Trump is one, Putin another and Xi Jinping a third—all want different rules and methods, their own, and all with the least possible restraints on their actions. In fact, it now looks as though even America’s vaunted constitutional checks have gone on holiday, as the country is led into an outright trade war by one man’s say-so.
Can we protect ourselves, with all this lack of trust and respect swirling around and across the Atlantic, pulling the world we knew apart? Does America have all the cards in the Ukraine situation, as its President seems to think? Do we, for example, hold a better and friendlier set of world connection than the USA does—or shortly will, if the Trump hallmark is grabbing Greenland, kicking Mexico and trying to swallow Canada, a nation that happens to a powerful member of the Commonwealth with King Charles as its constitutional head? That is disrespect for you—that is the language we have to talk—not to say bad manners as well.
Anyway, in a networked, hyperconnected and technology-dominated world we do have some cards, and by common consent the Prime Minister has played some of them, so far, with great skill. Mr Zelensky—caught in the firing line between President Trump and Vice-President Vance—also has a card or two, although, alas, he never had the chance, in the Oval Office train crash, to play them.
The list of issues which should make America pause before pursuing a course of playing the big nation 20th-century battalion game is a long one. Many other items not listed here arise, not least that great nationhood arises from serving the world, rather than overriding or threatening it. We shall see how Mr Putin responds to President Trump’s latest threat about ruining Russia. Judging by his past performance, I do not think he will accept it very well, but we will see. Maybe he sees a gain for Russia in it; maybe he will go for it. To make America great again, it must be ready to serve freedom as it did in the past. At the moment, frankly, it is being led in the opposite direction.
We are not alone in facing this central challenge of the digital age with its contradictions and its transformative powers, which continue to unfold at a great rate, but we have a role emerging from the turbulence to replace the one we are alleged to have lost in the last century, with that famous put-down remark from Dean Acheson about having
“lost an empire but not yet found a role”.
We can pioneer popular social capitalist reform, which is the underpinning of stable democracy—neither works without the other. We can help rebuild the world institutions of the last century—as we helped to build them in the first place—with the UN very much included, to address climate change, the quandary of the world as super-mass immigration takes over and other 21st-century issues, such as worldwide energy transition.
We can construct and keep in daily or hourly use a dense world network, the densest ever in the hyperconnective age—with every old link, new tie and new nation on the face of the globe, especially our fellow Commonwealth members—always being ready to assist, guide and support. We can respond to populist pressure all over the world by clear democratic reforms here that keep all who wish in constant touch with a strong and trusted parliamentary democracy at work and in detail.
We can design our defences for employing the highest technology and safeguarding the civilian order and its supply chains as never before. We can boost enormously our reserves and the linkages between the military and civilian worlds. In the 1930s we kept our reserves at around 200,000 long before the war began; they are now at 37,000. The expansion must begin.
Crisis is opportunity We are in a very advantageous position to make the best of the present upheavals, with our global links, friends and experience, providing we build on the assets bequeathed to us. If we are smart and creative, there was never such a new dawn and clear horizon, for all the world’s uncertainties, and never such an open sea for a nation such as ours. I beg to move.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with great humility and a profound sense of responsibility that I rise to address this House for the first time. I am deeply grateful for the privilege of joining your Lordships and extend my sincere thanks to those who have supported me on this journey. In particular, I thank the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who was also one of my sponsors, for their warm welcome. I also thank my other sponsor, my noble kinswoman Lady Pitkeathley, who, in her wisdom, decided that the Lords was such a good idea that she sent for reinforcements. The kindness and patience of the doorkeepers, officials and staff have made these first steps so much less daunting.
The subject of today’s debate—the United Kingdom’s global position—challenges us not only to assess where we stand but to consider how we move forward. We do so at a time of great uncertainty—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, set out for us—and our history shows that our ability to thrive depends on creativity, adaptability and leadership. To maintain our standing, we must embrace these strengths now more than ever.
Entrepreneurship has been a lifelong passion for me, though my path to it was unconventional. I started in music—writing, recording and playing in bands, including in Camden, chasing that elusive big break. Like many in the arts, I quickly learned that dreams alone are not enough. Resilience, reinvention and the willingness to take risks—and sometimes embarrass oneself—are just as important.
That spirit carried me through my career, from introducing universal banking services while at the British Bankers’ Association to sourcing helicopters for the Prime Minister during the 2001 and 2005 general elections and to manufacturing table tennis tables in China. In many ways, music and business share the same DNA—good ideas, hard work and not a little luck; and, always, a team.
That belief in collaboration led to one of my proudest achievements: Camden Collective. This initiative emerged from a simple but pressing problem: too many talented entrepreneurs, particularly those without post-university networks, could not afford the space to develop their ideas. Drawing on my own experience with dyslexia, we turned a challenge into an opportunity, transforming empty high street spaces into free workspaces.
More than just pop-up offices and shops, we created a thriving community of innovators, doers, and dreamers. Our first rule, “don’t be an arse”, is not just a joke; it sets a cultural tone where collaboration trumps ego. That ethos has helped hundreds of businesses take their first steps, and I believe it can help shape the future of entrepreneurship in the UK.
Another of our Camden projects is the Camden Highline—a proposed new park in the sky, running between Camden Town and King’s Cross along a disused railway viaduct. Inspired by New York’s High Line, and sharing its design team, it embodies the kind of bold, imaginative thinking that I think can redefine urban spaces and strengthen our international reputation as a hub of creativity.
Technology, particularly AI, is transforming innovation. The UK has world-class AI research and a thriving start-up ecosystem, but our productivity gap remains a challenge. While top firms advance, many businesses struggle to adopt new technologies, limiting our competitiveness. I see both sides of this divide—start-ups I work with already leverage AI, while many traditional businesses, such as those in the business improvement districts I run, face hurdles in adoption. AI’s benefits must be widely shared. The Government’s AI growth zones are a strong start, but hubs must also be placed in urban centres, near innovation clusters such as King’s Cross, where research institutions and tech firms can accelerate progress.
AI can transform public services, as we have heard alluded to today. Standardising AI-driven processes across government would boost efficiency and service delivery, positioning the UK as a leader in AI-supported governance. Smart AI regulation offers a chance to reinforce our global position and while some, particularly in the EU, take a more restrictive approach, the UK can lead with a pragmatic, pro-innovation path. As a songwriter, even at my modest level, I understand creative concerns—I really do—but, if handled well, this could be a rare Brexit silver lining.
As I take my place in this House, I hope to bring a spirit of creativity and adaptability to my work here. The UK’s global standing will be secured not by nostalgia for past glories but by shaping the future. By embracing innovation, supporting entrepreneurship and ensuring that opportunity is shared across society, we will not only strengthen our economy but reaffirm the values that have long made Britain a leader on the world stage. I look forward to playing my part in that effort.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great joy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on the occasion of his maiden speech and to have the privilege of formally welcoming him into the Chamber. He and I have known each other for some 30 years, and our paths crossed because of our shared passions for policy, the creative industries and the arts. He has had a much more successful career than I have, getting his hands dirty working in his community, genuinely shaping the lives of so many people in Camden and beyond, and coming up with creative thinking.
It is a testament to our friendship that he recalled to me the other day that I once bumped into him and lamented to him, “Why do I have so many lefty friends?”, which will not surprise my friends on these Benches. It is a joy to have him join us in the House of Lords. It would be churlish of me and against the spirit of welcoming him to point out that he is a nepo Peer and that his wonderful mother sits in the Chamber with us today. It would also be grotesquely hypocritical because I am also a nepo Peer, having followed my own late father, who was a life Peer, into the House of Lords. I make that point because I know what a wonderfully additional heart-warming moment it is to come into a Chamber that would have formed part of his life even before he formally joined us. I look forward to debating with him for many years to come about the importance of the creative industries. I also welcome his speech because of his focus on the future, on innovation and on the strengths that Britain has today, here and now in the 21st century, rather than looking back necessarily on past glories.
A friend of mine, the academic James Crabtree, who specialises in south-east Asia, sent me a diptel this week on WhatsApp from a recording of a meeting between Senator Barry Goldwater and the Prime Minister of Singapore in which it was remarked that the British might have lost their muscle, but they are able to think. It is an echo of the remark that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made about having lost an empire but looking to find a role.
In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave a brilliant speech—one always says a speech is brilliant when it entirely reflects one’s own worldview. Everything the noble Lord said about how Britain moves forward in what he quite rightly identified as one of the most dangerous periods, certainly in living memory for me, is absolutely right. We must play to our strengths and not look back on past glories.
We are a strange country. We have, in some ways, a surfeit of self-confidence and, in other ways, a chronic lack of confidence. I always say that what makes Britain great is not our past but what we have today, which is part of our heritage: the rule of law, the English common law, leadership in artificial intelligence—to which the noble Lord referred—our universities, our research base, our Armed Forces and the Premier League. These are the kind of things that people around the world look to Britain for. The remark from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that everyone needs someone to love should perhaps be framed and put in the Foreign Office, because that is Britain’s opportunity.
This week, as chairman of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I was lucky enough to preside over our annual business summit. We welcomed the Malaysian Minister for Investment, Trade and Industry, and a Malaysian delegation, because Malaysia is chair of ASEAN this year. It was very telling for me. Somebody came up with a statistic, which I am not sure necessarily bears scrutiny, that about half a million Malaysians have benefited in some shape or form from British education. Given that the population is about 32 million to 34 million, that may be excessive, but the point was made, and the Minister then asked: “So why are only 0.6% of our imports from Britain?”
The fact is—I hope I am not getting over my skis when I say this—that there are many countries that love Britain. When you are in the Middle East or south-east Asia, you will constantly meet people who say how highly they hold the United Kingdom in regard, and how much they almost regard it as a second home. That is our strength. We can, in this moment of crisis, wake up and realise that we are not the 51st state. We have influence across the globe, and we should maximise that influence.
In my final remarks, let me play to my strength in terms of my passion for culture and talk about Britain’s soft power. We can exaggerate soft power. I always tease Neil MacGregor, the former director of the British Museum, a man I hold in the highest regard, who talked a great deal about soft power. He once lent the Iranians the Cyrus cylinder, a very important cultural artefact in Persia. I always tease him that, shortly after he lent it to them, they arrested six Royal Navy sailors who they claimed had breached Iranian territorial waters. But the point was made; we lent it, and we got it back.
I have talked about the importance of the British Council in this Chamber in the last few weeks. I have talked as well, many times, about the importance of the BBC World Service. Soft power will not get us everything we want to achieve, but it is a wonderful front door to engage so many different countries in dialogue—countries that respect the United Kingdom, and dare I say it, some of which do love us.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue at a crucial time. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and look forward to hearing a lot more from him in the future.
We have a long history and a clear footprint around the globe, even though our reach and capacity have diminished. Our global position has been defined by our interconnection with America, Europe and the Commonwealth. However, whatever was special about our relationship with the United States is now over; trust is broken. That does not mean that we should cease to have a relationship with America but, from now on, it will be on different terms and that is irreversible.
I have always taken the view that the UK’s most important ties, by force of geography, history and culture, are with our neighbours across a narrow stretch of water, as opposed to a vast ocean. During our 47-year membership of what is the EU, the UK carved out a unique, semi-detached position. We threw that away with Brexit and now run the risk of being isolated from both the USA and the EU. By leaving the EU, we weakened both ourselves and the EU.
I commend the Prime Minister for his efforts to co-ordinate with European partners and maintain good relations with the White House, and they have been rightly praised. I understand it when he says he is not seeking to choose between Europe and Washington. However, what he must avoid is allowing President Trump to dictate in any way how we reset our relationships with the EU and Europe, either on trade or defence and security.
Historically, the UK has reached around the globe, but we have sadly neglected that in recent decades. It is surely time to revitalise our relationship with the Commonwealth. The savage cut in aid compromises that, but we must look to commit more in promoting trade, investment, diplomacy and culture—soft power—to show that we value our membership. I recently spoke with a member of the Government of one of the smaller Commonwealth countries and asked what benefit they perceived in King and Commonwealth. I was told that it was a matter of complete indifference, as it made no impact. That is a travesty and should surely change.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, a legacy of goodwill towards the UK in many parts of the Commonwealth and around the world, which we fail to reciprocate adequately. I note that the King met Justin Trudeau in London recently and has been seen in public wearing Canadian uniform and insignia. King Charles is the King of Canada, and I have seen suggestions in the Canadian media that, as their king, he should publicly support Canadian sovereignty and independence. Is there any protocol to prevent him doing that? Surely Canadian Ministers can advise him to do so.
No relationship is perfect. The UK has friends that we have undervalued, and it now appears that we have others that we have overvalued. Our global position should be based on relationships we can trust, even when there are differences. As the world has changed, the UK cannot afford to be dogmatic about negotiating closer links with the EU. We need to build our own defence capacity and reset our relationship. The UK knows what it is like to have continental Europe occupied by dark powers. That was the case when I was born and for more than half my life. Our destiny requires the vision to create the means to prevent that happening again.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is customary to congratulate the holder of a debate such as this one, and I do so with all the more enthusiasm on this occasion, since that person is the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who was instrumental in setting up your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee and was its first chair. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his thought-provoking maiden speech.
As for the timing of our debate, that too is pretty good. With the publication of the global strategy review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, only a few weeks away, that report and this debate are together linking Britain’s hard and soft power, which must always be considered together if we are to get a full picture.
The first thing to be said is that the word “global” in the title of today’s debate has nothing whatever to do with that silly slogan of “global Britain” dreamed up by Foreign Secretary Johnson to characterise post-Brexit Britain. Britain’s global role has existed since the 16th century and had nothing whatever to do with whether we were inside the EU or outside it, even though we had a lot of pretty tempestuous relationships with the other countries of Europe along the road. Nor does it have much to do with that other emanation of Johnsonian imagination—the Indo-Pacific tilt, which overlooked that, if you tilt towards something, you necessarily tilt away from something else, in this case Europe. President Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has upended that tilt comprehensively.
The decision at the end of last month to substantially increase defence spending deserves full support, but the decision to finance that exclusively by a massive cut in our overseas aid budget, which had already been plundered to pay for Ukrainian refugees in this country, is going to inflict great damage on our soft power and influence around the world. The least the Government should do now is to commit themselves to increasing the 0.3% of GNI as soon as growth picks up.
One of the biggest challenges we face around the world is the damage being inflicted by the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from multilateral organisations and programmes, from the World Health Organization to the Paris climate accords to the UN’s Human Rights Council—and there could be more to come. Together with the cuts in US aid, these are serious decisions which will weaken western influence, whether or not it is replaced by Chinese involvement, and they will impact some of the poorest people in the world. We will need to do what we can to sustain and strengthen these multilateral organisations, moving ahead, if necessary, without the US, in a plurilateral framework with other like-minded countries; for example, at the World Trade Organization for the proposed pandemic convention, and at the UN. Can the Minister say whether that is the Government’s policy?
In all this we will need to work in close co-operation with and keep in sharp focus our European partners, with the Prime Minister’s aim of a security and defence pact with them at its heart. What is the proposed timetable for moving ahead with that and how does it relate to the handling of the fighting in Ukraine?
To conclude, in all this we will need international partners. Britain is no longer a great power, as it thought it was, perhaps for a little bit too long. But we are a significant middle-ranking power, so we need representation around the world, and that will need to be taken into account in this summer’s spending review, avoiding such pretty useless substitutes as regional representation. We must nurture our main instruments of soft power, such as the BBC World Service, which should be financed by the taxpayer and not the licence holder, and the British Council.
In all this, we should show awareness of how others see us and not just of how we see ourselves.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on securing this debate, though I fear I cannot quite share his degree of optimism. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on a most accomplished maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more. It is of course a privilege to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, who brings his considerable expertise to bear on our discussion of these issues.
The global position of the United Kingdom has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. That is because the world has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. We are at a turning point comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but this turning point is not, alas, for the better. It is making the world a more dangerous place than it has been since 1989, or perhaps even longer ago than that.
The great certainty that has dominated all global strategy since 1945 has been that the United States has been the leader of the free world. It has seen its role as the guarantor of a rules-based world order which it helped to devise. Of course, it has made mistakes—not all of its interventions have had beneficial results—but, on the whole, both it and the world have benefited enormously. Millions more people now live under freedom and many more millions no longer have to suffer the grinding misery of poverty. Of course, the United States has not been the sole author of these benefits, but without its leadership, it is very doubtful whether this progress could have occurred.
This great certainty has gone. It grieves me to say what I am about to say. I lived in America for a year as a young man. Both my children are married to Americans. All my grandchildren are dual citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States. But the last few weeks have made it clear that the United States is no longer a reliable ally of this country.
It is not the act of an ally to impose tariffs on friendly countries. It is not the act of an ally to threaten to take part of another country’s territory—Greenland—by force. It is not the act of an ally to vote with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations against a motion that recognises that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is not the act of a freedom-loving country to withdraw intelligence and military assistance from a democratic country that has been invaded by a tyrant.
It is foolish to pretend that we can rely on a country which is led by a man who rejoices in his unreliability, who revels in his unreliability, and who uses unreliability as a weapon of choice. The Prime Minister has spoken of himself as a bridge, and his efforts have been commendable, but a bridge needs firm foundations at both ends, and those firm foundations no longer exist on the other side of the Atlantic.
So what is to be done? It is clear that we, in common with other countries, not only European countries, must spend more on defence. It is true that we have been freeloading on the United States for far too long, but I am afraid that this new need for increased defence spending must have as its objective not merely the need to convince the United States that we are paying our fair share of the costs of NATO but the ability to defend ourselves and play our part in the defence of Europe without the United States.
The changed attitude of the United States is said to be in order that it can devote itself to the challenges it faces in the Pacific, in particular from China, but its democratic allies in the Pacific have hardly been reassured. South Korea is reportedly considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons since it no longer considers the United States a reliable ally, Japan’s nervousness is palpable, and what confidence can anyone now have for the future of Taiwan?
But we and the rest of the world will be poorer, too. That is an inevitable consequence of a damaging trade war, and the extra spending on defence which is now essential will have to be at the expense of other elements of government spending to which we have become accustomed.
The United Kingdom’s global position has changed in the last few weeks, and it has changed for the worse. We are weaker and we may become poorer. But we can—we must—also become more self-reliant. In doing so, we can yet provide a degree of leadership to like-minded countries which do not see international relations as a series of transactions but recognise that we share a system of values which is worth cherishing, sustaining and defending. That would be an honourable role to which we can and should aspire.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Howell. On this occasion, as on many others in his long career, he has shown himself to be one of Parliament’s thought leaders. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on this pleasant family occasion.
Disraeli warned us of those who fall into their anecdotage. I hope the House will forgive me if I offer one anecdote from my own experience as Minister of State in the Foreign Office. When I was the first British Minister to return to Aden in 1990 after our rather disgraceful scuttle from that place in 1967, leaving our local allies in the lurch, I was given in my briefing a saying from the area of that time of final British retreat. The saying was this:
“It is always better to be the enemy of the British than their friend. If you are their enemy, there is the possibility of being bought. If you are their friend, there is the certainty of being sold’’.
That is the way it goes with retreating empires. It is, one might say, something the friends of the United States are now learning, or have learned, from the end of the Vietnam War onwards, via Kabul and now to Ukraine. Once a nation, still immensely powerful though it may be, decides for better or worse that it has had enough of overseas adventures, its allies had better watch out: as Taiwan should now watch out, as Israel should now watch out, and as Europe, Japan and South Korea must watch out.
