Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Thanks to the success of the initial scheme, Great British Energy is expanding the roll-out of solar panels for public services. Now, 50 more schools, 60 more NHS sites and 15 military sites will have their bills cut thanks to this Government, transferring money from the pockets of energy companies back into frontline services.
Jeff Smith
I warmly welcome the announcement of solar panels at Ladybarn primary school in Withington—it is great news for an excellent school in my patch and good news for the planet. I have also seen good investment in solar panels on hospital buildings in my patch, and we clearly need to scale that up. How can having Great British Energy as a publicly owned company help us to do that?
Michael Shanks
I congratulate those at Ladybarn primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency on receiving solar panels. The benefit for the school is that it can spend more money on the things that are important for improving young people’s learning, rather than on its energy bills. Great British Energy is our idea for a publicly owned energy company—the first in 70 years—that will drive forward investment in the clean power transition and in supply chains, creating jobs across the country and bringing down bills for the public sector, as in these examples in the NHS and at military sites and schools, so that we can invest more in frontline services.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
A constituent of mine wants to replace his gas boiler with renewable energy, which will cost him around £400. I am concerned by the prohibitive costs, which massively undermine our net zero ambitions. Can the Minister confirm what he and his Government are doing to remove those prohibitive costs?
Michael Shanks
We are working to reduce those costs. In fact, it has been announced just today that the boiler upgrade scheme will be made more accessible so that people can take advantage of renewable technologies. We want people to be able to bring down their own household bills. Of course, that also helps us as a country to move towards a clean energy system, which we know is what will bring down bills in the long run. We are doing work across Government to bring down those costs. There will come a tipping point very soon where it is much more economical to install those technologies than the alternatives, and that is when we will realise huge benefits for households right across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am proud that this Labour Government are extending the warm home discount to an extra 2.7 million households, taking the total to nearly 6 million. This will make a vital difference to so many families this winter, including an approximate additional 350,000 households in the south-east.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
Buckinghamshire council has received more than £3 million in Government funding through the warm homes local grant to help residents with heating and energy efficiency this winter through things like upgrading insulation or installing smart heating controls. Will the Minister join me in encouraging eligible households in Aylesbury and the villages to apply, and can he say what impact he thinks this will have on reducing fuel poverty?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend will be doing all she can to encourage her constituents to sign up for these schemes and to ensure that as many households as possible take advantage of schemes like the warm homes local grant so that their houses are retrofitted and made fit for the future. We want people living in warm and dry homes, especially as we come through the winter. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that more than 3,200 households in her constituency have benefited from the warm home discount, and we expect even more to benefit this year with the expansion.
Mary Kelly Foy
The Government’s extension of the warm home discount to 6 million households to combat fuel poverty was a welcome move. However, the current discount rate of £150 has stalled for a decade, not rising in proportion to energy prices. The average energy debt per person seen by Citizens Advice County Durham is in the region of £500, but advisers have seen several at £2,000-plus recently. Does the Minister agree with me and my colleagues at Citizens Advice County Durham that to truly provide transformational support as well as reduced debt levels in the energy sector, the Government should top up the scheme and reform the warm home discount so that it provides more tailored support?
Martin McCluskey
Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned about levels of energy debt, which I also see in my own constituency. Ofgem is continuing work on the debt strategy, which includes a number of measures, and we are looking at the potential introduction of a debt relief scheme. On the warm home discount, we need to balance the needs of those at risk of fuel poverty with the consideration that the warm home discount has an impact on bills; we need to ensure that we balance that out with current consumers. There is currently a consultation running on the scheme for 2026 to 2031, which closes next Thursday; I encourage my hon. Friend and her local organisations, such as Citizens Advice County Durham, to respond to that consultation.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The previous Conservative Government’s failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes led directly to the energy crisis. We know that cold homes drive excessive winter deaths, increase costs to the NHS and deepen social inequality. As we all experience a drop in temperature this week, I think in particular of vulnerable households. Will the Minister urgently bring forward a social energy tariff to reduce energy bills?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point about the previous Government’s handling of some of the schemes. We are picking up the pieces and making sure that a similar situation does not and will not ever happen again. That is what we are absolutely focused on as we take this forward over the winter.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Many thousands of my residents live in park homes, in places such as Regency Heights and Stoborough Green, and have no ability to choose their energy supplier and limited access to a lot of schemes. What is the Minister’s Department doing to make sure that they have access to the warm homes initiatives? Further, as their properties are often considered chattels, they cannot access some of the other programmes.