As Robert Tombs wrote eloquently in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, there have been plenty of warning signs, which we in Europe have ignored. Trumpism expresses the turning point in a style that would have shocked previous Presidents, but however expressed, something irrevocable which was a long time in the making has now been done. America is going home. The structures it supported and which its friends took for granted can no longer be relied upon. Trust has been broken in a way that cannot be recreated.
Doubtless, it will not always be quite so difficult as now. Trump will not last for ever: he will not be exempt from Enoch Powell’s law that all political careers end in failure. But his successors will not be able to recreate the status quo, even if they wanted to, and it seems unlikely that they would want to. Now, we in Britain have to find those who most closely share the same real interests as ourselves and build alliances on this shared interest. First and foremost, those who share our interests are our neighbours in Europe, all under threat from Mr Putin.
After Suez, our last big adventure in imperialism, when an infinitely more powerful imperial US cracked the whip and told us to behave, we and France drew different conclusions. Broadly, we decided to stick to the US, albeit as a very junior partner, and France went with Europe. Now we will have no choice other than to become a little more Gaullist. Doing what we can, of course, to keep relations with the USA as good as we possibly can, we have to cast our defence and industrial lot back in with our neighbours. I do not mean by trying to rejoin the EU: that bus has departed. We must also make the best possible technological and defence-industrial alliances that we can elsewhere, notably with Japan, Turkey, South Korea and, if possible, India, as well as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We also have to maximise our Commonwealth network, as my noble friend so eloquently put it.
My final point, however, is my most important. To make ourselves safe, we have to make ourselves richer. Our position ultimately depends on our wealth. We have a lamentable debt situation, including, as Roger Bootle has pointed out, in the decline of our net overseas assets. We have to strengthen and change the nature of our economy. I do not think we have yet begun to realise the scale of change required if we are to be able to defend ourselves. It is not 2.5% or 2.6%; it will be much more. It will mean profound changes in our society. We have a sort of consensus on defence at present among the Westminster parties, but do we have the social cohesion to accept the burdens that we are going to have to carry? Can we find the people to volunteer for the radically reformed and enlarged armed services we will need? Do we have the industrial muscle still to rebuild our defence industries?
We are going to need a new national unity if we are to succeed. Success cannot be taken for granted, but perhaps this ancient House, just a little distanced—as it should be—from the delights of short-term political infighting, might be one place where the building of a new national consensus might begin.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I follow in every sense what the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have just said.
In this crisis we need to hope for the best, prepare for the worst and learn from the past. I hope that Putin buys the ceasefire compromise and comes to accept Ukraine as the legitimate sovereign state it is, but we need to prepare for a future in which his appetite for territorial gain has only been whetted. The analogy, I think, is Munich in 1938: Hitler settled for one-third and nine months later came back for the other two-thirds.
We need to contemplate a future in which America, perhaps in the hope of pulling apart the Beijing-Moscow relationship, finds itself closer to the autocrat in the Kremlin than to the democrats in western Europe. At Munich last month, Vance told us that the real threat to Europe was not Russia but the enemy within—our corrosive liberalism. Musk says that America should quit NATO and America has left planning for some NATO exercises. So far, Trump has said only that America will not defend NATO’s free riders, and for America to follow Musk’s advice would be remarkably quixotic. America is right to resent the free riders, but it is America that drives the bus.
The NATO supreme commanders have always been serving US officers reporting to their commander-in-chief, and Congress accepted the Washington treaty only when that was spelled out to it. The alliance has been, from the start, a very effective means of projecting US power—too effective for de Gaulle’s taste. The American military and the American arms industry would be horrified if Musk got his way, and we should work to see that he does not. We should work to strengthen Europe’s contribution to the alliance, as Peter Carrington and Helmut Schmidt did with their Eurogroup and European defence improvement programme when Congress first got stroppy about the free-rider problem. But we also need to prepare for the worst, as the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have been saying.
European security is our security and we need a new structure that we should be defining now—but not in a way which might precipitate the very eventuality that concerns us, so not too much of the performative strategic autonomy talk that we hear from Paris. The best analogy may be 1948 and Ernest Bevin’s Western Union treaty. What would Bevin do now? I will make three guesses. First, obviously, we rearm. Obviously, 2.5% of GDP will not be nearly enough; in the 1970s, we were at 5.5%. Secondly, we demonstrate commitment. In the 1970s, we were still honouring Bevin’s WU commitment to keep 55,000 troops forward-based in continental Europe. The Baltic states must feel now rather as the West Germans did then—and they were very glad to have our forces on the ground. Thirdly, we need to strike a security deal with the EU in May. With the continuing cold wind from the east and new blustery winds from the west, we Europeans need to huddle together.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
May I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and we have to finish it by 3.19 pm? I am gently reminding noble Lords that the advisory speaking time it is four minutes.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for tabling this important and timely debate, and for his wide-ranging and insightful introduction. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, to his place and look forward to his future contributions.
With events moving at the pace they are and the related dynamics of established alliances and partnerships being severely tested, the United Kingdom’s position in the world remains both crucial and pivotal. Therefore, I found myself really willing on the Prime Minister when he met President Trump. That was difficult for me—I am sure my noble friend Lord Howard will relate to this. Imagine a Liverpool fan cheering on an Arsenal one, particularly with current events, but it shows the importance of leadership.
To me, we see our place in the world through key pillars: in our positioning and the strength that it brings to the global stage; and in foreign, defence and development policy. It remains my absolute firm belief that, with vision, leadership, investment in relationships, the leveraging of experience and the conviction to exercise strength and independence when it matters, we have an extremely important role to play. We play it as an economic power within the G7 and the G20, and as a strategic dialogue partner. I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey on this. We have been a dialogue partner with ASEAN since 2021. Our trade stands at £46 billion and the CPTPP was agreed in 2023. These successful new partnerships provide opportunities in this changing world, and I look forward to the Minister’s update in this respect.
The second pillar is our role as a defence power within key multilateral organisations, our status as a P5 member of the UN Security Council and a central role in the Commonwealth of Nations. Yet, sadly, the role of the UN has become marginalised and diminished, at times watching from the sidelines. The recent General Assembly vote on Ukraine showed, for the first time, countries such as the US and Israel voting with Russia, not with the UK. It showed that post-Second World War norms no longer hold. I would welcome again the Government’s perspective on this.
Regarding our development power, may I welcome officially the noble Baroness to her new position as Development Minister? I feel this also strengthens the voice of the Lords around the Cabinet table. Over many years, the UK has led on a broad spectrum of relief and development initiatives. The current change in budgets, which I fully understand, poses the question: what does it mean for our initiatives? I would welcome the Minister’s perspectives, particularly in areas that I led on such as PSVI, where survivors benefited in areas such as DRC, Ukraine and Sudan.
Finally, on soft power, as others have said, we brought a focus in challenging misinformation, providing important news and empowerment through the English language. In the area of human rights, I was proud to serve as the first Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. I say to other noble Lords that, yes, I worked with the first Trump Administration; it was then that we established the international alliance on freedom of religion, and I pay tribute to my dear friend Ambassador Sam Brownback in that respect.
We also established the human rights sanctions regime. I say to the Minister quite directly that there are individuals and groups responsible for egregious abuse of human rights. While I know that the Minister cannot speculate, can she reassure your Lordships’ House that those levers will continue to be used against such groups? They include, to give one example, the Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakistan, which targets minority faith communities in vile, hatred-fuelled attacks.
To conclude, we must play our part in finding solutions and leading on convening parties, whether on Ukraine or the Middle East. It is a real strength of our country, and we are recognised and respected for this. The world is changing, and I pay tribute to our partners, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on recent initiatives. Such examples also show a shifting of power and a realignment of alliances. The UK must embrace new partnerships and continue to play our part as a leader among nations.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this most timely of debates. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, to this House.
There can be no doubt that the United Kingdom’s place in the world order has been in question for some time. In relative terms, we are a small country; however, it is equally true that we always punch well above our weight. Indeed, the world has been reminded of our unique status in recent weeks because of the lead role that our Prime Minister has played in standing up for Ukraine and bringing European allies together in defence. I pay warm tribute to Keir Starmer for the diplomacy and foresight he has displayed in his handling of the current occupant of the Oval Office. Equally, I commend him on his loyalty to the Ukrainian people and, of course, President Zelensky. I hope that the cross-party unity on display in this House and in the other place can be maintained as the Prime Minister’s efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine continue.
There can be no question but that all European nations now need to increase defence spending by a significant degree. This should have happened long ago under our previous Government, but at least the step change is now finally under way. Noble Lords will be aware that His Majesty’s Government recently awarded Thales Air Defence Ltd, a world-leading defence contractor based in Belfast, a £1.6 billion contract to supply 5,000 missiles to Ukraine. While this will undoubtedly bring great help to the Ukrainian war effort, it will bring significant benefits to the Northern Ireland economy. The announcement was warmly received back home by all Ulster parties other than Sinn Féin/IRA, somewhat ironically given its previous fondness for explosive devices. Northern Ireland has a proud history in the production of armaments and, of course, ships and aircraft to the Ministry of Defence. I sincerely hope that the Province will be at the front of the queue for future defence contracts as our military spending is redoubled in these serious and worrying times.
I wish to make one final point. It has come to greater public attention in recent weeks that the Republic of Ireland—alongside Austria and Switzerland, it must be said—is not contributing in any tangible way to the security of an increasingly threatened Europe. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland has the lowest defence spending in the European Union at around 0.2% of GDP. Yet the Republic of Ireland is receiving all the security benefits of the rest of the European continent, paid for by others, including hard-pressed United Kingdom taxpayers.
I recently tabled a Written Question, answered by the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, asking what discussions His Majesty’s Government has had with the Irish, Austrian and Swiss Governments about their financial contributions towards protecting the security of Europe. I will not hold her somewhat generalised reply against her. However, given the UK’s renewed and enhanced leadership position in recent weeks, surely it is time for our Prime Minister to take a leaf out of President Trump’s book and demand that our closest friends, particularly the Republic of Ireland, climb off the fence and pay their way for the security of their own citizens. Indeed, I was surprised that the President did not make this point directly to the Irish Taoiseach during his visit to the White House yesterday. I hope that Sir Keir will do so when Mr Martin next crosses the threshold of No. 10.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, over the past two months, our world has tilted on its axis. A lot of our assumptions were overthrown and a lot of our “isms” are suddenly “wasms”. We were perhaps ready for a new US Administration to withdraw from Ukraine—that had been flagged up in advance—but other things have come as a shock: to side with Russia while attacking NATO allies; to instruct the NSA to stop treating Russia as a threat and to downgrade it as a source of cyberattacks; to vote with North Korea, Belarus, Russia and the world’s delinquents in the United Nations on a motion that even China was not prepared to support; to make aggressive territorial demands on Denmark; and to wage actual economic war against Canada.
I take this opportunity to salute the Minister for the tone she took yesterday on the question of Canadian trade. I could see that she had all sides of the Chamber with her. It is not a question on which anyone in this country can be neutral. I also salute the Administration for the mature and responsible attitude they have taken during these very sudden changes, these very mercurial times. We have not lost sight of the prize that we have—a potential trade deal with the US and closer associations with what is still by far the world’s strongest country and our biggest market. But we have still stood up for the values that, as a country, we pride ourselves on having exported—as the heirs of a liberal and democratic tradition that stretches back through the Bill of Rights even before the Great Charter to the folkright of common law.
Where are we left as such a country in this world that has been so suddenly shaken up? The question assumes some urgency when you look at some of the defence procurement decisions that have very long lead times. We have always assumed until now that if there were a serious war, we would be part of a wider western coalition, a US-led coalition. So, yes, we could manage Aden emergencies or Falklands Wars or Sierra Leone conflicts. But if it got serious, when it came to things such as strategic lifts, satellites and, of course, nuclear spare parts, we always assumed we would have the US deterrent there. Can we assume that we will be able to rely on it 30 or 40 years from now when the current nuclear deterrent expires; in other words, what procurement decisions should we be making now? Can we be certain that we would be able to rely on our American friends? I would hope we could, but I am less certain of it now than I was two months ago.
I hope we would be able to rely on liberal and democratic countries in western Europe, but, again, can we be certain of that? You would think the EU would be bending over backwards to draw us into a defence and security arrangement, given its relative exposure to Russian threats and revanchism. But it is sticking to the line, as far as I can tell, that it will not talk to us at all until we agree to open our fishing grounds. Now, is that a mature and responsible attitude? Does it show signs of having adapted to this new world?
On whom can we rely? The only thing I can say with certainty is that 30 or 40 years from now, we will not be quarrelling with the countries that have always been our strongest supporters and closest allies; namely the other large Commonwealth realms of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Somebody was telling me that if we were to make our nuclear system autonomous on the model of the French one, it would roughly double the budget. Well, we could roughly double the budget by sharing our GDP responsibility with those three countries.
Here I should declare an interest as president of the Conservative Friends of CANZUK, which launched at the other end of this building last night. CANZUK stands for closer co-operation, military and strategic, among those four countries, as well as free movement of labour—the right to take a job in another country—and an enhanced free market.
I end with a suggestion to the two Ministers, who both know, I hope, in what high esteem I hold them. Next year is the centenary of the Westminster Conference, which began the transformation of the British Empire into a voluntary Commonwealth. Is that not a splendid opportunity for His Majesty to invite the Prime Ministers of his four largest realms and show that our song is not yet sung—that we are only just getting started?
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate and for his wise and characteristically thoughtful introduction. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, for his forward-looking maiden speech. One thing he and I have in common is that his mother was also my supporter when I was introduced to the House.
In this very short time, I want to emphasise three points. First, we have been witnessing significant changes in the global order for some time. The jolt to the world from the stance taken by the Trump Administration should be seen not in isolation but, to some extent, as symptomatic of the broader changes we have been witnessing for some time. Rebalancing of economic and political power over a number of decades, accelerated by globalisation, has created both prosperity and insecurity; conflicts, pandemics and climate change are aggravating factors. Technological advances have enhanced connectivity, interdependence and interpenetration. All these have contributed to geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts.
We have been invested in the current order for almost eight decades and, understandably, instability and a changing scenario are causing anxiety. But now there is an opportunity to reposition ourselves and have multiple engagements to shape the emerging multipolar world. A change in mindset, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and fresh and bold thinking are required to protect our national interest and that of the international community. Engagement with both multilateral institutions and the multipolar world is an imperative to influence and shape the international norms, rules and laws. The need for an active and agile foreign policy is both evident and urgent, based on the analysis provided by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
My second point is about the need to strengthen our influence through soft power. While in some instances boots on the ground may be necessary, and we have to strengthen our defence capabilities, in the long run, to keep peace, soft shoes on the ground will yield better results. This is increasingly important in our volatile world, where there is more need for deeper understanding, mutuality, collaboration, co-operation and new partnerships. We have decades of experience in the exercise of soft diplomacy and building intercultural relations.
We were leaders in this space through the British Council well before Joseph Nye talked about soft power. But recently the UK has dropped to third place behind China in business, trade and governance. These are signs that we need to bolster our soft power strategy. The Government have established the Soft Power Council, but this requires just as much attention as defence, because hard and soft power go hand in hand. All the institutions that are the engine of our soft power need support and revitalisation.
Thirdly, we have been a force for good, offering a fair and balanced voice; our values and governance were a beacon. In recent years, we have squandered our reputation to some extent, and now is the time to recover it. We should not underestimate either working through the Commonwealth to achieve our objectives or the importance of our broader strategic relations with India and the global South.
Finally, we should not see ourselves as a mid-sized power. Our hyper-interconnected world is no longer about power; it is about networks and what we can bring to the table that is distinctive. We have many distinctive assets, as has been mentioned. The role played by the Prime Minister in the current crisis is one illustration of what we are capable of. The change and turmoil provide an opportunity to shape and negotiate our global influence and to be optimistic in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested; I very much hope that the Government will pay heed to what he said.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his debate. I apologise to the House for being slow in getting to my seat.
The kaleidoscopic view of the world today resembles that observed by Alice—probably more through the looking-glass than in wonderland. The 28 February scenes in the Oval Office suggested a bid by President Trump, vying with President Putin, for a role as one of the characters. The weakening of democracy in so many countries, and its absence in many others, increases the risk of anarchy—which is, by definition, unstable and so permits, and indeed promotes, alternative forms of rule.
The Second World War resulted in the resounding defeat of fascism. The subsequent founding of the United Nations sought to banish fascism for all time. Article 2.4 of the UN charter calls on all UN states to refrain
“from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
That could not be clearer. Yet today, fascism has re-emerged and is a growing threat to world peace, security and prosperity. Putin’s Russia not only ticks every box—tyranny, brutality, intolerance and territorial expansion—but, by its ruthless diplomacy, has managed to convert and expand the BRICS group of countries into an anti-western alliance.
Perhaps the greatest threat from fascism now comes from political Islam. I emphasise that political Islam is not part of the religion of Islam. Political Islam has attempted to highjack the theology of Islam to support its own ideology. This ideology originated in the 18th century as Wahhabism, a reform movement. It was relaunched in 1928 with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the first act of which was to kill the Egyptian Prime Minister. It attempted to kill Nasser, and in 1981 it assassinated President Anwar Sadat after he had attempted to make peace with Israel.
Since that time, the Muslim Brotherhood has acted as the political front for many violent organisations. A turning point was the unexpected launch of the Islamic State—ISIS—in April 2014. Formed from the Iraqi franchise of al-Qaeda, it rejects national borders and has declared its ultimate aim as the creation of a worldwide caliphate. The ideology and presence of the Islamic State is expanding widely and rapidly, especially in sub-Saharan African. The nature of the fascist lifestyle that it seeks to impose is demonstrated daily for those who live under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It is crucial that we understand, and pay the cost of resisting, the twin threats of fascism led by President Putin and by political Islam. The UK, with our long history as a world leader and as one of the P5 members of the UN Security Council, has a crucial role to play.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for securing this debate and in congratulating my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town on an excellent maiden speech that was a very good example of how, if you have something worth saying in your Lordships’ House and you can deliver it with a strong, confident voice, a measured sense of self-deprecation and a sense of humour, you have a far better chance of it being heard.
In the short time available, I shall focus on the UK’s position in Africa, but hardly comprehensively. In that context, today’s proceedings take place against a sobering backdrop. Over 80% of USAID projects have been cancelled, with the surviving 18% now falling under the auspices of the State Department. Accompanying this cull has been a presidential narrative about the subversive nature of USAID’s activities that could have been dictated by the US’s strategic adversaries. Germany and France have cut aid over several years and, owing to a combination of fiscal stringency and a darkening international picture, we have been forced to allocate money away from aid and towards defence—a decision I support reluctantly.
Meanwhile, in September last year, China pledged $51 billion in loans and aid to Africa. Russia’s Africa Corps provides security assistance in countries including Libya, Niger and Burkina Faso, while its new African Initiative—a self-described “Russian news agency”—deepens Russian influence through propaganda, civil society networks and outreach. Russia opened embassies in Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea last year and new missions are due to open in Niger and Sierra Leone this year, with missions in South Sudan, Gambia, Liberia, Comoros and Togo due to open shortly thereafter. It is clear, therefore, that our strategic adversaries plan to fill any vacuum left by a western retreat from engagement in Africa.
Aid matters for three reasons. First, we have a humanitarian duty to help those suffering from appalling poverty, conflict, natural disasters or climate change. Secondly, we are defined in the long term by what we do as a country rather than by our aspirations. Thirdly, even by the most cynical calculus of self-interest, foreign aid enhances the UK’s soft power and promotes peace. It makes conditions less fertile for terrorism and in some cases keeps frozen conflicts from kindling into flame. In this sense, foreign aid should be defined as national security spending, rather than just as empathy translated into hard currency.
Foreign aid is often an early warning system, alerting us to the prospect of an outbreak of conflict or terrorist violence. Given, as I have said, that Russia and China are prepared to step into any vacuum left by western powers in Africa, we will have to work extremely hard to ensure that our cut to aid and the reallocation of funds to defence do not resemble someone selling their burglar alarm in order to buy a baseball bat. Based on the most recent forecasts for GNI, the aid budget will now be around £9.2 billion, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue their work in Sudan, among other existing commitments.
Before I finish, I want to ask two questions of my noble friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in her place. First, what discussions have taken place as to the future balance between spending on regional and country-specific programmes and spending on our multilateral commitments? In assessing what capacity we now have, it would be helpful to know whether the Government envisage that balance changing. Secondly, what discussions have taken place with the EU as to whether there is scope for UK participation in future CSDP missions? Collective action is more important than ever at a time when we are finding it more difficult to act alone or within the framework of our traditional alliances.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating this debate. I start with a quote from Lenin: “Don’t mourn, organise.” The past few weeks have demonstrated that we need to look fundamentally at what we are organising our defences for. In particular, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will read this debate and, if necessary, rewrite considerable portions of his report which he is about to give to the Government. I am not sure that we should be planning for war; we need more thorough planning for peace, to make sure that the voice of Britain is listened to in the world.
We are too stuck in the language of the past—the language of Bevin, Attlee, NATO and Churchill. We need to move into the future. Our future is as a medium-sized—number seven in the world—important regional power. Our home defence needs—as I would prioritise them—are the Baltics, the Nordics and the northern Europeans. We need to look, for instance, at our ability to protect our undersea assets. We need to look at playing a much more active part in the Arctic Council.
Most of all—and I recognise that this would have to be done very privately—we need an independent British nuclear deterrent. We can no longer rely on the system we have relied on up to now. We have to acknowledge that the French got it right. It will cost us quite a bit of money. Although I just told you to forget Ernie Bevin, let us remember that he said, “I want a bomb with a union jack on top”. We have to look at this as part of our defence capacity.
Yesterday, in the Times, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, gave a good list of Britain’s overseas commitments which still exist. We know that the only way that we could defend the Falklands is by a nuclear threat. We also know that we could not make it with the present structure of our defence forces. We need a stronger defence and an independent nuclear deterrent. We need to negotiate at least to get France and Germany into the Five Eyes agreement; it is too skewed at the moment.
There is a big challenge ahead. I am glad that, for once, I have been able to make a speech without annoying everybody. I strongly believe in British defence. We need to strengthen our military forces and our soft power, particularly through the British Council and the overseas service of the BBC. This is a huge challenge, but I am sure that the Minister—whom I congratulate on her elevation—will be up to convincing her colleagues to face it.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this very timely debate. I congratulate noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his very enlivening and to-the-point maiden speech.
In the very short time available, I am not going to try to deliver a verdict on the UK’s global position. In light of what Mr Trump has been up to, I want to make a couple of points about the fundamentals of UK security, on which our role in the world hangs.
Since the inauguration of the 47th President of the United States, I have been more worried about what is happening than I can remember since the Cuban missile crisis, when we feared for our lives. It is not true to say that that is the case today, but I fear the growing threat to our freedoms from an aggressive and highly militarised Russia, in alliance with China. It is a different world. The UK is lucky to not be on the front line geographically, but the Kremlin’s ambassador in London has made it clear that it has the UK in its sights. We can expect, at the very least, increased espionage, cyberattacks aimed destabilising our politics, services and military capabilities, and incidents on and under the sea, as well as, potentially, more attempted assassinations.
It is a long-standing Russian policy to interfere in other people’s societies. I have no doubt that the UK can cope with this level of threat, though we need to do much more than is currently the case to strengthen the resilience of national infrastructure against attack. That is a task for not just the Government but the private sector. The imponderable question is whether this country and other European countries have the political will to generate sufficient military capability to deter overt Russian attack against the background of a much-reduced contribution to our security. Hitherto, as Europeans we have sought collectively to do just enough to keep the US on board without suggesting that we could do without it.
It is very clear that this level of effort will no longer suffice, whatever colour Administration is in office in Washington, now or in the future. What is much less clear is whether in the foreseeable future we will still be operating within the integrated framework of NATO or whether in effect the US will opt out of the Article 5 guarantee, which will also imply the removal of the nuclear umbrella and the effective end of NATO. At one level, it would be helpful to know what we are up against, but at another I dread to know the answer, which I doubt would be founded on any well thought-through American national security strategy. For all our doubts about Washington and what is going on at the moment, the Prime Minister is being well advised to present policy based on the assumption of continuing full-blooded American commitment to European security. However, as others have said, I hope that we are thinking hard about less optimistic scenarios.
What happens next in Ukraine could bring answers: this is my last point. There are several possible scenarios. It is unlikely that the Russians will flatly reject a ceasefire, through which lies an apparent path to the lifting of sanctions and the potential end of isolation, but it is doubtful that they will act in good faith. They will spin out talks to gain territory, they will make the guardrails of a ceasefire as weak as possible and they will set out to find pretexts for resuming fighting, based on claims of Ukrainian breaches. The likelihood of fighting resuming is high. Events after that could be fateful. Will the Americans back the Ukrainians hard, or will they try a Minsk? A Minsk could be the end of the road for the defence of Europe as we have known it. Credible American backing for any ceasefire is essential. On this key issue, the UK is indeed showing the leadership that this House wishes to see, and I congratulate the Government on pursuing it.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and hope that he enjoys his time here. We are in rather difficult times, so we look forward to further contributions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for making possible this important debate. It is more than important. It is an extraordinary debate. It would have been inconceivable, months or even weeks ago, for the House to be united in saying the things that it has said about our position in the world, and particularly the position of the United States. Matters are changing fast—as we speak, even. These are unprecedented times, in which America has joined the autocracies and dictatorships of the world in a belief that might is right, abandoning the rule of law, abandoning international free trade, abandoning liberal democracies, attacking its own allies and clearly adopting the same expansionism as that of Xi and Putin. It is as if the America First movement in the 1930s had seized power just when the Americans in practice came behind us to defeat Hitler when those America First politicians had argued for them to abandon Europe to Hitler. The wrong side has taken control. It is unimaginable that this Chamber would be united in these concerns, yet that is obviously so.
I will touch on the two big issues. The first is trade. It is absolutely evident that there is nothing about what Trump has said—and he is saying it more today—that suggests that this country can expect a genuinely good trade agreement with the United States. If he has one, it will be based entirely on self-interest and on us surrendering any measure of our interests to do a deal. We have to recognise that we need to work with all countries that believe in the rule of law, free trade and international institutions to build an alliance around trade. We cannot compromise our position by thinking that we can somehow sit on both sides of the Atlantic—that is just not an opportunity now available to us.
My second point is on defence. People have often misunderstood what NATO is about. The most important element that NATO provided was, effectively, an anti-proliferation treaty that said a member state could rely on America to defend it and therefore did not need the bomb. France has a few bombs—independently. Britain has a smaller few, which are not independent of America in any event; we cannot in practice use them without it.
The truth is that the offer to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Britain, Germany and France—all of those other democracies—was, “We will defend you and therefore you don’t need the bomb”. Even more importantly, not only do we need a defence alliance across Europe and other likeminded countries that has a nuclear deterrent—we are going to have to think about that now—but behind the nuclear deterrent was the promise that, if Russia or China used nuclear weapons at any point, the first response would be a non-nuclear one: an overwhelming shock and awe attack.
This was said to Russia when it threatened a nuclear attack at the start of the Ukraine war. Russia was told, “You will be taken out by a non-nuclear response”. But the only country in the world capable of providing that is America, and it is quite apparent that we cannot rely on it to do so; indeed, it is very unlikely that it would do so. Therefore, our defence now needs to work with our likeminded allies around the world to build a non-nuclear capability to respond to and stop these “might is right” countries, of which America now is one.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that they must stick to their advisory speaking time of four minutes, because we have to finish the debate by 3.19 pm.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on securing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his interesting maiden speech. My noble friend Lady May set out a powerful vision for our global position in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017—already eight years ago. She reminded us that our history and culture are profoundly internationalist. She suggested that our previous place in the European Union had come at the expense of our global ties and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world.
Her view very much chimed with my own, which was much influenced by the years I spent in Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, representing the investment bank Kleinwort Benson. The relationship between the UK and Japan had already largely recovered from the Second World War, and many Japanese harboured affection for Britain and the similar elements within our national identities. The influence that we could bring to bear, and the respect in which we were held in Japan, did not in any way derive either from our membership of the EU or from the special relationship that we had maintained since the phrase was coined by Winston Churchill in 1946. Things have changed since then more than any of us had ever dreamed possible. The new Administration in Washington has destroyed our certainties and made us and our other allies around the world sit up and rethink everything.
It is not just because I am one-quarter American that I venture to suggest that it is too early to say that the special relationship is over for good, but it is very clear that the UK and our allies will have to do much more of the heavy lifting in Europe, and that we will all have to spend much more on defence. It was reassuring to hear the Secretary of State for Defence say that he is determined to continue to work with the US to deepen our defence ties. We should also give credit to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has demonstrated in working with other allies such as Australia in assembling a coalition of the willing to protect a ceasefire in Ukraine.
It is clearly necessary to increase our defence spending significantly, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s mentioning a 3% figure, although I was impressed by a recent speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in which he pointed out that a recent study suggested that NATO countries need to spend 3.7% of their collective GDP now in order to maintain defence capabilities at a level necessary to meet the challenges we face. It is important to continue to work with our European and transatlantic allies through NATO, because this is the most likely way to maintain US commitment to the alliance and because Canada and the US are both even nearer than we are to another area of growing instability, the Arctic and High North.
I do not believe that the global aspirations adopted by the last Government after Brexit were unrealistic. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific was greatly welcomed by our friends in the region. It was well matched by our accession to the CPTPP, in which Japan played a larger role than is appreciated by many. The CPTPP can become an engine of growth, and it is exciting that, following Britain’s accession, other countries such as Indonesia and South Korea have applied or stated their intentions to join. In carrying out the planned reset of our EU relationships, it is important not to yield to the siren voices asking for dynamic alignment with EU rules, because that would put the kibosh on our effective participation in CPTPP. Now that the UK has joined, eight out of 12 CPTPP member states are Commonwealth countries. My noble friend Lord Howell is a strong supporter of the Commonwealth, and I, too, believe that we should work with its members and through its organisation to support more stability, more free trade and more prosperity around the world. Working also with our other friends and allies, we should not underestimate how much we can achieve.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on her promotion and look forward to her winding-up speech.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, most warmly on securing this debate and join in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley. It is timely to review Britain’s global position. The world is changing rapidly around us in many ways. We face the additional challenges posed by a highly unusual new Administration in Washington, hitherto one of the most fundamental of the UK’s international defence relationships.
We have been favoured relative to many countries with our raw materials: coal, oil and gas, and now, wind. We have an abundant and, overall, very talented workforce. We have a significant number of exceptional universities, and Britain has a proud heritage of remarkable innovation. Brand Britain and the whole edifice of history, achievement and professionalism; the monarchy and the Royal Family; Parliament, our historic buildings, the laws of England and the courts; our scientific innovation record; the BBC, which does such a brilliant job in international broadcasting; our universities, the British Council and many technical and professional institutions; our Armed Forces and much more—all are positive and impressive. However, as earlier speakers have cautioned, at this critical time we must not sit back and rest on our laurels. I recall the famous quotation from Lampedusa’s The Leopard:
“For things to remain the same, everything must change”.
Perhaps not everything, but many things will need to change. But how do we achieve the right sort of change and minimise the risks of what might be called bad change?
First, we must grow our economy and our prosperity. Fundamental to this is growing aspiration among more of our countrymen. Many of them are content but could, dare I suggest, aim higher. Homeworking and the long tail of Covid have been very detrimental to our economy and our society. There are of course occasions when homeworking is justified, perhaps in particular circumstances or specific sectors, but overall, society, businesses and organisations are better served by the team working together, stimulating problem-solving, encouraging mentoring and growing skills together.
Also fundamental is working not necessarily harder but, as the Americans say, smarter. We need to grow and sustain a favourable environment for business in all sectors, many of which are critical, because business is the key to growth. I have profound respect for the Minister, but I have to tell her that the Budget was very unhelpful to business. In her new position, on which I warmly congratulate her, will she urge the Treasury to look more positively on UK businesses when awarding procurement contracts?
The defence and strategic aspects of Britain’s global position have been discussed admirably already. I will turn my attention to soft power, which has become so important, and specifically to the City of London, an important national asset in many ways. The City of London is a significant contributor to UK soft power. Financial services account for 13% of the UK’s economic output and employ nearly 1.1 million people, with a further 1.4 million in related professional services. Financial services contribute to growth not only of our economy but internationally, and thus to export markets. The new Soft Power Council is to be welcomed and offers a valuable opportunity to enhance the nation’s global influence. Its composition should be broadened and strengthened to include key businesses, ensuring a more comprehensive and representative approach to enhancing the UK’s global influence.
The City Corporation supports UK international engagement through visits by the Lord Mayor and the policy chairman to key global markets. The Lord Mayor’s overseas visits are often accompanied by business delegations to help strengthen trade relations, foster economic partnerships and showcase London’s financial expertise and wider offer on the global stage. The City Corporation is building a new courthouse on Fleet Street. The development will increase capacity in London’s courts and project an image of the City that remains at the forefront of the provision of arbitration and adjudication.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome today’s debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for securing the opportunity to discuss this subject. I thank him too for his excellent, brilliant analysis of the situation; I really enjoyed listening to it. I also want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his maiden speech.
The international order is shifting, and today we stand at a crossroads. I, like everybody else, rise to reaffirm that the United Kingdom must remain a force for freedom, prosperity and peace in a very troubled world. As mounting global uncertainty seeks to challenge the post-1945 world order, we have an obligation—indeed, a duty—to reassert our leadership and to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, particularly in Europe, in defence of the very principles that have long underpinned our standing in the world. Nowhere is this duty more relevant than in our resolve to support and stand by the people of Ukraine.
Casting our minds back to 24 February 2022, the barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation was not merely an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation but an assault on the universal values of democracy, freedom and, above all, the rule of law. Today, the people of Ukraine fight not just for soil or boundaries on a map, but for the values that have defined our national psyche for centuries. I therefore welcome the Government’s continued support for Ukraine, as it demonstrates what we stand for as a nation.
We have been at the very forefront of military, economic and humanitarian support, but I remind the House today that even when others dither and dally, we must not falter in our resolve and our efforts, for the very security and peace of Europe hangs finely in the balance. History teaches us that Britain’s strengths have never been in passivity, but in boldness. It is now time for the Government to go even further. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the stance he has taken and what he has done, but we must go further in our support for Ukraine. It is time, therefore, to take rapid action in bringing forward the legislation needed to seize and utilise frozen Russian assets.
I appreciate that this is not an issue on which Britain can act alone, but, as we did in 2022, we must lead in uniting Europe and the G7 in bringing forward the legal mechanisms required to mobilise the more than £237 billion-worth of frozen assets and deploy them to bring about the end of this horrific war. If we show leadership here, it will send a message to the world that the United Kingdom remains a force for good and the standard-bearer of justice and liberty among the nations. I believe that at this time we must continue to show the support we have shown and provide leadership as we develop our defence forces for the future.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on securing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his very good maiden speech.
Last night, I attended an event at the Royal Over-Seas League where the Prime Minister of Samoa spoke. She reminded her audience that in difficult times it is always better to stand face to face rather than back to back. I think she is right because at a time when global norms and traditional modes of international engagement are being disrupted to an unprecedented extent, in-person and face-to-face dialogue is ever more important. This requires us to build bridges, often by having difficult conversations with allies and even more difficult conversations with adversaries. For this, we require places and organisations that can convene and facilitate in-person dialogue. Wilton Park is such an organisation. For the record, I declare my interest as chair of Wilton Park, an executive agency of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
We are undoubtedly a global player, but I think our confidence has been waxing and waning in recent years. The “abroad” directly affects the “at home”, but in our public-facing dialogue we have not always made this sufficiently clear. Understanding this direct causal relationship matters in a democracy. Similarly, no business can ignore geostrategic developments. Business as usual in global affairs is no longer an option, and there is a sense of urgency. The UK Government need to place themselves confidently as a key driver in shaping the international order, which, for the moment, cannot rely on all its traditional allies to enforce it. We have many of the skills and the resources needed, but we have to use them in a radically different way.
Last year, Wilton Park set up the Global Impact Group, and we were grateful to the Minister for speaking at the launch at Lancaster House. It is a collaborative effort between the private sector and government to foster co-operative working relationships and aid mutual understanding. At a time when the United States is retreating from international engagement, the UK has an opportunity and a need to step up to support key markets.
We should also show greater confidence in defending democratic structures and articulate why democracy is a better model for organising societies than any other. I expect that the college for British diplomacy will play an important role in increasing our capacity to absorb the fast-changing insights, skills and relationships driving today’s world, learning alongside representatives from business, friendly Governments and other organisations which equally need to understand how to navigate an ever more complex global picture.
At the meeting last night with the Prime Minister of Samoa, I also had the privilege of speaking to the incoming Commonwealth Secretary-General, the honourable Shirley Botchwey. We need to remind ourselves that the modern Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal sovereign states with a combined population of 2.7 billion, of whom 60% are under the age of 29, and that its secretariat is based here in London. All this was a very forceful reminder that we are an incredibly interconnected state in a great global position, but it requires us to use what we have with a sense of urgency with our willing allies and those we can trust.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, in an episode of “The Simpsons”, Homer Simpson says of the Economist magazine, “I don’t need to spend $4 a week to be told that Indonesia’s at the crossroads”. Today, we in the West really are at the crossroads, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and many others have said. The international chessboard has been thrown up and we still do not know where the pieces will land. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford on securing this debate at such an important time.
It seems to me that we now face three main challenges, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on them. The first is our relationship with the United States. Until now, the Anglo-American alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy. The question we are all now asking is: how far can we rely on the United States? We know we have to take on more defence, but how reliable is the US as an ally?
The second great challenge is our relationship with Europe and how we recalibrate it. The Prime Minister sees himself, I think, as a bridge between Europe and the United States. I do not quite know how that will work, so the Minister’s reflections on that would also be very helpful.
The third great challenge is defence. Of course, we should have been spending more on defence for many years, so I very much welcome the Government’s decision to increase defence expenditure, going up to a target of 3% of GDP. But I would like to know a bit more about not just the percentage but what exactly the defence expenditure will go on, what it will provide and how it will help meet our objectives. I am sure that this will also come out in the defence review in due course.