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Lady makes a good point. As we look towards the future of the schemes, we are looking at how they can be applied to a range of different types of properties. I know that there have been particular issues with park homes, and I think she may have corresponded with me on that. I am more than happy to meet her to discuss how we take this forward and maybe remedy some of those issues in future schemes.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that 22 million households are seeing their bills go up to pay for this policy, which is a handout for 6 million households? Is that not like the Government’s promise to cut bills by £300 when actually, bills have gone up by £200 instead? Does he acknowledge that the best way to help families who are struggling with their bills is to cut electricity bills for everyone? Our cheap power plan would do exactly that and cut electricity bills by 20% in time for winter. Why will the Government not consider it?
Martin McCluskey
It is astonishing that the shadow Secretary of State should come to the House and call vital support for people over the winter a “handout”. It is support for one in six people in this country, and thousands, or millions, of our constituents will take advantage of that support this winter. It is right that we should look to target support at those most in need. I am proud that this is a Government that will provide support, with £150 off bills for 6 million people this winter.
Claire Coutinho
But it is not the Government that are providing support; other households are doing so through their bills. The Minister should be honest about that. Even the chief executive of Ofgem has said that axing the carbon tax would bring down electricity prices. Our cheap power plan would cut people’s electricity bills by 20% now—for everyone, not just for few. If he really cared about families struggling with their bills, he would look at it.
Martin McCluskey
I will not resile from the support that we are offering vulnerable households this winter. It is £150. On what the right hon. Lady says, how is any benefit provided in this country? It is provided by all of us pooling our resources to provide support to the most vulnerable. I am proud of that record. When it comes to her proposal over a carbon tax, let us look at the coalition that she has amassed against her: businesses, church leaders and others who have said that this is not a workable proposal and that it would cause more uncertainty for British businesses.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Minister commit to an emergency home insulation programme beginning this winter for people on the lowest incomes so we can drive down their bills now and, more importantly, for good? Will he also acknowledge, given our recent conversation, the realities of rural fuel poverty? In Westmorland, like in many other rural communities, 25% of houses were built before 1900, making them so much harder to insulate and more expensive to heat. Will the warm home discount be tailored to cut bills in rural communities too?
Martin McCluskey
I was pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman yesterday to discuss some of the issues in his constituency. As we look at future schemes, we will look at how they can apply to different types of housing across the country. As for this winter, the support that we have put in place is the warm home discount, which is on offer to 6 million people across the country—that is one in six households—and comes to £150 off bills. That is the support we are offering this winter. If he has other suggestions about how the warm home discount should operate, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) earlier, a consultation is running that closes next Thursday and I encourage him and organisations in his constituency to respond to that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We are delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation, overturning the legacy of the Conservatives, who failed to complete a single project in their 14 years in office. Just this week, we announced that the flagship small modular reactor project would be based in Wylfa, bringing thousands of jobs to north Wales and also right across the country in the supply chain. Great British Energy Nuclear’s ambition is that 70% of supply chain products across the SMR fleet will be British built.
Dr Gardner
Advanced ceramics and ceramic matrix composites play a critical role in the manufacturing of nuclear infrastructure. They are used in nuclear fission reactors as pellets, ceramic coatings are applied to small modular reactors, and ceramics are needed in fuel particle coating, moderators, reflectors and control rods. North Staffordshire is a hotbed of advanced ceramics manufacturing, and I ask the Minister to ensure that our local companies receive investment as part of the nuclear modular reactor scheme to ensure supply chain resilience.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of her community and of the potential of businesses in her community to contribute to this. We have been clear as a Government that we want UK supply chains to benefit from these projects and to deliver their world-leading expertise across all our civil nuclear projects, including the SMR programme, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. To achieve this, we will continue to engage with industry right across the country and to address any barriers to entry into the nuclear sector, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises who might not know exactly how to enter the supply chains, to ensure that they are in the best possible place to take advantage of the huge number of opportunities that will be created by this new golden age of nuclear in the UK.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined his determination and urgency on nuclear power. I hope he is able to confirm that everyone across the United Kingdom will benefit from lower costs as a result of the construction of mini nuclear reactors.
Michael Shanks
We know that to bring down bills for everyone, we need a clean power system that includes nuclear providing the stable baseload across the country. That also benefits Northern Ireland through the interconnectors, but obviously energy decisions are reserved in Northern Ireland. We are committed to bringing down the cost of these projects as much as possible, and also to ensuring that we get the economic advantages. When these projects are on the system, they will deliver clean, secure power made here in the UK for generations, and that is how we will deliver energy security and get us off the volatility of fossil fuels, which is what has been driving up bills for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine for so long. This is the answer for our energy security and for good jobs right across the country.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I know from my time in industry that what business and industry need in order to invest is certainty, and this Government have provided that certainty. Over £52 billion of private sector investment has been won into clean power, thanks to the certainty of our clean power mission. That is why the Conservatives’ decision to trash our reputation as climate leaders was roundly rejected by business groups and the energy industry. We are delivering jobs and growth; they would put all of that at risk.