I want to make two other points. First, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said, the strength of a country lies in not just its hard power but its economic strength. We know that for many years we have been falling behind the United States in particular, which has had much greater economic growth than we have. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to secure—I know that this is the Government’s objective—a more successful and stronger economy, because that gives Britain strength in the world.
The second point, referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, is soft power. He referred to the report published in 2014 when he chaired the committee that looked into soft power. I urge the Government to go back and take that report off the shelf. It is full of recommendations and really worth pulling out again to see what else the Government can do.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing us this debate. It gave us an opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made under what I observed to be the studious eye of the occupant of the Woolsack at the time. The noble Lord said that dreams alone are not enough. That is something we on these Benches have reflected on for many years, but he is very welcome and will make an excellent contribution to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked us to set aside some of the orthodoxies and consider the fast pace of change. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that there was a kind of reckoning, which I agree with. My noble friend Lord Taylor said in response that there is a very high degree of consensus in this Chamber. For us, on a cross-party and non-party basis, the norms and rules are even more important in a modern technological world, especially if those who control the technology have personal, political and financial ambitions and see nation states as vessels. Just this week, the Polish Foreign Minister called for European satellite and security resilience, and Elon Musk replied on X:
“Be quiet, small man … there is no substitute for Starlink”.
We have benefited, until recently, when navigating these uncertainties and complexities of the 21st century, from being a joint partner both within and then with the European Union, and working closely with the United States. We know, however, that we cannot entirely rely on the Trump Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that Administration was unreliable. Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times this week, wrote:
“I would call Trump’s foreign policy philosophy not ‘containment’ or ‘engagement,’ but ‘smash and grab.’ Trump aspires to be a geopolitical shoplifter”.
I think that has a great deal of sense to it.
This new reality is posing us major challenges, and it is fair to say—I think, very fair—that our Prime Minister is conducting himself, on behalf of us all, with professionalism and a seriousness befitting the office and, importantly, the moment, and we thank him for it. This recognition will, of course, not inhibit us from highlighting areas of either difference or concern; we are functioning democracy and a Parliament. My noble friend Lord Bruce eloquently referred, as many others have, to choices on development assistance and also soft power. We remain a significant force in that, and that is to be welcomed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, recent complacency is leading us to fall behind China and putting us in a deteriorating position in our relationship with developing economies.
I have often questioned the term “soft power”; what it means is quality, innovation, standards, reliability and predictability. These should all be part of our position in the world and are all elements that are in deep need, given that our key partner is showing very little of those qualities. It is why, when we look at our BBC World Service, cherished around the world, and when there is concern about its future funding, we on these Benches will challenge the Minister—we will seek to add pressure. When it comes to other areas of ODA, linked with national security, I will continue to ask and challenge the Minister, in temperate ways, on choices where we think the Government have taken the wrong direction. Earlier, the Minister suggested I might not have done well in the House of Commons if I think the tone is intemperate here. Her noble friend Lady Curran, behind her, will know I have a saddle-leather thick skin from my time in the Scottish Parliament. We will have this cut and thrust, because we can in our Parliament, and that is to be cherished.
On that aspect, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He highlighted one of the consequences of cutting ODA in areas where countries are on the front line against not only terrorism but the encroachment of Russia. For example, there was a high degree of consensus when we proscribed the Wagner Group, so in areas where its successor, the Africa Corps, is active, it makes little sense for our national security to pull ODA development funding when it comes to resilience against autocracies.
On 26 March 10 years ago, there was consensus when we passed the 0.7% legislation in this House. Part of that consensus was not just about the 0.7% level, that our ability to be a development partner should be on that scale. It was also that defence spending and development investment were complementary, and that one should not be cut to fund the other. I hope we can restore that consensus, because it is of great significance to our standing in the world. It is interesting to me, looking at the fiscal tests, that they were not being met in 2014 or 2015 when we established 0.7%. These are policy choices, not fiscal choices, and that is why, when it comes to policy choices about our position in the world, the faster we can return to 0.7% the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said there was some shift in American policy. It perhaps could be argued by some in America—apologists for Trump, not the noble Lord—that the main adversary is Beijing and therefore we have to settle ourselves to the rescheduling of our relationship with Moscow. That does not even make sense for those who support the Trump Administration, because of decisions they have made such as reversing the decision on TikTok, Elon Musk wanting contracts from Beijing and raising concerns about Taiwan.
I want to raise Taiwan and some others, and I hope the House will allow me to be partisan for a second. Taiwan, Ukraine and now Canada all have Governments that are our sister parties. There are Liberals on the front line of the challenges of this new, unsettling world order. Fascinating discussions I have had with my parliamentary colleagues in all three of those governing parties have inspired me, and this is where I want to close.
In listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, some others and my noble friend, there are potential opportunities in this global landscape. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made that there are more people living in a democracy. There are more people living in economic security than ever before in civilisation, however messy, uneven or unequal that is. For my party, often perhaps with bitter experience—or maybe because of the Scottish perspective—when you have exhausted pessimism, there is only optimism left.
So what are the opportunities? We are seeing now Parliaments, whether in Lebanon or Ukraine, resisting the interference of cyberattacks on a daily basis, or interference in democratic elections. There is civil society. Young women in Sudan are still doing remarkable things to keep their communities safe in unbelievably difficult circumstances. There are brave and principled political leaders, and we should be signalling our support for them. There are innovative young people, especially in African nations, who present an enormous economic and social opportunity for the UK. Of course, there are the networks, whether it is the Commonwealth or the European Union.
Nancy Pelosi always used to say that diversity is our strength but unity is our power. We can relay that to our friendship networks around the world. There are also standards, including the sustainable development goals, which, interestingly, have received not one mention in the debate so far. We can work with our allies. Let me close on this. We need to have the 2.5% and growing defence, not funded from cuts in ODA but by, perhaps, as we have suggested, the tech companies contributing not 2% but 10% of their unearned profits. There should be a distinct development department again, not a replacement of the 1997 DfID but a department for global transition, so countries know that, in this uncertain world when they are transitioning to zero poverty and zero emissions, the UK is a reliable, dependable and predictable partner at a time of great flux.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure today to address this important subject and to have heard so many great speeches from all sides of the House. There seems to have been, if you like, an overall theme of strategic uncertainty—just how much the world has changed in the last few weeks.
I have to say that the debate was so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford in what I thought was an outstanding introductory contribution, and I also really enjoyed listening to an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley. Like the rest of the House, I am sure, I am looking forward to some excellent contributions from him to your Lordships’ House in the future.
My noble friend Lord Howell made some very thought-provoking points in his introduction and I agreed with so many of his conclusions, particularly about the world being potentially on the edge of an abyss. I, like many other Members of the House, I am sure, wake up in the morning, switch on the radio and wonder with trepidation what statements have emerged from the current occupant of the White House during the night. Indeed, we have had more of them during the course of today’s debate. We debated yesterday during OQs some of the appalling attacks on our Canadian brethren and I commend the Government for the support they have provided. Even if they are a Liberal party, sometimes we have to support them in their democracy.
I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howard, who expressed very well the changing nature of the US under its current leader, who, it seems, as he said, sadly can no longer be regarded as an ally. He seems to revel in his unpredictability, as my noble friend also said. It is an uncomfortable realisation for those of us who have grown up during an era of US leadership to have someone like this occupying the presidency of the US. Throughout my political life, I have always regarded the president as the leader of the free world and somebody I have wanted to support.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey also made some excellent points about UK soft power, one of the greatest examples of which—I do not think this has been mentioned much in the debate—is our education system. A few weeks ago, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we were in Malaysia with a CPA delegation. It was striking just how many of our interlocuters in the Parliament and the Government had been educated in UK universities, or currently had children attending them, and used it as an excuse to visit our country. It really is a powerful soft power asset of the UK.
My noble friend Lord Hannan was right to remind us of the importance of our largest continental allies; the opportunity of working with them in a CANZUK-like relationship is one we should take increasingly seriously.
There has been an awful lot of common ground in this debate and that is understandable, but there are some actions of the current Government that I want to take issue with. There is great concern at some of their actions on the world stage. Just last week, it was announced that Britain has fallen behind China on the prestigious soft power index. While we welcome and are enthusiastic backers of the Government’s continued support for Ukraine, as I said, they have taken some decisions to which we are opposed.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Government’s decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This is not just a betrayal of the Chagossian people; it is a profound abdication of Britain’s responsibilities as a sovereign power. The islands have been British territory for over two centuries, and our presence there has been critical to both UK and allied security. This Government, in their eagerness to appease international critics, and populated as they are by human rights lawyers, have shown no regard for our strategic interests or for the right of the Chagossians to defend their own future. Instead of standing firm, Labour has caved in to international pressure, surrendering territory in a manner reminiscent of past colonial retreats, sending a clear signal that Britain no longer has the resolve to defend its commitments. It sets a dangerous precedent. What message does this send to our other overseas territories, be it the Falkland Islands or even Gibraltar? A strong Britain does not surrender territory for short-term diplomatic approval. A strong Britain does not weaken its historical narrative for fear of offending others, and it should not apologise for its past; it should build upon it.
We should reject the culture of retreat. The UK remains a global power, and we should have the will and means to act like one. We should stand by our overseas territories, and we need to defend our legacy. We should refuse to be cowed by those who seek to diminish Britain’s role on the world stage.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
It was all going really well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for that. When he was on the topic of universities, I thought “This is going to be really good”. I was chancellor of a university until I was told that that would be incompatible with my role in government. I agree with him about the importance of our higher education partnerships, the benefits of leaders coming here to be educated, and the great export of our amazing higher education institutions.
However, to then pivot to Chagos and to suggest that in any way there is a threat, particularly to the Falkland Islands, is really unbecoming of the noble Lord, who actually was doing rather well up until that point. The level of consensus and agreement in this Chamber this afternoon speaks really well of all the speeches we have heard. It is such a shame we had a little bit of a blip with that section of his speech, but never mind—we will move on none the less.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work over many years, and particularly to his recent work on the International Agreements Committee. It has been an outstanding debate. First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, for his excellent maiden speech. The creativity, adaptability and leadership that he recommended to us all, he demonstrated in his speech. I refer the noble Lord opposite to the first motto that the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said that he had in his organisation. I am not going to repeat it; the noble Lord can look it up in Hansard.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked where the trust, respect and manners are. Our Prime Minister is behaving with impeccable decency, integrity and diplomatic skill at this time of real challenge and disruption in the world, and I thank all noble Lords who have made similar points about the work Keir Starmer is doing. We cannot always influence others as much as we might like, but we can control what we do and the way that we go about it, and I am proud of our Prime Minister in that.
We can all see that the world faces an uncertain future. In too many places, it is dangerous, contested and volatile. We are seeing a greater number of active armed conflicts than any time since the Second World War, and progress to address them is fragile: from Russia’s brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine to the need for a permanent ceasefire and lasting peace in the Middle East. The natural world around us is under enormous pressure, with the ever more visible impact of climate change and environmental degradation on every continent, including here in the UK. We are seeing the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence, hybrid threats and cyberattacks, with adversaries active in all these areas.
As the Foreign Secretary underlined at the G20, so many of the greatest challenges and opportunities we face today are truly global, with direct consequences for the national interest. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear: we may not like it, but here we are, in a world where so much has changed.
As Homer Simpson would no doubt agree, we are at a crossroads in history. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, for that reference. We have had everything from Lenin to Nancy Pelosi to “The Simpsons”—I think that speaks well of this debate. As he suggested, it is time to act. A generational challenge requires a generational response. It demands extremely difficult and painful choices. It requires us to call on our strengths, and it puts a premium on our willingness and ability to focus squarely on the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. So, we take realistic steps towards the secure, prosperous, stable future that people everywhere want to see, including here in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, encouraged us to sing our song to the world, and I would agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, encouraged soft shoes on the ground—for example, her emphasis on diplomatic efforts. I can assure her that our Soft Power Council is going well. It is early days, but she is right, and others made this point: soft power goes hand in hand with strong defence. It was also wonderful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, champion the benefits of dialogue, specifically Wilton Park. I commend her for all she does to bring about the vital conversations that have never been more needed.
Our national security is the bedrock of the UK’s society and economy, and the ultimate guarantor of everything we hold dear. It is the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. Seven months ago, the British people gave this Government this responsibility, and we hold it with a profound sense of duty. Putin’s Russia is a threat not only to Ukraine and its neighbours but to all of Europe, including the UK.
As I have taken on the international development brief in recent weeks—I thank noble Lords for noticing that—something that has been at the forefront of my mind is how deeply the impacts of Russia’s aggression are being felt by the poorest and most vulnerable people right across the globe, so we are speeding up support for Ukraine and increasing economic pressure on Russia. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have travelled to Washington in recent weeks; convened European leaders, including here in London; and brought friends and allies together from both sides of the Atlantic, just as we have done for decades, to ensure peace and security. Serious leadership is exactly what the times require, and the UK has a unique role to play. We are focused on pursuing a just and lasting peace through strength.
As many noble friends will understand, our closest ally, the United States, has focused on the Indo-Pacific increasingly, over successive Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, spoke wisely on this point. We are calling for NATO’s European members to shoulder more of the burden for our continent’s security. The noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerr, referred to Bevin and I thank them for that. I can assure them that the Foreign Secretary talks regularly of Bevin, who has become a big feature in my life in recent months.
We are stepping up. This is not to please the US but, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said we must, to strengthen our own security in a time of instability and threat. These are shared priorities, from our AUKUS partnership—the Foreign Secretary visited Japan and the Philippines last week—to the Prime Minister’s long-standing argument that all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his comments on leadership, soft power and diplomacy. His words were grounded in values. Despite our different affiliations—I do not care about football teams, which he talked about, but I know the point he was making—we share many of those values across this House.
At this moment of pressure on public finances and geopolitics changing around us, things are moving quickly. We will never leave our country ill prepared for a more dangerous world or facing even tougher choices in the future. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, that the Prime Minister has announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, through this Parliament and the next, and we urge others to do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an excellent case for never assuming that the public will come with us. We must make the case, win the argument, explain and rebuild trust in the ability of politics to deliver. This is no small task, but one that I think every speaker today believes we have a responsibility to undertake.
In order to make this commitment within our fiscal rules, we have had to lower our spending on international development. As the Prime Minister said, that is not a decision the Government take lightly. It is not one that we relish, and I know I have now taken on a great responsibility. I am determined to make the argument for international development afresh and win the public’s trust. I will be coming back to this House soon to update Parliament on some of the early choices that we have made.
I echo the pride that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have expressed in our record on international development, as I did in my earliest meetings with key partners from the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Between the late 1990s and the early 2010s, the world made headway in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Throughout recent decades, our work has shown that the UK can address global challenges from health to migration, boost prosperity at home and across the globe, and improve the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. I have seen this for myself in all my visits to our partners overseas. We continue to play a hugely important role in everything from reaching tens of millions of people with immunisations, including polio vaccination campaigns in Gaza, to working alongside partners from the global South to secure reforms at the big multilateral development banks that will unlock tens of billions over the next 10 years, at no cost to donors, and get more of it flowing to those in greatest need across everything from education to resilience.
For all those reasons and more, this Government remain committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance when the fiscal conditions allow. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, of this, and I welcome his challenge and our—not that robust—exchanges across this Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, urged us to continue to face the world, especially the Commonwealth, and to reset our relationship with Europe. The Government accept this advice. We continue to provide humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and remain committed to tackling climate change and to multinational efforts on global health. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right that we need to work harder than ever to strengthen partnerships in the future, looking carefully and reviewing what will work. In all we do, we want the public to take pride in our work overseas, feel the benefits of it in their lives and have confidence that we are using their money wisely and in ways that match their sense of decency and our moral obligations to the world’s poorest people.
We know that so many countries share our ambitions for growth and opportunity. For most of them, aid is no longer the most important part of that, to say nothing of the paternalism that has all too often gone with it. The introduction to this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the importance of respect, listening and partnership is timely and very wise. We are focusing on genuine, respectful partnerships, which are more effective in creating security, growth and investment in jobs and opportunities here at home and around the world, and are better suited to fusing local knowledge with our greatest strengths, from the City of London to science, technology, innovation, arts and culture and to our world-class expertise right across the UK.
Much has been said about soft power. Someone said that they wonder about that phrase, as do I—“I am going to do soft power on you” is not really the best introduction to having influence. But it is a phrase that we all use and probably all understand.
We are looking to the future, from auditing our relationship with China to resetting our relationships with the global South. The Foreign Secretary hosted the Indian Foreign Minister this week and announced the reopening of FTA negotiations. The Foreign Secretary’s dialogue with the Nigerian Foreign Minister demonstrated our partnership on regional security and migration. We are making the most of the valuable role that the UK has to play, proving through our actions that we are a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council, committed to international law, the UN charter and the rules-based trading system.
Keeping our country safe is the first duty of government. We must meet the world as it is, with an indelible belief that things can be better. We recognise that we do not need to balance the compassion of our internationalism with the necessity of our national security—they go hand in glove. We must respond to the urgent challenges before us. That is the job of any Government. Despite the hard choices before us, however much we might wish it were not so, we must make the best of the moment to give even greater impetus to the important work of modernising our approach to international development, which is already under way. That is how we bring security and prosperity to people here at home and around the world in the months and years ahead.
As the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Vaizey, said, everyone needs a country to love. We all love this country and have a duty to share that love with the world as a force for good and, as the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said, for freedom, prosperity and peace.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate, including the Front Benches. It is, frankly, the kind of debate that one really needs to read rather than just pick up as it goes along, not least because a great deal of it, inevitably with a very tight time limit, is in shorthand. There are all sorts of issues behind the issues that need examining and thinking about much more carefully. I have talked to successive generations of Chief Whips as to why we need to organise things exactly this way, in this sort of minute race. I never fully understand the answers, though I am sure they are terribly sound. We all know that it takes a lot more time to formulate a draft of a four-minute speech than it does to draft a 10-minute, 12-minute or two-hour speech. There we are—it is something we have to live with, but if we could solve it one day, I think it would benefit us all.
I thank everybody for picking up one of the themes that I touched on: Commonwealth friends. In the age of networks that is emerging, the Commonwealth network is very different from the organisation of the past, thanks to hyperconnectivity and international, instant communication on a scale never before known in history.
One or two colleagues touched on something I did not have time to touch on in my speech, which is the Trident programme and whether our deterrent would be affected if the worst came to the worst—as it might—and we had to go it alone without American support. I listened to Sir Lawrence Freedman, a Clausewitz of our day, say cautiously on the radio that we could manage and operate in that way. That is a slight reassurance. I hope it is not necessary; we hope America remains “America the Beautiful”—the country the world loves—but at the moment it does not look like it is striking the right note to continue the attraction it had in the past. I thank all noble Lords and beg to move.
Integration and Community Cohesion
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That this House takes note of the role of integration in reducing barriers to community cohesion in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate is about ensuring that we look at why integration is not working or happening in parts of our country, and how this impacts on the ability of our communities to generate an environment of bringing together respect and belonging for shared purposes that bring benefit to all. I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions, but particularly to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook.
I wanted to start my contribution by saying a little bit about my family’s experience and contribution to the country I call home, but as I started to write this speech I felt that it was becoming more and more about my family. However, I think it is important that I do this journey just to give a perspective from somebody who has been here all their lives, bar nine months.
My family’s heritage is Indian—a heritage that is a strong and integral part of who I am, as it is for many of the nearly 2 million people of Indian heritage living in our country. My family’s story starts in 1937, when my paternal grandfather, Captain Mall Singh of the British Indian Pioneers regiment, was invited as a guest to the Coronation of His Majesty King George VI. My grandfather’s service, and later my paternal uncle’s service to the Indian army and the Indian police, lay at the heart of the family’s duty to its community and countries.
In 1938, my maternal grandfather arrived in London and after a while made his home first, for a short time, in Coventry. He then established himself and subsequently his extended family in Leicester. As the bombs flattened Coventry and parts of Leicester, he, with fellow Indians, worked to support the rebuilding and do whatever else they could during those years of war. My grandfather was one the community. Of course, he experienced forms of discrimination that we cannot imagine today. For example, when trying to find rooms to rent, he would find signs that said, “No blacks, Irish or dogs”. However, that never deterred him or his colleagues from their commitment to a country they loved and invested in.
After the war, there was a need to rebuild, and the country needed people. He helped house and settle over 40 families. However, as things returned to normality, he recognised that there was also a need to provide a voice for Indian workers. With his friends, he founded the Indian Workers’ Association to be the bridge between the unions and the employers. In 1952, my grandfather became the first Asian to open a hosiery factory in Leicester, providing employment and supporting the local economy.
In 1960, I arrived with my parents from India, just before my first birthday. I grew up in a Great Britain that was challenging for people of colour. The 1960s and 1970s saw a big shift in the expectations from the wider community. During the 1960s there were still relatively few people of colour, and I grew up with Irish and Scottish neighbours—my friends know that I am not a great curry eater; I grew up with broths and stews. The street was my community. My mother, who had arrived not speaking any English, learned, through the support of that street, how to use the transport systems, to get home working, to take me and later my siblings to school, and generally to become part of the wider community.
School life teaches you a lot, but when you are one of two people of colour in a class, it really does teach you a lot more. It teaches you how to survive and how to be strong and resilient. It also taught me how people would stand up for me, just as I stood up for the Ugandan Asians when they arrived in 1971 and 1972, after being expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. Racism rose heavily in Leicester at that time, but this community did not resile backwards; it moved forward and became one of the strongest communities that Leicester has.
I also grew up, like many of my background, with parallel lives between what it was like at home and what it was like outside. We had to balance the culture—my parents’ expectation—with what my friends expected. They never understood why I could not go out to dances and music halls, but they knew that, while I was at school, I was one of them.
All these things shaped what I did not want a community to look like as I grew up. I wanted my children and my friends’ children to be part of everything, so I became very involved in the regeneration of Leicester. In fact, I was then the young person on the advisory group. I was also the adviser to the Leicestershire Police for recruitment, and I became a college governor to ensure that students from all backgrounds could understand each other’s needs.
However, even today, the left-behind communities are the same communities that were there when I was growing up. They are the same communities that were ignored and totally marginalised by the people in power. Those communities were not migrant communities—they were the white workless or working class—and they still remain those communities. I have previously said, and I have spoken to the Minister about it, that I do not want that divide to get bigger, because those are the divisions that create the intolerances and incohesion that we see in many parts of the country today. I want AI learning and digital inclusion for all communities, particularly those that have been so left behind. I will ask the Minister some questions about that later.
Segregation and inward-looking communities create intolerance and tensions. I want children born and brought up here to be able to engage with everyone. I do not want the mothers of those children excluded from wider debate or decision-making. As I have said every time I have spoken on this type of subject, I want all people to know how to speak, read and write English so they are not excluded from decision-making that impacts on their lives.
A couple of years ago in Leicester, we had riots. These caused deliberate disharmony, but they were not by the people of Leicester. People had come in to deliberately distort what was going on in Leicester. It was only the strength of the women of those communities coming together that stopped the sort of violence that I had not seen for a long time in Leicester. The incorrect reporting of it and the misinformation that was going around on social media flamed up the distrust between communities and I am glad that they are now working harder to make sure that never happens again.
What we say and how we say it matters, especially if you are public facing. Although I certainly do not advocate for censorship around an honest debate about the issues and concerns that impact on the lives of all citizens and the need to feel free to challenge what is negatively affecting our lives, it is also critical that we know that every action has a reaction.
Over the past 64 years of my life, I have been a citizen of a country that has seen so many changes, as you can imagine. When people ask me how British I feel, my response is always, “I am British.” I do not need to demonstrate that. My children do not even think they are British; they think they are English. They were born here. My siblings were born here and see themselves as English. I do not want to constantly have to defend the fact that I am a truly loyal citizen of the country that is my home and is the country I love, but we cannot have this debate if we cannot honestly challenge why people think that we are different.
We have a country that is full of brilliant traditions and norms that we are all a part of, but we are also enriched with the cultural norms that I grew up with. I know that my family and friends share and enjoy Diwali or Holi with us whenever we have them. Tomorrow is Holi and it is the festival of colours. If you are in India, trust me, you cannot walk anywhere without having colour thrown at you. It is a reminder of how colours come together to bring joy.
My mum is 85 years old. She instilled in us the need to be active learners. I will be eternally grateful for her wisdom. I suspect that she raised a few eyebrows in her youth when her beehive hairstyle, ankle grazer slacks and winklepickers were the norm, against Asian ladies who were wearing the salwar kameez. I have tried to wear a sari elegantly, but I cannot; I stride. From all the things that I saw growing up, the one thing I know is that I can love both cultures equally as much. I have resorted to my own personal experiences because, as a child who saw racist attacks but also the incredible solidarity of my neighbours and friends, I fear the debates we are having today are negating all the progress we have made, and we have made a lot. It is easy to lose that progress if we descend back into our groups and feel that we do not belong.
I will end with a couple of questions for the Minister. What measures do his Government have in place to ensure that, where there are large communities from economically deprived backgrounds, digital skills and skills generally are part of the focus of the Government’s drive to be inclusive of everyone, regardless of their faith and ethnicity?
Will the Minister ensure that English is available to everyone and that women, particularly from migrant communities, are able to engage? My biggest fear is that they are not always able to access the services that are rightly theirs to access. Will he and the Government look carefully at how we build our economies around people’s strengths, and not their weaknesses? If we do not, we will go back to the “us and them” situation that I grew up with in the 60s. It was not a nice time to be a child in those days when you were being pitted against each other.
I do not see colour. I cannot see my friends’ colour; I just see them as friends. I want children to grow up seeing children as children. I want adults to treat their children and other people’s faiths and children with respect. The most important thing is that we are all stakeholders in our communities. If we cannot do that, sadly, those that have divisive, loud voices win the argument. I beg to move.
Lord Raval (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. Since joining your Lordships’ House, I have met only kindness from your Lordships, officials, staff and police. I am grateful to Black Rod, to the Whips’ team, to the conveners of this debate and to pioneering Peers without whom I would not be here.
I also thank our remarkably patient doorkeepers, who have already witnessed my talent for missteps. On my first day, I charged through the automated gates, triggering a shutdown. It was a swift lesson in tradition and modernity, and surely not my last.
In a sense, your Lordships are doorkeepers too. If I were to distil my purpose in this House, it would be this: that after three decades in leadership development across business, academia and faith, I see myself as a doorkeeper—not barring access but opening doors, perhaps even portcullises.
As a wayward teenager, it was I who needed doors opened. My mind raced ahead in some areas and lagged in others. I could have spent life dodging openings. Mentors changed everything. They helped me find my path into Sheffield University, then to Cambridge and Maryland. In Sheffield, I helped bridge industry, education and reform centres to unlock youth potential. Two decades on, alumni lead companies and communities. I saw deep barriers trapping talent, not least in white working-class areas. If you can inspire a plain-speaking teen in their free time, you can handle anyone, perhaps even your Lordships.
I learned that the political scientist Robert Putnam was right. Unattended diversity can fracture communities, but with intent and leadership, it forges strength. Inclusion is not passive—it takes effort.
My parents, Suresh and Padma, arrived in Britain in the 1970s—not with nothing, but with capital and a commitment to service. They ran a family business—30 years of dawn prayers, long commutes and 10-hour shifts—yet my mum still cooked a fresh Gujarati meal every night. That kind of sacrifice not only sustains families; it builds nations. Their values were inherited from my grandparents. At 15, my grandfather, Manishankar, left India as a cook’s assistant, alone and impoverished. He endured unimaginable hardship yet rose to become general manager of a large export business, with my indomitable grandmother, Kantaben, beside him. Their journey is a testament to resilience and the structures that foster it.
Here, economic opportunity is shaped by global dynamics, as was underscored so eloquently in the previous debate. As chair of Labour Indians, I note that, since Manishankar Raval’s maiden voyage nearly a century ago, India, that is Bharat, is rising as an economic and cultural powerhouse. A strong partnership is key to UK security, education, health, climate goals and growth. I stand for a new Silk Road linking India to the Middle East and extending beyond continental Europe to the UK.
Faith too is key for cohesion. Even the smallest hamlet has a place of worship, and faith remains central to many. My political awakening came when resisting the enforced closure of a major Hindu shrine gifted by Beatle George Harrison: Bhaktivedanta Manor in Hertsmere. This was not just door closure but attempted door erasure, granting me a lifelong affinity with other persecuted minorities. That injustice led me at 16 to join Labour. In 1997, Tony Blair’s Government rescinded the decision, safeguarding a monument of spirituality, inclusion and service. I protested outside Hertsmere Borough Council. How extraordinary now to stand before you as Lord Raval of Hertsmere, the place I call home, with my wife Lucy and our daughters, Lukshmi and Sita, who are no doubt watching at home.
Cohesion does not happen by accident. That is why in 2007 I founded Faith in Leadership. With a stellar faculty, we equip faith leaders to serve their communities while building deep cross-faith relationships, fostering trust while disagreeing well. Our 2,500-plus alumni lead critical work, from responding to Grenfell—where faith coalitions remained long after statutory services withdrew—to co-ordinating action during Covid-19 and other crises. We have shared this British model with international friends committed to neighbourliness and coexistence, most recently in Bahrain, to foster exciting cross-border collaboration. Two years ago, I chaired the Prime Minister, then in opposition, in a meeting with faith leaders. His commitment to religious pluralism is steadfast. I thank him, along with my supporters, the brilliant noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, and my noble friend Lord Rook—whose maiden speech I eagerly await—for their dedication to people of all faiths and none.
I leave your Lordships with the words of Pandit Sriram Sharma Acharya, whose teachings have shaped millions worldwide, including my family. From his ashram in Haridwar—literally, the “door to the Almighty”—he taught that:
“Our world is one single family”.
That is integration—not just living together, but belonging to each other. Cohesion is the bond that strengthens society. I look forward to working with your Lordships, my fellow doorkeepers, to fortify it.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for introducing this debate and for her excellent, thoughtful and wonderfully personal speech. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Rook and look forward to his maiden speech.
An extraordinary honour befalls me: to congratulate my noble friend Lord Raval on his outstanding maiden speech, which illustrated the important and powerful way in which he will flourish in the work of this House. I had the privilege to be one of my noble friend’s introducers. He is a remarkable individual. He read law at Cambridge and remains attached to the institution today, serving as a member of the faculty of divinity. He had a very distinguished business career as an organisational consultant and chose to use the skills that he had honed in the private sector to give back to the community. He created Faith in Leadership, a UK-based organisation which now operates internationally, to create an inclusive community of private and public leaders working together for the benefit of the community. The philosophy is, to quote my noble friend:
“Faith leadership is the resource for humanizing and reconciling the world we live in”.
It is a theme which we fully appreciate in his words today and for which he was also recognised with the honour of an OBE in 2018.
My noble friend has worked tirelessly with the emerging and existing leadership of the faith communities in our country and is highly regarded and trusted by all. He is also a very proud member of the British Indian community and is steeped in understanding of the powerful and valuable cultures of the diaspora communities. The late, great Rabbi Hugo Gryn used to say that there were harmonisers and polarisers. We are grateful to have one of our country’s great harmonisers now gracing our Benches, and with clearly a great contribution to make.
This is an important debate and I look forward to all the contributions. I will just raise two areas, and put some questions to the Minister. One of the great challenges we have is how we protect and develop our diverse and cohesive democracy: a challenge that is not unique to our country. It is regrettably clear that open and inclusive approaches to society do not automatically lead to these outcomes. Indeed, we must always work at it to protect our democracy and build in resilience. The challenges we face cover many areas: how we build a society of common values, rights and responsibilities, and how we draw in different communities and underpin their economic and social needs.
Secondly, we must also ensure the integration of communities and how they develop, understand and achieve their place in society. Thirdly, we must bear down on extremism, especially on those whose actions tear the fabric of a cohesive society and whose perceptions of the exercise of their rights not just undermines the well-being of another community but stretches the culture of democracy. Where these issues arise, the number of agencies and parts of the country involved provides illustrates that the key to the success of any of this work will be the capacity of the Government to join it all up. I believe this subject is worthy of being one of the missions of this Government. Of course, I am not asking them to add to the existing five they are already focusing on, but I stress that this does need a whole-of-government approach.
I appreciate that the Minister is from one department, and I am not seeking at this time to sketch out a new job description for him. I know—and many in this Chamber will know, from their experience—of his very active and strong engagement with many Members of this House on these issues. But I would be very grateful if the Minister would outline how the department is working with others on this task across government. In particular, I would be grateful to know how the Home Office and his department are working together—especially as there seems to have been a slight change in those arrangements—and whether we are connecting all the different parts that are required for effective work on community cohesion.
Secondly, last March, Dame Sara Khan produced a report for the Government on social cohesion and resilience which covered many important areas. Its recommendations were very broad and dealt with a number of different agencies and parts of government. I would be grateful if the Minister would give the House an update on whether this Government have reviewed the report, whether they are going to make a substantive comment on it and whether they are going to support its recommendations. In particular, I would be very grateful if the Minister would comment on the recommendation for an office for social cohesion and democratic resilience, on the need for a five-year strategy on this and on the creation of a cross-Whitehall cohesion response unit.
I sense that my noble friend Lord Raval is among a good crowd of harmonisers in the Chamber today, and I hope that the Minister will take on board many of the matters and observations we raise in this debate. I hope the Government will strongly reflect on them and know that within this Chamber there is a strong group of people who are keen to work together in a cohesive way to build resilience and cohesion in our society.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this particular debate. I was delighted to listen to the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Raval, and I look forward to the same from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, later on.
I will start with Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister in 1965, who appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, to head the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. This was set up to provide for the integration of the minority community into British society. To a great extent, many of the efforts for good race relations have their roots in the work of churches in the early days, and this continues even today—I thank them for what they are doing.
I have mentioned before what it is when we talk about being British:
“Being British is about driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry to … watch American shows on a Japanese TV … But most of all being suspicious of anything foreign”.
This arguably sums up the confused debate about identity in this country. For several years, we have had debates in the press and magazines that have been called by my colleague Vince Cable, among others, the politics of identity. The old political certainties of left and right are less clear cut in modern Britain, with politicians competing to be the toughest on crime and the best at promoting concepts such as community cohesion, a concept which to my mind lacks strategic thought and which, like a mighty river, disappears in the desert sands.
There is now a search for the shared values that might be called English or British. Many have argued that it is important to articulate a shared sense of national identity in contemporary conditions of flux and change. If so, how can we reconcile this with diversity, openness and pluralism of belief and practice?
Fixed notions of shared identity, even if they could be agreed upon, are less necessary than promoting individual identity, pluralism and genuine multiculturalism. Add to this mix the wars in Russia and Ukraine and the Middle East, and the growth of terrorism and the death of multiculturalism—which, according to Trevor Phillips, leads to separateness and ghettos of different communities. Jonathan Freedland noted in the Guardian
“a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a … small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life”.
Of course, this is a difficult time in which to have the kind of calm and reasoned discussion about identity which politicians claim to want, but it is for this reason that I value this debate.
There is a confusion not only about identity but about what it is we are trying to talk about when we talk about race, religion, identity and ill-defined multiculturalism all mixed in the pot. For example, some politicians have claimed that the wearing of the veil by some Muslim women constitutes a visible statement of separation or difference. Of course it is right that there is a sensible debate about such issues. We should question what happens when an individual or group identity impinges on other people’s lives or liberties. But do we really believe that wearing of the veil will have a bearing in the process of community cohesion or the advancement of an integrated society?
Britain has been at the forefront of legislative and other machinery to establish equality of opportunity for all citizens, and strong new legislation on race, disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation has put new emphasis on protecting and promoting good relations between different groups. However, confusion still remains over whether this has helped to strengthen society towards a common identity.
To unpick the confusion, we need to analyse the current state of multi-ethnic Britain and examine the changing patterns of all our communities. For example, we talk about our ethnic minorities, but when have we ever taken into account that the largest ethnic group in Britain is our mixed-race community? We also need to consider post-war migration and the process of globalisation, which crosses the geographical boundaries of all nations.
In conclusion, true multiculturalism is proactive and means that equality and diversity are at the core of everything we do, from government to individual responsibility. It means taking a much more proactive stance towards combating racism and discrimination; really tackling social, economic and civic participation in all aspects of society; and positively valuing, not merely tolerating, the value and contribution of different cultures and perspectives and treating them with respect. We must accept that a framework of human rights provides a context in which the rights of any one group and the rights of wider society can be balanced.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate and for her thoughtful introduction. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raval, on his very insightful maiden speech and I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rook, later on.
Diverse communities are enriching, and an engine for innovation and progress, but diversity is a double-edged sword. If we do not cohere as diverse communities, society becomes fragile. We have witnessed economic, social and political divisions widening, trust in government and institutions waning, and social fabric fraying. Larger flows of people, misinformation, international conflicts, and the import of issues from the countries of origin of some of the communities have exacerbated the tensions. Consequently, we have witnessed loss of pride of place in communities, anti-social behaviour and rioting. Lack of appropriate policy responses to manage diversity over the past six-plus decades have also contributed to the balkanisation of communities.
In the name of multiculturalism, policies have been advanced which have widened differences and hindered integration. As just one example, community-based funding instead of area-based funding after the uprisings in 1982 contributed to one community being set against another, fuelling resentment and driving the disenchanted and other left-behind groups into the hands of the populists. Given the complex nature of diversity today, multifaceted interactions are needed to build trust, break barriers and bind communities and society together. This requires a sense of inclusion, trust in the state and a broad framework of shared values that hold society together but enable different perspectives to be explored.
Integration is a foundational step towards community and social cohesion, but it is not enough. Many worthy efforts have been made to enhance social connections, build trust, engender understanding and create meaningful dialogue to break down barriers. But, as I said, these are necessary but not enough. What we need are national and local strategies for integration and community cohesion. These must be accompanied by ensuring that economic growth and prosperity benefit all, with opportunities that ensure social mobility. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned AI and digital exclusion.
As another noble Lord said earlier, such strategies should not sit in one department at the centre. For any policy to be successful it needs to straddle many aspects of public policy. It requires joined-up policies both horizontally and vertically; that is, connecting with local government and civil society organisations. These need to include education and learning opportunities, tackling school exclusions, thoughtful housing planning, and building formal and informal social infrastructure; in other words, the whole plethora of policies that are linked.
If trust is to be built, models of governance need to be rethought with citizens at the heart. Yes, we have turned citizens into consumers; we need to get back to the notion of citizen engagement. That means an engagement that provides a meaningful voice and agency, and that brings people together around issues that are common to all. We need greater use of citizen assemblies to build trust and cohesion on culturally contentious issues. That is a space where concerns and fears can be discussed openly with tolerance and understanding, and where legitimate democratic debate can take place and help to deepen democratic behaviour.
Devolution is a good vehicle for this, with improved accountability among newly empowered leaders. Greater involvement of citizens at local level should be made mandatory. Above all, we need strong and purposeful leadership across government, joined-up responses and a long-term strategy, not just disjointed policies introduced in fits and starts, only in response to crises or when crises occur.
I was interested in the Government’s Statement on 4 March on the plan for neighbourhoods; it was very encouraging. Making it a reality will require cross-government engagement, and it would be helpful to hear the plans for cross-government working. It will require perseverance, imagination and courage to think the unthinkable and challenge some of the conventional wisdom. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how this work will be measured, the lessons learned, and good practice disseminated.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raval, on his excellent maiden speech, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rook. I thank the noble Lord for all the work he has done over the years with the churches, including the Church of England, in which he is an ordained priest, and with communities of other faiths. I commend his tireless advocacy, as a key adviser to the Government, of the important role that faith plays in the life of our country. I know that his vast experience and expertise, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Raval, will add great value to this House.
We only need look at the events of last summer to see the importance of and need for cohesive communities. The riots showed how easily hostility can escalate when groups of people live alongside one another, and yet are divided by barriers of fear and mistrust. A cohesive community is not one in which every person is the same, but in which they each share a sense of belonging despite their differences. They may have different cultures, beliefs or religions, but each person feels respected and valued. I was deeply moved by the account of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, of her schooling in Leicester, a city which I love and know well, and where my children were brought up. Probably two decades after the experiences described by the noble Baroness, my son Frank was the only white child in his entire school year. Like the noble Baroness, he experienced nothing but friendship, respect and support from his schoolmates, who were almost all of south Asian heritage.
It is relationships that are at the heart of bridging the social and cultural gaps that can divide our communities. While we can and must speak of policy at a national level, integration work is best done by those on a local level, who can listen to and understand the needs of their communities. Local authorities, alongside the voluntary community and faith sector, are critical to integration and to bringing people together to build trust and understanding through creating space for cross-cultural interaction, interfaith dialogue and friendships across difference.
I welcome the community recovery fund that the Government have made available to local communities impacted by last summer’s riots. In our diocese of Lichfield, that fund has enabled Tamworth Borough Council to launch its “We Are Tamworth” programme this month, which empowers local groups to develop projects that strengthen bonds between people of all backgrounds and ages. The same fund has made possible, also in our diocese, the “One Stoke-on-Trent” campaign, which will administer grants to local initiatives while listening to and working with residents to explore what must be done to make the city a place where everyone feels welcome.
Although this funding in response to the riots is necessary and valuable, strategic long-term approaches are crucial to ensure meaningful and lasting impacts. I am glad that the Government have launched the Communities and Recovery Steering Group to oversee a new approach to community cohesion. I recognise that its terms of reference and membership have just been announced this week, but I ask the Minister: when might we know more about the details of the work that the group will oversee?
Education is also a vital part of successful integration and building community cohesion. In particular, religious education in schools plays an important role in enabling understanding of different cultures, religions and world views, equipping pupils from an early age with the knowledge and tools to understand and thrive in a multicultural society. However, RE is too often neglected as a subject, with pupils frequently being taught by teachers with no qualifications in the subject. What steps are the Government taking to increase the number of teachers who are properly trained to deliver RE?
As we have heard throughout the day, we are living in a time of increasing global uncertainty and conflict. We do not want that global situation to be the case locally. Let this be an opportunity to build trust and seek understanding. Let us foster communities that are strong and resilient, where everybody can feel they belong.
Lord Rook (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to address this House today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for this debate and her inspiring introduction and personal story. In this, my maiden speech, I wish to thank those who have supported me over many years: my family, friends and colleagues. Thanks also go to my supporters: the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, with whom I have enjoyed considerable collaboration on the subject of this debate; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I began volunteering for the noble Baroness over 12 years ago. The thought then that we might sit together on these Benches was implausible at best. Her friendship and guidance have been invaluable to me.
Working at the Good Faith Partnership, I have spent much of the last decade addressing issues of community cohesion. These early weeks of induction into your Lordships’ House have served as a timely reminder of five critical lessons on social integration. The first lesson is that integration does not happen by accident; it requires a welcoming community. At the Good Faith Partnership, we work with the ChurchWorks Commission, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, to host the Warm Welcome campaign. Working with faith and community groups, charities, businesses and local authorities, Warm Welcome provides over 5,000 warm spaces for isolated and disadvantaged individuals throughout the UK.
Although the House of Lords is not yet registered as a Warm Welcome centre—possibly a good thing, given the problems with the heating—Members and staff have provided the warmest of welcomes to me and other new Members in recent weeks. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark and to noble friends and noble Lords across this House for their warm welcome. I also thank Black Rod, the House of Lords staff, the police and security teams, the hospitality team and, of course, the doorkeepers. When a community works this hard to welcome newcomers, integration becomes so much easier.
I come to our second lesson: integration is always a two-way street. It requires real effort from both newcomers and welcomers. As an Anglican priest, I know what it is to need regular mercy and instruction. I am thankful for grace when I have erred, and for kind and gentle correction where necessary. As a newcomer and “Rookie” Member, if noble Lords will pardon the pun, I will no doubt require both of those for some time to come.
On my second day in your Lordships’ House, one of the doorkeepers asked me, “Lord Rook, what musical instrument do you play?”. At first, I wondered whether this was a question asked of every Member. However, I soon realised that the doorkeeper had read my introduction papers and noticed that my alma mater is the Royal College of Music. It turns out that both the doorkeeper and I play the trombone—a noble instrument indeed—but your Lordships have nothing to fear; I retired many years ago due to letters from music lovers everywhere. The doorkeeper’s initiative, however, serves to illustrate the third lesson. Integration happens when communities take initiative and get to know their newest members.
I have twice been seconded to and served the office of the Labour leader as a faith and civil society adviser, most recently under Sir Keir Starmer and previously, during the 2015 general election campaign, under Ed Miliband. This is where I first had the pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Raval. I thank him for his kind words earlier, and I am certainly forward to working with him in this House in the future.
Following the election in 2015, Europe faced the devastating fallout of the escalating conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. We were facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Here at Westminster, we were overwhelmed by the public response. Institutions and individuals from every corner of this country crowded in, offering help and demanding action. This leads us to the fourth lesson of integration. Integration requires the investment of many different groups and stakeholders. From 2015, the Good Faith Partnership worked with government and civil society to support the co-creation of the community sponsorship scheme for refugees. I am for ever grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, for the vital role they played in securing and establishing this initiative. As a result, local communities invested considerable time and resource, welcoming and integrating hundreds of vulnerable families. A few years later, again amid tragic circumstances, that model enabled UK citizens to welcome over 200,000 Ukrainians through the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
I grew up in Portsmouth, where my family were part of the Southsea Salvation Army. A Salvation Army upbringing brought certain obligations. I have already made mention of the trombone playing. Then there is the marching: parading up and down the seafront, to and from open-air church services. With the marching comes the praying—in particular, in teenage years, praying that your schoolmates do not spot you marching up and down the seafront to open-air church services. Above all, with the Salvation Army comes the relentless commitment to serving the last, the lost and the least. My fifth and final lesson on integration is the lesson I learned first of all. Communities become more cohesive when we include and integrate our most vulnerable neighbours.
I have chosen to be Lord Rook of Wimbledon. In 1993, the now Lady Rook and I moved into the area to volunteer at a Salvation Army youth project working with disadvantaged teenagers in Raynes Park. The youth club grew into a community centre, that community centre became a church and, decades later, among other notable achievements, that church was privileged to welcome one of the first families of Syrian refugees through the community sponsorship scheme. On my way to your Lordships’ House, I pass the home where that family lives to this very day. I thank God for the many who worked to welcome and integrate them and, what is more, for the different ways that this one family has contributed to our community.
Following violent disturbances in many towns and cities last summer, there has been much discussion about the importance of integration and cohesion. So how do we build cohesive communities and a welcoming country? In response, we would do well to heed the welcoming example of this House and relearn the lessons that lead to faster and fuller integration. We must remember that integration does not happen by accident. It is a two-way street. It requires the initiative and investment of many and relies upon our commitment to include those who are too often forgotten and ignored.
I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for raising this discussion and look forward to using my seat, place and voice to contribute to this and other vital conversations in days to come.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on a wonderful introduction to today’s debate. As a Scot who prefers curry to stew and broth, I am quite happy to swap.
It is a real pleasure to follow the maiden speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, and I and our families have known each other for nearly two decades now. We have lived much of that time within a mile of each other, as he touched on, in south-west London. Our children went to the same local community primary and secondary schools together. They have now gone off in their own directions, and I am sure that Joe is watching from the States if he is not here and that the rest of the noble Lord’s family are here with him.
It was an excellent maiden speech. Community and integration, as noble Lords have heard, are both the noble Lord’s passion and his life’s work. If I was to pick out a few words to describe the noble Lord, Lord Rook, to those in your Lordships’ House who do not already know him, I would choose theologian, political activist and interfaith campaigner—an interesting mix.
Over the last few years, as we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Rook, has served as the faith and civil society adviser to both the Labour Party and to this current leader and previous leaders. Following the recent election, he continues to advise both the party and the Labour Government. Alongside this, he has a broad portfolio of a ministry, combining new projects at the Good Faith Partnership with research, teaching and assignments.
Many noble Lords will have known the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and seen him around, providing advice and support for my noble friend Lady Sherlock, but probably a little less known is his work on refugees. He touched on just one of the aspects at the end, with the local Syrian family. He founded Reset: Communities for Refugees. He is an international consultant for global refugees and founded the RAMP Project. He is an excellent addition to your Lordships’ House and will bring a wealth of experience to these Benches in his own right. Russ, welcome.
I turn now to today’s debate. Community cohesion, as we have heard, is not merely a social nicety. It is one of the cornerstones of our society, fostering a sense of belonging, mutual respect and shared values among often diverse communities. Across the globe we see isolationism, protectionism and narrow self-interest leaping up the political agenda. It is through integration that we can bridge many of the gaps between different groups, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive and contribute to the rich tapestry of British life.
As we navigate the complexities of modern society, it is crucial to recognise that integration is not just a one-way process, as we have already heard. It requires effort and commitment from both established communities and newcomers. The UK’s integrated communities strategy, launched in 2018, emphasised this point by calling for a whole-government approach to integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, touched on in his comments earlier, working across government with local authorities and civil society to address the specific challenges in different areas.
This strategy acknowledges that successful integration depends on fostering meaningful interactions between people from different backgrounds and promoting shared values such as democracy, free speech and mutual respect. Today, we have heard many excellent examples, from the personal stories of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. The importance of community cohesion cannot be overstated. It is a glue that holds our society together, allowing us to celebrate our differences while working towards common goals. As Ted Cantle, a leading expert in community cohesion, once noted:
“Community cohesion is at the heart of all our future policies, plans and programmes”.
This sentiment underscores the critical role that cohesion plays in creating a harmonious and inclusive society.
However, despite these efforts, challenges persist. Socioeconomic deprivation and existing diversity are often cited as predictors of low social cohesion and integration. The 2023-24 Community Life survey found that, while 81% of adults agreed that people from different backgrounds generally got on well in their local areas, this figure was lower among certain ethnic groups and especially across the younger age population. These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions to address the root causes of division.
As Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, noted:
“Building social cohesion requires a collective effort from all sectors of society, including local authorities, voluntary organisations and community groups”.
This collaborative approach is essential for creating strong, integrated communities, where everyone can thrive. Community cohesion is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and social necessity.
In conclusion, by investing in integration initiatives we can unlock the full potential of our diverse communities, fostering a society that is more resilient, more prosperous and more just for all. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that every individual, regardless of their background, feels a sense of belonging and has an equal opportunity to succeed. Let us also remember that community cohesion itself is a journey, not the destination. It requires ongoing effort, dialogue and mutual understanding. But the rewards are well worth it: a society where everyone can live, work and thrive together, united by shared values and common purpose.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, many congratulations to my noble friend for introducing this debate—I think not for the first time, but it matters all the more. How good it is that those of us in this place continue to revisit a subject of such great importance. I also congratulate and give an enormously warm welcome to the maiden speakers: both are magnificent people. I am delighted that they have been trained and brainwashed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who is always somebody to be followed, whatever your political party or persuasion.
My concern is that we might lose some of the great progress that we have achieved in this country. Life was pretty bad in the 1960s and 1970s. Many noble Lords will know that I chaired the juvenile court in Lambeth. My family and I have always been outreachers who try to welcome people. My in-laws had Hungarian refugees; we had Ugandan Asians, and now we have a Ukrainian and a Latvian. But it is relatively easy for us, because we do not live on the margins of society. I am not pretending that those on the margins of society, where jobs and money are poor, can be so generous spirited.
When we look at the improvement in the number of women on boards, and the number of diverse members from different communities on boards, we see that we have done well in this country. We need to beware the wrecking ball—I am sorry—of President Trump. When the crash took place between the airliner and the helicopter, saying that it was excessive DE&I training that had resulted in the Federal Aviation Authority reducing the quality of the people they admitted was, frankly, deplorable. Trump said:
“The FAA’s diversity push includes focus on hiring people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities”.
It is funny, but it is appalling. We in this country must not dismiss all the DE&I approaches that we have developed.
Only today, financial regulators are saying that they are going to reduce the amount of diversity reporting. Well, maybe it has gone too far. We can talk about ethnicity, but we are not allowed to talk about religion. I do not agree with that and I hope the Minister might comment on that. We are hardly allowed to talk about age any more, but we are allowed to talk about orientation; it is incredibly politically correct. However, we must not lose what we have gained.
We need to have a reality check. I commend the Policy Exchange report, A Portrait of Modern Britain, with the foreword by Sir Trevor Phillips. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, will talk about this. It is extraordinarily gratifying. Three out of four people, 72%, believe that children should be taught to be proud of British history, proud of the wars and the abolition of slavery and much else besides. Most ethnic minorities think that social class is a much greater problem in terms of employment and opportunity than ethnicity. I worry that we will create divisions by reinforcing historical prejudices, which actually we should be proud that we in this country have reduced. This is not to say that they will not come back, but we have made great progress. We can take pride in inclusive patriotism, as Sir Trevor Phillips and others talk about.
I want to move on to universities, though, and young people. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate about the importance of religious education. Religion can be the elephant in the room: people are uncomfortable talking about it. If you talk to people in universities at the moment, they are really alarmed by what has happened, in terms of it simply becoming a taboo subject, a no-go area. I was delighted to see a message from both our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, at Oxford University, and Larry Kramer, the really splendid director of the London School of Economics, saying they will not tolerate no-go zones, that there must be free speech and open debate, and that the way to solve these issues is not by banning debate.
I warmly commend the work of James Walters, the director of the LSE Faith Centre. Several of us were with him this week at a breakfast when he talked about the efforts he is making to bring people together from different religions: Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Christian, because at universities, people come from all around the world. Some 80% of LSE students are international, and they bring with them their different faith perspectives. LSE has always been extraordinarily secular. I was there as a governor for 20 years. My mother-in-law was there, my grandmother lectured there, and my great-grandfather was an incorporating signatory. It was a secular place, and now they are bringing in the importance of faith.
Let us go younger. I welcome the English Speaking Union, founded in 1918 after the horrors of the First World War. We use the rather ugly word “oracy”. What the English Speaking Union is really working at is encouraging people to be articulate, to debate, to listen carefully but then provide critical analysis. They have got a great new programme of dialogue and debate rather than dispute and disagreement, and I commend their work warmly.
I must get to my favourite subject, which is working from home—a disaster. I want the whole House to from hear Sir Simon Wessely, the regius professor of psychiatry at King’s College London. Of course when you are at home you are miserable, lonely, your prejudices are reinforced, you do not meet people, there is no creativity and there is no diversity. It really is an extraordinarily serious situation. We know that children need to go to school, but we adults like going to work. Remember how wretched we all were when the House of Lords was not meeting. So, please realise that working from home is going to reinforce stereotypes, prejudices and unhappiness. I commend my noble friend once more and the many speakers—I have a lot more to say.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all these wonderful speeches. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this debate and telling us her history. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on their speeches and their entry to the House. I am sure they will make a great difference to it.
This is a very diverse House. To qualify to speak in this debate, I think I ought to stress that my mother came from Poland as a teenager, between the wars. She married my father, who also came from far away—Newcastle—while my maternal grandmother and other family died in the Holocaust. There are many strands of diversity in your Lordships’ House and we have heard many of them today. I was sure that many speakers would focus on their community in relation to cohesion. I will concentrate on how the UK Jewish community fits into this essential task.
We are fortunate in the UK in having numerous communal organisations, including the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council. There are many others. Sadly, external events can have a significant effect. Since Hamas killed and took hostages in Israel on 7 October 2023—as long ago as that—there has been a significant division in the UK. These divisions impact on Jewish life, resulting in tensions in the workplace, in educational institutions, on our streets and in communal spaces. There has, sadly, been a rise in anti-Semitism.
Many in the UK Jewish community feel more vulnerable than before and this is surely unacceptable. There are no easy answers. Interfaith initiatives need to be supported. Education needs to be improved on what is seen as anti-Semitism and how hurtful it is in the workplace, on the streets and in education. We have to face up to the fact that news travels faster than before, no more so than if that news is false or distorted. A lie once posted online soon becomes viral. Corrections, if made, are often ignored by those willing to believe those falsehoods.
It is often hard to explain to others that Israel plays an important part in the identity of the UK Jewish community due to religious, cultural, family and economic ties. It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel—after all, Jews and Israelis do it all the time—but it is an uncomfortable feeling to see the only Jewish state, comprising a population of only nine million, including non-Jews, singled out or held to higher standards than other nations. This can be seen in cases such as when a UK local authority supports the boycott and divestments campaign. We rarely hear of the 8 million Jews who fled Arab lands, mainly to settle in Israel. In the main that was because Israel, as we are trying to suggest today, integrates them into the general populace. There needs to be a stronger enforcement against extremism in the charity sector, which should be stamped on by the Charity Commission.
Of course, these falsehoods do not apply only to the UK Jewish community. In reflecting on the importance of community cohesion between Jewish and Muslim communities, I am heartened by initiatives such as Mitzvah Day, the UK’s largest day of social action. It brings together over 50,000 individuals from incredibly diverse backgrounds to engage in charitable activities that strengthen our social fabric. Notably, in 2024, Mitzvah Day’s theme was “Stronger Together”, emphasising unity in challenging times. Faith leaders from various traditions collaborated on projects supporting vulnerable families, exemplifying the power of collective action in fostering interfaith harmony. As examples, there were people knitting hats for premature babies in hospitals, while my wife was involved in cases for the homeless in Camden.
I acknowledge the contributions of many key figures in promoting interfaith relations. I know that the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, has been an ardent supporter of Mitzvah Day, a cross-religious and cross-cultural initiative, just for helping people. He has participated in its initiatives. The aim is to build bridges between communities. Additionally, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on women in faith has been instrumental in highlighting the vital role of women in fostering interfaith dialogue. We must all support initiatives aiming to deal with anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hate, anti-Hindu hate—hate of all sorts. I await the Minister’s reply. I will not set out specific questions as so many other questions have been raised already, except to ask: what initiatives can we expect from His Majesty’s Government?
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend—my good friend—the Minister, Lord Khan, who is doing a really terrific job. This is not an easy gig, particularly in these days of inflamed social tensions. He does his work with great energy, compassion and good faith. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook on their wonderful, warm maiden speeches. They are going to make some terrific contributions to this House.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate and for her very warm and personal opening speech. It made me think about my own story as a Muslim girl growing up in Coatbridge to Indian Muslim immigrant parents. I have told this story before but when my dad first got to Coatbridge as a GP, one of his patients asked him, “What are you?” He said, “I’m a Muslim”, and they said, “Aye, but what kind? A Rangers Muslim or a Celtic Muslim?” My mum and dad wanted to preserve their heritage while making sure that I integrated and learned the local culture. So, on a Saturday morning, my mum would drive me to my Koran lessons, which I then followed up with Scottish country dancing lessons. Having done the two, I am not sure which one was more dangerous, to be honest—stripping the willow is not for the faint-hearted.
I think of my father, who came to this country in the late 1960s. He began his working life in Clatterbridge Hospital on the Wirral and was desperately homesick and lonely. The sister on his ward, a formidable woman called Audrey, noticed this lost soul and, in her bossy way, demanded that he came round to her house for Sunday lunch. He did what he was told and off he went. Audrey took him and his pal Aftab under her wing. My dad had never been to a British house; he did not even know how to use cutlery properly. Audrey and her family taught them all about British life. My dad had his very first pint under the tutelage of her husband Arthur. He became a more moderate Muslim at this point, it is safe to say—don’t tell the Imam. In return, my dad cooked them delicious Indian food and they learned about his life. They became the best of friends and Audrey became like a grandmother to us. She sadly passed away a few years ago, but we are still so close to her children and grandchildren. That is the essence of integration. It should be based on human qualities of kindness, curiosity and friendship.
That is the fuzzy, feel-good bit out of the way—now for the other side. I got an email when I first came into this place. I had just done “Newsnight”, during the riots. I paraphrase, but this is the gist of that email: “Don’t kid yourself Hazarika. For the millions of us who can trace our heritage on these islands back many centuries—unlike you—we loathe and detest you and your kind more than life itself, because of how you have completely destroyed our country. You can fill the streets with uninvited and unwanted migrants, ethnics and left-wing Trots, but plenty of us are prepared to die to save our nation and its way of life, but we are not going to die in vain. Don’t ever, ever forget that. Long live Enoch Powell”. It is always nice to get some fan mail, isn’t it?
So it is not all good. There are extremists in different communities, including my own, who spread hate and feast off division. International conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, are affecting these shores, and, as we have heard, we are seeing a shocking rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Let us be honest: our politics have not helped either. We on the left are still deeply ashamed that anti-Semitism bloomed in the Labour Party under the last leadership. I personally apologise for that. On the right, politicians today say ridiculous things such as you cannot possibly be English if you have a different skin colour or were born to immigrants.
I do not share Rishi Sunak’s politics, but I was damn proud to see him become our first Hindu Prime Minister. We should be welcoming people who want to come here, work hard, contribute and be part of our community. Of course, we must allow people to have their religious and cultural differences, but we must also set clear guardrails about what is expected in our society and what we expect our values to be. We should all care about greater community cohesion and integration. It is better for everybody, as we have heard expressed so eloquently. But demanding it through humiliation, hatred and inciting violence is not the solution. To go back to my own dear dad’s story: a wee bit of kindness, humour, curiosity and friendship is the way. We should all be a bit more Audrey.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
That was a rather sobering speech from the noble Baroness, which I listened to carefully. It was a more uplifting speech from my noble friend about her personal journey. There were uplifting speeches from the two maiden speakers, which I also enjoyed hearing very much.
The vital nature of what my noble friend has introduced today can be contained in one statistic: last year in this country, 31% of all children born were born to mothers who were not born in this country. That is the scale of social change that is going on and which the noble Baroness’s speech and the other speeches today have to address. That is not a criticism; it is just noting the rate of change.
About five years ago, I chaired a cross-party Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on citizenship and civic engagement. We had a fairly powerful group, including two previous Labour Secretaries of State for Education—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Many of our findings, I am afraid, have not found favour. I hope the Minister might dust them down and see whether any have particular application. I offer just three for our debate this afternoon.
First, as a committee, we felt there was a need to distinguish between what you might call integration and assimilation; in other words, if you come to this country, what do you have to give up to be a full member of our society—which you might call your civic identity? What can you keep, and by keeping, enrich our society as a whole—which you might call your sociocultural identity? This country does not exist in a moral vacuum. There are essential values that have to be respected. However uncomfortable it may be, there are red lines that have to be enforced. We have heard some of them from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, gave evidence to our committee, and she said:
“The laws that protect religious minorities are the same laws that say I am equal to a man. You do not pick which ones you want. It is not a chocolate box of choice; it is something you have to embrace. If you are uncomfortable with that, I now say that is tough”.
Secondly, tackling these very difficult issues will not happen by osmosis. This needs to be taught and taught well. That is why citizenship education is so vital. I am afraid my party did not do well in government in introducing this and maintaining it. But I am also afraid, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I am not sure that this present Labour Government are doing much better. There is a persistent conflation between PSHE and citizenship education. In reality, they have completely different focuses. PSHE—personal, social, health and economic education—is about “me”. However, citizenship education is about “we”: the society in which we live. It is really important that we maintain that distinction and have a proper understanding and proper teaching of how our society operates and how people live within it.
Thirdly—I will say only two words about this, because both the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to it—there is an absence of any co-ordination at all. To make this thing happen, you need a Secretary of State—someone with power and influence. We found initiatives all over the place that, frankly, just ran into the sand. Some were good and others were bad, but nobody picked up the good ones and developed them; no institutional memory was developed at all. That is our report.
For my last minute and a half, I will talk about scale. In the last year for which records are available, we gave entry rights to 1.259 million people and about half a million left, so our population increased by about three-quarters of a million. I have some doubts as to whether we can integrate that number successfully—not just whether we can integrate them socially but whether we can provide them with an adequate supply of housing and access to health and other social services, not to mention avoiding damaging our environment, ecology and achievement of net zero. Moreover—this is the point made by my noble friend Lady Bottomley—we need to do so without selling short our existing settled population, 20% of whom are now from minority communities; they have rights that need protecting.
The noble Lord, Lord Rook, may think that I will start attacking asylum seekers and refugees—absolutely not. Of the figure I gave, just 100,000—7.5%—were asylum seekers. Obviously, particular issues are raised, but in terms of the numbers, they are virtually irrelevant. The big challenge comes from British industry and commerce, which simply cannot wean itself off recruiting overseas as a “default option”—the phrase of the Migration Advisory Committee. It also comes from British higher education, which has built a business model around recruiting ever-increasing numbers of overseas students, sometimes, as some people say, at the expense of the education of our settled population.
To conclude, of course everything we are discussing today is absolutely critical, but we need to be prepared to think about the central challenge of how many people we can take in every year. With all the different moral, economic and other objectives, how can we take them in? If we do not settle that, all that my noble friend said and all the speeches we have heard today are like trying to empty the bath without first turning down the taps.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and to hear such excellent maiden speeches from my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook. I am proud to be their fellow newbie—or perhaps I should say rookie—and both their contributions show how much they have to offer the House.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this debate. It is particularly timely as, this evening, observant Jews begin observing the very happy holiday of Purim, which commemorates a perfect story for this debate on community cohesion and integration. It sees a young Jewish woman, Esther, integrating into the Persian court by virtue of becoming queen, and, in doing so, standing up for her own community against the forces of hatred that seek to rip apart an otherwise cohesive community.
I will pick up and expand on themes raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lady Hazarika. While this has been a broadly well-intentioned debate, I am afraid that the figures are stark: they suggest that, at least for some, community cohesion is in crisis. Just last month, the Community Security Trust said that 2024 was the second-worst year for anti-Semitism that it had seen, with more than half as many incidents as the next highest year, which was only 2021.
Meanwhile, Tell MAMA, which does equivalent work for the Muslim community, as we heard in Questions earlier today, said that 2024 was the worst year in its history for recorded anti-Muslim hate cases—driven in no small part, no doubt, by the riots we have heard about, following the terrible events in Southport last summer. Those riots were instigated and fuelled by far-right anti-Muslim hatred. We know this is nothing new: the far right will always seek to scapegoat the immigrant and the minority group for being different. However, the far left is also not blameless.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, touched on intolerance on campus, and we have seen the hatred against Jews on regular protests in central London and elsewhere since 7 October 2023. This is undeniable, indefensible and a direct attack on community cohesion. Of course, many who march are there solely, and rightly, to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause. However, they are joined by those who simply cannot or will not do this without invoking naked anti-Jewish racism. The organisers of these demonstrations allow this to continue in seemingly blissful ignorance, with little or no effort made to warn those attending or stewarding those marches that, for instance, placards bearing swastikas intertwined with the Star of David or which equate Zionism with Nazism are simply unacceptable. Protestors may believe, wrongly, that chanting “From the river to the sea” is not anti-Semitic, but it should simply be enough to know that Jews find it at the very least objectionable and hurtful to persuade them to desist. Community cohesion is damaged when one of the country’s smallest minority groups, the Jewish community, is targeted in this way. The right to free speech should surely be balanced by a care for social cohesion. It should not be solely up to the police to deter racist behaviour on demonstrations, but up to those organising them too.
As many noble Lords have already observed, integration and cohesion are really just two sides of the same coin. I was struck by polling by the excellent HOPE not hate in their Fear & HOPE 2024 report, which found that in 2011, only 12% of British people polled had never had any contact with Jews, but that last year this figure had risen to nearly a third. For Muslims the equivalent figure had grown from just 8% in 2011 to 18% in 2024. The same trend is true for Hindus and Sikhs. For all our interfaith efforts to promote understanding between religious minorities, it seems we are working in a vacuum when it comes to the wider population.
I worry that trends in education have exacerbated the problem. This is not an attack on faith schools. My daughters attend an excellent Jewish comprehensive, having attended a very mixed community primary, but the increasing proportion of Jewish kids going to Jewish schools not only risks isolating them; it means that kids from other backgrounds do not get to meet a Jewish person and in so doing perhaps dispel some of the awful myths and tropes they may pick up on the internet. This cannot be healthy for our society; nor is it in any of our religious minority groups’ interest. We should all—communities, schools, government—mitigate against it. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on the difference between religious education and civic education, and PSHE. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this matter.
This goes to the nub of the problem. When hate rises, it is only natural for communities to hide away, creating a vicious circle which harms community cohesion. My own community has a proud history of integrating into British life in all its facets, including in this House. At the risk of sounding trite, did we flee ghettos 80 years ago merely to have to recreate them here?
The Local Government Association correctly asserted in evidence to the Commons Women and Equalities Committee that cohesion happens locally or not at all, and councils have a vital role to play in promoting and maintaining it. This requires strong political leadership in town halls—and I say this as much to my party as others. Councillors have responsibility for community cohesion, not foreign policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said, as political leaders our words matter, whether in town halls or in this House. Just as much as this means councillors not grandstanding to local groups on foreign policy, it means avoiding a rhetorical rush to the gutter on immigration here in Westminster. That approach plays into the worst of hands and only aids those who wish to divide, not unite, society.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Verma for bringing this very important and timely debate before your Lordships’ House. Her own personal testimony got us off to a very strong start and set the tone for an excellent debate. It has also been my great privilege to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook. I am sure everyone in the Chamber looks forward to the tremendous contribution they will make to your Lordships’ House in the coming days, weeks and years—decades, hopefully.
On Saturday I happened to be in Glasgow, when the first council-organised St Patrick’s Day parade was being held in the city centre. It seemed to be a well-supported and joyful event. Why is that relevant to today’s debate? The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, has already alluded to this. It is relevant because of what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, referred to as Scotland’s shame: the sectarian and divided society in the west of Scotland that has taken almost 150 years to get to a stage where suspicion and division between communities is still being overcome. It serves as a warning as to how difficult it is and long it takes to fix these issues.
The subject is sensitive and thought-provoking and, particularly given that I describe myself as a liberal Conservative, needs to be wrestled with. As a liberal and a Conservative, I celebrate difference, and I also respect faith and tradition. I believe in faith schools and the celebration of cultural diversity. There are many people in this country who do not belong to any community, and nor do they have any sense of national identity. That is a great sadness. I apply that equally to people whose families have been here for many generations and to those who have been here for one generation.
As someone who wants the UK to be a confident, free society, I also believe there are five important principles that would ensure that we aspire to be a fully functioning nation state. First, to succeed in this country, all people, from every community, should be encouraged and supported to speak English, to avoid the very exclusion that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned. Secondly, the law of the land should be applied equally, irrespective of race, sex, religion or any other characteristic. Thirdly, rights that protect individuals—whether women’s rights, children’s rights, rights to free speech, or rights to property and to free elections—should apply to every UK citizen. Fourthly, there should be a national narrative that we can all engage with, just as every other successful country has. That is the inclusive patriotism that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned. Living in the UK has to be about more than just being domiciled here and being able to make money here. Finally, the state has a responsibility to ensure that its population—from every community—has the opportunity to excel. Importantly, life cannot be isolated within particular communities, especially as young people grow. Suspicion and distrust so often come from a lack of mixing of young children.
I am sad to say that a major obstacle to some of these five principles being implemented has been an excess of cultural cringe among many who would consider themselves strong supporters of integration and cohesion. They believe that it is easier to spend huge amounts on translation rather than English classes, and that it is outdated and cringeworthy to try to celebrate what makes the UK a great and distinct country. In the area of law, that political correctness has crossed the line from ensuring that all are equal to some being more equal than others. I commend the Government on their recent stance on sentencing.
It has also become fashionable to believe that it is wrong for to children mix through national voluntary programmes, because it is somehow coercive or old-fashioned. I am not saying that we want to apply a beige, monochrome, old-fashioned sense of Britishness, and that the diversity that makes us so strong should be ignored. But we live in a country called the United Kingdom for a reason. It is a nation state made up of four nations, and in the 21st century the four nations contain numerous, strong, healthy and diverse communities.
As I have already said, it is actually a greater threat to our country that so many people in the UK have no sense of community, whether that be cultural, religious, familial or national. I was appalled when commentators began to discuss whether prominent politicians from a non-white background could be English, British, Welsh or Scottish. We cannot enter into a reductive argument about individual race or religion. It is far more important that people from every background feel that they are accepted as British, irrespective of the community, or non-community, they come from.
There is no simple route to integration. It is about a delicate balance underlined by principles of equality and the contract between the citizen and the state while recognising and celebrating difference. How will that balance and equilibrium be supported through policy? The west of Scotland is an example of how long that community integration can take.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am almost speechless at the quality of some of the contributions to this debate. As to the two maiden speakers, what fun we are going to have in the future—fun even in your Lordships’ House. I commend them on the quality of their wisdom and the manner of their delivery, to say nothing of a former stand-up comic sitting beside them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma—I want to call her my noble friend—for giving us the opportunity to share these experiences and ideas.
The day before yesterday, I was in Paris attending the migration committee of the Council of Europe, where I was charged to be the rapporteur for a study of diasporas across the continent and their agency in shaping coherent societies. I rose to accept that on the grounds that this is an opportunity to build a counternarrative to the toxic debates that we have been having about migration, for those who were migrants not so long ago are now pillars of British society. I am looking forward to that, though it will take some time; I may be in the grave before I finish it.
I wanted the major part of my contribution to be somewhere quite different, in a university in London. Four teacher training colleges, one run by Methodists, another by Anglicans, another by Roman Catholics and another by a humanist organisation, had to face the fact that teacher training institutions were no longer the fashion of the day, so they formed the Roehampton Institute of Higher Education and eventually were given by the Privy Council degree-awarding abilities and research degree facilities.
We saw coming on to one campus four bodies representing traditions that had been at one another’s throats for so much of British history and, where they had a common objective, finding a common will and a readiness to be open and generous with one another. Although they have religious backgrounds, they accept students from all over, now as the University of Roehampton. I was privileged to be part of the engine that brought it into being and have benefited from one of its awards more recently—I do not think it was in direct payment; I have to say that in case it gets into the newspapers. Here we have evidence that integration, coherence and social cohesion can happen when, instead of looking at each other as opposites or different, people collaborate around an agreed goal and work towards it together.
Of course, I am not going to take my six minutes—I always count it when I do not; I keep an account of the minutes that I have in credit for future possible use. What I have tried to explain by way of the creation of the University of Roehampton reached its summit point when it appointed as its new chancellor the person who introduced this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. Methodist plus Anglican plus Roman Catholic plus humanist now have the coherent head of a Hindu who is helping us all to see even more than we saw before.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on their two very engaging maiden speeches, and wish them every joy in the House. I also commend my noble friend Lady Verma on securing this important debate. Each of us will have our own idea of what integration looks like. Mine took place two years ago: namely, the King’s Coronation. The Coronation was what has been described, in a very different context, as a demonstration of traditional values in a modern setting. I want to examine both of those themes in turn.
First, the modern setting. As other speakers have pointed out, the Britain of the future will be less white, older and less Christian. Other faiths will grow, especially Islam, which by 2050 is likely to be followed by some 15% of the population. Therefore, when we talk of integration, we must not assume that others, who are neither white nor culturally Christian, must somehow integrate into the rest of the country that is, because the country is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Rook, said in his maiden speech, integration is a two-way street.
However, though Britain is changing, much of it is unchanged—which brings me to the traditional values. Although many of us are neither white nor culturally Christian, more of us still are. Our country has been shaped not by so-called British values—I have always been perplexed as to what these are—but by British institutions that, in turn, were shaped by enlightenment values which, in turn, were shaped—as Tom Holland argues in his brilliant book, Dominion—by Christianity.
What did all this produce? I answer: constitutional monarchy, democratic government, freedom under the law, an independent judiciary, strong civic institutions and a free press. All of these are explicitly western in origin, although now global in application, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are the foundations of our culture and I have no hesitation in asserting that some cultures are better than others. It is these things we must integrate into if we are to be as great in the future as we have sometimes been in the past.
In the very brief time available to me, I will sketch how these foundations can be strengthened. In a nutshell, we have the balance wrong. There must be some policing of private space in relation to, for example, support for terror, child abuse or incitement to violence. Integration is not enhanced, and nor are the police well served, by the thinking behind or the recording of non-crime hate incidents, as too often happens. Similarly, there must be free expression in public space in relation to, for example, events in the Middle East.
However, liberty is not licence, and there can be no room in the public square for support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, or for anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim hatred. On that score, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said earlier in the debate. In that context, organisations that use criminal action to force change should face a fundraising and communication ban—as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I see is in his place—and the criteria under which protests are permitted should be tightened, as recommended by Policy Exchange.
Finally, we need to radically reform the practice of equality, diversity and inclusion which, at their best, are all about fairness. In the words of Dr Raghib Ali, who advised the last Government on ethnicity and Covid,
“the primary factor in health and educational inequalities is deprivation, not race”
and
“there is now no overall ‘White privilege’ in health or education (and especially not for deprived Whites)—or overall ‘BAME disadvantage’—and these categories are now outdated and unhelpful”.
Just as we need to rethink equality, so we need to think very carefully about diversity and inclusion. It is said that diversity is a strength: this is usually true, but it is not always true that inclusion is a strength. For example, no one in this Chamber would think it would be a strength to integrate the grooming and rape gangs into the Britain of the future. Andrew Norfolk, the journalist who led the reporting for the Times, has said the root causes of the abuse have not been properly examined, which is why many of us on this side of the House have argued that a full national inquiry is essential.
Some believe in equality of outcome, some in equality of opportunity, but the equality that all of us can and do sign up to is equality before the law, the primacy of which should once again be established in public policy if the practice of integration is to be realised, and the promise of the Coronation is to be fulfilled.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate in your Lordships’ Chamber. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook on their moving and illuminating maiden speeches, which I enjoyed very much.
The UK is now a truly diverse multicultural and multifaith society, with all minority communities fully protected by various pieces of legislation. However, legislation can do only so much. It cannot always change deeply entrenched views, beliefs, attitudes and values.
When immigrants from the Commonwealth began to arrive in the UK after the Second World War, they faced widespread discrimination in their daily lives, whether in housing, employment or public spaces. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, this discrimination was, more often than not, overt. For example, in 1970, a pub landlord threw my father out of his premises simply because he did not speak English. Although his rights were protected by law, the prejudice of the time persisted.
However, as time passed, values and attitudes evolved. Today, I believe the UK stands as one of the most tolerant and inclusive societies in the world—yet we must not let our guard down. We need only to look at what happened last summer in Southport, when three young girls were tragically murdered. A rumour spread on social media falsely claiming that a Muslim asylum seeker was responsible. This must never happen again.
Community cohesion is undermined by inequality, poverty, misinformation and barriers to essential services. It is further threatened by low social mobility, a lack of respect for ethnic differences, negative attitudes towards migrants, low levels of local pride, fear of crime, and a lack of trust between different ethnic groups.
Today I will focus on one area: access to consumer credit. It is clear that some minority communities, particularly black African and Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, face far greater barriers when trying to access consumer credit. These groups often find themselves on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, experiencing more significant financial exclusion than others. They are more likely to be denied loans for purchasing homes or starting businesses due to their lower levels of savings and assets. Despite accounting for only 10% of fraud victims, they are far less likely to have their money returned. They were disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, suffering sharper declines in income and financial stability.
To address these disadvantages, we must first recognise and acknowledge them. Improving community cohesion requires a collective effort from the Government, local authorities, police, fire and rescue services, health and social care providers, and third-sector organisations. They must work towards a common vision that promotes equality and inclusion. This can be achieved only through open dialogue and mutual understanding, social interaction between different cultures and faiths, and stronger engagement between public institutions and diverse communities. Only through genuine integration can we break down barriers and ensure that every individual, regardless of their background, feels a true sense of belonging in our society.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on excellent—and very funny at times, which is always lovely in this House—maiden speeches. I welcome them to your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to working with them on these issues in the future. I thank my noble friend Lady Verma for bringing this important debate to us today. I particularly thank her for sharing her story and for her long-standing and passionate service to, and love for, the city of Leicester and its communities.
I am proud of our diverse country. A recent study by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory found that Britain is one of the most successful ethnically diverse countries in the world. Some of our greatest achievements as a nation have been by people who have chosen to come to Britain and contribute fully to our country. I think of Mo Farah and his Olympic excellence, Freddie Mercury, who was born and raised in Zanzibar to Parsi-Indian parents, and Dame Zaha Hadid, the first woman to win the Pritzker prize in architecture, who was born in Iraq. Indeed, many Members of your Lordships’ House were born in other countries and have committed their lives to public service in this country.
It is important that people who come here abide by our laws. We embrace people who integrate, but we know that when immigration is too high, it sometimes presents challenges to effective integration. Nearly 1 million people in England have little or no English proficiency. Specifically, 8.6%—approximately 794,000—of our residents born overseas struggle with the English language, and 1.4%—about 138,000—cannot speak English at all. This language barrier poses significant challenges to migrants’ integration. I echo the question from my noble friend Lady Verma to the Minister and ask him to set out the Government’s plans to improve English language skills for all as a part of work to foster greater cohesion.
We have a rich culture in this country which we should be proud of, but there have been too many examples of UK public bodies apologising for our national traditions. Let me give just a few examples. Stoke-on-Trent City Council referred to its Christmas celebrations without explicitly mentioning Christmas, aiming to be considerate to all community members. Newcastle University advised staff to use terms such as “winter break” instead of “Christmas break” and “spring break” instead of “Easter break”, supposedly fostering inclusivity among a diverse student population. We are, however, culturally a Christian country, and people from all faiths and backgrounds can enjoy the Christmas and Easter breaks even though they may not be Christians themselves. I would be interested to hear from the Minister his thoughts on the role that public institutions have to play in fostering inclusivity without seeking to undermine our traditional cultural values.
As a Minister, I spent a lot of time going around the country visiting many of our fantastic faith communities that were encouraging and supporting integration. I visited Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and London, and there were groups of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus—mainly women, I have to say, which is interesting —using Christian church halls, in particular, just to chat between themselves, have a cup of tea and share skills and their cultural heritages. That is local integration. I even saw them running wonderful community food banks, helping all their communities. These projects still need some local and, I suggest, national support to keep them going because it is from the bottom up that real community cohesion happens, with support from the top—so government, both local and national, is critical in this.
I want to talk briefly about British laws. I am very proud of our laws and our way of life. One area where we need to see more action on integration is women’s rights. We have a responsibility in your Lordships’ House to protect women in all communities, across all faiths and all cultures. We cannot allow the progress that we have made to be hindered by groups that have refused to accept our support for women’s rights. It is a fundamental principle in English law that we are all equal before the law, and I believe that every woman should have the same equal protection under the law regardless of her faith, culture, background or ethnicity.
It is the same in policing. We must ensure that policing is fair throughout our country. Where there are failures, whether they be heavy-handed policing in certain communities or failure to act in other areas, we must call them out and correct them. The Government are right to look again at the grooming gangs. Although we were disappointed that they did not launch a national inquiry, it is important that that work continues at pace.
In the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill—noble Lords are probably asking why I am talking about that—there is a requirement for strategic planning bodies to create spatial development plans. In that, there is a gold-plated plan on consultation requirements. It claims that there must be consultation of bodies that
“represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the strategy area”.
We cannot support this; it is where we perhaps go wrong. We believe that on policies of this kind we need to consult the public, not pull out different ethnicities or religions. I believe that it potentially creates division when we go too far.
Broadly, we need a clearer approach to an integration strategy from the Labour Government. Integration is about uniting communities across class, ethnicity and creed, celebrating shared local and national identities that bring people together rather than atomising them into protected characteristics. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how Labour intend to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this important debate and for such a passionate and eloquent speech detailing her personal journey and that of her family. Successful integration and social cohesion are the pillars of a strong and resilient society. I also thank my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook for their valuable and thoughtful maiden speeches in this House. On the evidence of their excellent contributions, the House will be richer and enhanced by their presence. I think today is the first time that a Minister can say that he supported at their introduction all those who have made their maiden speeches. I also thank my noble friends for their work on faith and for advising and supporting me in my work as a Minister with responsibility for faith.
Integration is the foundation on which social cohesion is built. Effective integration ensures equitable access to resources, opportunities and support, while social cohesion fosters trust, shared values and collaboration among different groups. Together, they strengthen social stability, reduce inequalities and promote a sense of belonging, which is essential for a thriving and harmonious society.
Integration is not about assimilation: we do not want individuals to feel that they have to give up their identity and heritage. Instead, it is about ensuring that every individual can succeed and feel represented, accepted and at home in the community they live in, so long as they respect the UK’s fundamental values—which I believe is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was alluding to.
For generations, people from across the world have come here to start new lives. In the past decade alone, the UK has provided safe and legal routes for over 600,000 people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. My noble friend Lord Rook mentioned the Syrian refugee scheme, which he was involved in. In August, I met Rola, who arrived in the UK in 2017 with her husband and two children through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. Rola and her husband Emad now both speak excellent English and have settled into life in Newark. Rola works as an employment adviser, providing support with interview skills, CV writing, job searches and applications, while Emad has opened his own mobile phone and computer repair shop, which is doing really well.
Like Rola, the majority of people who come here are welcomed into communities and settle well into life in the UK. Over the years, their presence has made the UK an immeasurably richer and more diverse place. Successful integration has led to cohesive communities. Backed by research, we know that the UK is one of the most open and tolerant places to live in the world. For example, in a recent survey, 98% of people stated that they are comfortable living next door to people of a different race.
Yet integration in the UK can also come with challenges. Adjusting to a new language, finding stable employment and navigating public services is not always easy. Cultural differences and social isolation can also take time to overcome. When people do not feel connected to their communities, we see hatred and divisions form. Seeing the disturbances in my hometown, Burnley, the unrest in Leicester and, more recently, the violent disorder across the UK following the events in Southport last summer, I know just how much effort it takes to rebuild communities.
The Government are supporting Leicester as it seeks to address its challenges, build on its strengths and work through the difficult events that took place in 2022. The independent review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, will establish what happened, the factors that contributed to those events and what could be done differently in future. I have had great conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about that. This Government are determined to strengthen the structures that promote integration and, by extension, social cohesion.
I will now address some of the specific issues raised today. I know that I have limited time, and I do not have the luxury of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has earned many credits over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about ensuring that English is available to everyone. The Government remain committed to the manifesto commitment to boost English language teaching. We know that language skills are crucial to help people integrate into life in the UK as well as to break down barriers to work and career progression. That is why we want to support all adults in England, including refugees, to secure the English language skills they need.
The Department for Education also funds ESOL provision for adults aged 19 and over in England through the adult skills fund, supporting 168,000 learners in 2023-24. The Government recognise that the ability to speak English is key to helping people integrate into life in the UK, as well as supporting people to access education, employment and other opportunities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, also asked what we are doing in relation to digital skills. In February, the Government published their digital inclusion action plan, setting out our first steps, including a definition and principles that will guide our work to address it. This includes partnering with the Digital Poverty Alliance and launching a new digital inclusion innovation fund and a digital inclusion action committee—an expert advisory group—to monitor our progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned the plan for neighbourhoods and our recent £1.5 billion announcement, which will deliver £20 million of funding and support over the next decade for 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundations to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. The programme is developed to work across the UK Government as well as devolved Governments and will demonstrate the breadth of interventions possible.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, in his excellent speech, talked about Dame Sara Khan’s review. To reassure my noble friend, I have reached out to Dame Sara Khan and hope to meet her soon to discuss in detail the recommendations in her report. I understand there are some valuable lessons to be learned from that piece of work.
Britain is an open, tolerant and compassionate country. We have welcomed people from all over the world to be part of our British society, whether coming to work or study or fleeing conflict and persecution. Schemes such as Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, and the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visa have provided important routes for those seeking sanctuary. People come to the UK for a variety of reasons, and this requires a tailored approach. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local authorities to understand the integration needs of new arrivals and how we can work together to ensure positive integration outcomes in local communities—which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lord McNicol mentioned in their contributions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about the high levels of immigration. The Government are clear that net migration must come down and are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK. They have set out a new approach to end overreliance on international recruitment and boost economic growth by linking the UK’s immigration, labour market and skills systems and training up our domestic workforce. Building on the Prime Minister’s statement on 28 November, the Government will publish a White Paper later this year that will set out their approach to reduce net migration.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about social cohesion. We have increasing diversity in the UK—I recognise the stat that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about—with 18% of the population being from an ethnic-minority background. We are proud to be a country that embraces difference and encourages people to celebrate their individual identity, but we are not complacent and must do more to build a stronger and more united country. This Government are committed to taking a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, and my department is leading cross-government efforts on this—this is important, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said. It is not just for MHCLG; we have to work across government, and in partnership with local communities and stakeholders, to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues.
I extend my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for talking about the recovery fund and some of the local initiatives that it was being used for. That is the start of our progress, and of course we have added 75 areas since the announcement of the plan for neighbourhoods. I hope that we can expand that, subject to the spending review.
The Government support recruitment to teacher training in religious education by offering a bursary of £10,000, but I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords about making sure that PSHE, citizenship classes or religious education classes are not taught by people who do not have the skills and expertise. I am having conversations with the Department for Education, including recently with Minister Morgan, on this issue.
In relation to the Communities and Recovery Steering Group, I sit on that alongside many Secretaries of State. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, its terms of reference are on the public record. It is a cross-government group led by the Deputy Prime Minister and includes representation from the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Cabinet Office and many others, working together to support all communities and places to thrive, grow and be resilient to face future threats that could divide them.
The Government have set a long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, aiming to reverse a trend of inactivity, raising productivity and improving living standards while enhancing the quality of work. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the Budget, the Government’s Get Britain Working White Paper sets out our ambitious reforms, outlined in three interconnected parts, including a new jobs and careers service, a new youth guarantee for all 18 to 21 year-olds and up to £15 million to support the development of local Get Britain Working plans for areas across England.
New arrivals to the UK can access various employment support services, including Jobcentre Plus, local council programmes, refugee employment schemes, ESOL courses and sector-specific initiatives.
Many noble Lords touched on the summer disorder. I set out our cross-governmental approach earlier. We launched a £15 million community recovery fund to support the 20 areas affected. That, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, is being utilised now by local communities, but more needs to be done
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned deprivation. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing, low civil participation and poor community cohesion leave communities more at risk of cohesion issues—a point very eloquently made by the noble Baroness. For instance, seven of the 10 most deprived areas of England witnessed disorder over the summer—Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Hull, Manchester and Blackburn all experienced violent disorder and are ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England. My department is undertaking work to understand how social and economic factors may play a role in harming social cohesion and is developing a more strategic approach to supporting communities and developing societal resilience more broadly.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Katz mentioned the high levels of anti-Semitism and religious hate crime. Of course, this is unacceptable and the Government will ensure that this is a priority. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, our anti-Semitism adviser, and on anti-Muslim hatred we have just announced a working group chaired by the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve. According to the Home Office, 71% of all religious hate crime is aimed at Jews and Muslims. We should ensure that we work across all religions to tackle this scourge in our country and we will continue to focus on this issue.
I thought my noble friend Lady Hazarika was very brave in outing her father as attending pubs. I just hope that the local imam does not read Hansard tonight. She raised a very interesting point about tackling the issue of political language. When you are the Minister for Communities as well and get the opportunity to go round the country, especially after the violent disorder, communities tell you exactly how it is. One issue that came through was the language of politicians and that needs to be dealt with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, made a very important point about working from home and loneliness. That can affect us all at any time of our lives, with a negative impact on community and individual well-being. The Government’s current work to tackle loneliness includes supporting a range of organisations through the Tackling Loneliness Hub, an online platform for professionals that is working to reduce loneliness. It will work to improve the evidence base around loneliness and provide evidence through the Better Health Every Mind Matters campaign advice pages.
I will spend a few moments on education, which was a theme of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. We know that socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils are more likely to fall behind and face barriers which hold them back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve. We are focused on driving high and rising standards in every school, delivered through excellent teaching, a high-quality curriculum and a school system which removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back.
The opportunity mission will break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their success by helping all children achieve and thrive, wherever they are in the country. High and rising standards across education are at the heart of this mission and a key to unlocking stronger outcomes and a better future for children and young people.
I will finish on two points. One is women’s equality, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised. From making work pay to keeping our streets safe, women are central to all our missions. We are making the changes needed to make sure that women’s equality becomes a reality. It is an ambitious agenda and we are putting women’s voices at the heart of it.
There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing and low participation leave communities at greater risk of cohesion issues. We continue to work on that in particular. We recognise that integration and cohesion do not happen in isolation; they must be embedded in the policies that shape our towns and cities, in our education system and in our public services. We are preparing to launch a competitive process to continue our support for Ukrainians and Hong Kong British nationals overseas, providing intensive English language lessons and employment support for up to 4,000 individuals. Following that competitive process, we anticipate that the programme will begin later this summer.
Furthermore, we have recently renewed a contract with the International Organization for Migration, which is responsible for delivering pre-departure cultural orientation for people coming to the UK under the Afghan resettlement scheme. We have been working with the IOM to deliver enhanced messaging on self-sufficiency, with a view to improving integration and behaviours. A new curriculum started on 10 March, aiming to support on average 500 people per month.
We have also placed a renewed focus on fostering social cohesion, ensuring that we are reinforcing this work through strategic and collaborative initiatives, through the recently established cross-government communities and recovery steering group led by the Deputy Prime Minister. We continue to engage actively with local people and partners up and down the country in order to understand how best to support local integration and cohesion efforts.
I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, when she was a Minister. On her point about having meetings up and down the country, I have already had over 80 engagements with faith and belief communities in the UK. I have had dozens of other engagements on resettlement and cohesion more broadly since taking up my post as Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned, it has been a very busy period. My focus is to reset the relationship with the faith communities, rather than seeing them in a transactional way as a fourth emergency service and going to them whenever there is a crisis.
It is also important to say that we will support our communities holistically. We launched a £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods, which will provide funding into the next decade. Cohesion measures will form a key part of our offering, bringing people together so they can feel proud of their area, and restoring a collective sense of belonging. If I can steal a phrase my from noble friend Lord McNicol, the journey is important. It is all about the journey, and the destination may not always be the important point. We need to ensure that we get to the destination and celebrate the journey.
As colleagues have said in their wonderful contributions, we are one of the most amazing multi-ethnic countries in the world, but there is much work to do. Based on my experience of living in Burnley, and having seen what happened in 2001, it takes time; there are no quick fixes. There is a long-term approach, and it will take time to get there. But debates like this are helpful in raising awareness of the key issues and challenges that we face as a country.
I am confident that, in the work we are embarking on, we will be able to bring our country together, fix our systems and public services and ensure that people can take pride in their local communities. I pay tribute again to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for bringing this debate forward today and for all she does in promoting community cohesion across our country.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today, particularly the two maiden speeches. They were incredibly informative but humorous as well. At a time when there is so much misery around, a bit of humour goes a long way. I am pretty certain that we will hear much more from the noble Lords in future debates.
Each contribution today has brought a different lens. I feel it demonstrates that we can have an intelligent debate where we can raise the issues without raising the temperature. The difficulty we have is that we raise the temperature so that the mouth and brain do not always work together. If we were to just stop and think that all our words have outcomes and actions, we might speak more wisely.
We should all collectively call it out when we see something that is not right and is causing problems. We should collectively say that this is unacceptable in our country. Whatever faith you come from, if your faith is doing something wrong, we should collectively come out and call it out. That is the strength of a good, strong democracy. If we undermine it, the vacuums are then filled by people who generate hate.
I hope that we can continue working and learning from today’s debate. I hope the other House takes note of it and introduces the policies that we in this House all want to see, but there are many more discussions to be had on this. Unfortunately, we have often allowed ourselves to sleepwalk into crisis. We do that because we do not want to be called out as being politically incorrect. It is time we started to realise that, for the value of others, we have to speak out. I say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that it is a great joy to be at a university which is so multicultural and actually shares all the values of this country.