Perran Moon
Critical minerals are essential to power our renewable energy future. Since the general election, the National Wealth Fund has invested £28 billion into the South Crofty tin mine and £35 billion into Cornish Lithium, both in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. This is alongside major clean energy investment nationwide, including £33 billion from SSE, with 80% of that going into upgrading the UK’s power grid. Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of long-term investment that we need, using public funding to crowd in private investment, which was inexplicably ignored by the Conservatives and would be cancelled by Reform?
Chris McDonald
The Government recognise the important role of the public sector and private sector working together to unlock these benefits, such as in critical minerals, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I thank him for his invitation to visit some of the companies that he mentioned in Cornwall, and I look forward to taking up that opportunity for a visit very soon.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On this Government’s watch, Grangemouth has shut and oil and gas jobs are being pushed off a cliff. In the last 20 minutes, it has been announced that 400 jobs are to be lost at the Mossmorran plant back home in Scotland. The company blames the UK Government’s policy environment. The Government stepped in to save jobs at the steelworks in Scunthorpe. Are they going to intervene to save jobs in Scotland?
Chris McDonald
Of course, my thoughts and those of the Government are very much with the workers and their families at what I know from personal experience is a very difficult time. We must recognise that the company has taken a commercial decision. Although we have explored every reasonable avenue of support, the firm faces significant global challenges. The Government stand ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service, and I and other Ministers would be very happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss what more we can do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The breaking news that the Mossmorran chemical plant is to close is yet more industrial vandalism put upon Scotland. Like what happened with Grangemouth, hundreds of on-site workers and their communities will be plunged into chaos. Why will the Government not take a future stake in what comes next at Grangemouth to give workers and communities prosperity and security?
Chris McDonald
As my hon. Friend mentions, this is a difficult time for the workers and their families both at Mossmorran, after this morning’s announcement, and across Grangemouth. In both areas, the Government have been and remain in regular contact with the companies, but we must recognise that significant global challenges have faced Exxon—the company involved in this morning’s announcement—which has already closed another chemicals plant in France.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government seem to accept that China presents a range of threats against this country. There will be a statement later today about threats against Members of this place. We also know about China’s domination of the world market in cellular internet modules and the ability to insert kill switches into technology. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any role for Mingyang in our energy infrastructure?
Chris McDonald
Many companies want to invest in the UK because of our clean energy mission. Any decision that the Government take will never compromise our national security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about China, let us compare this Government’s record with that of the previous Conservative Government. The Conservatives built a nuclear power station that relied on the Chinese Government. We are building new nuclear at Sizewell, and it will be financed by the British Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.”
These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that the skills of the North sea oil and gas workers are essential for the green transition. We will come forward with our North sea plan shortly. I am sure that he will want to take this opportunity to welcome our clean energy jobs plan, which highlights not only the many thousands of jobs across Scotland that the clean energy industries are creating, but the support that the Government are giving people in those industries to transfer across to new green energy industries.
Andrew Bowie
It is a bit rich for a Minister to come here, on the day that further jobs are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s policies, to talk about their clean jobs plan as if that will somehow mean anything to the workers at Mossmorran, Grangemouth and all the other sites that have lost jobs as a direct result of Government policies over the past few years. I understand why the Minister will not listen to me, but surely the Government must start listening to the renewables sector, the trade unions or their own Great British Energy, and use next week’s Budget to start reversing their damaging anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-Britain tax and ban on North sea oil and gas.
Chris McDonald
The Government have been clear that North sea oil and gas has a future for decades to come, but let us be clear that the closures in that and other industrial sectors are a result not of this Government’s policies but of the poor, uncompetitive business environment created over 14 years and a lack of investment in British industry by the previous Government. That has been reversed under this Government, with £50 billion of investment in new clean energy industries and investors wishing to continue investing in those industries in the UK.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
This Government recognise the importance of reducing energy costs to boost UK manufacturing competitiveness. Under the modern industrial strategy, the British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour for over 7,000 manufacturing businesses. We will also increase support for our most energy-intensive industries under the British industry supercharger, uplifting the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%. These measures are supported by the connections accelerator service.
Victoria Collins
Businesses across my constituency, such as Redbournbury Mill and Total Cow Burger in Redbourn, have written to me about the crippling increases in energy costs. Coupled with the increased cost of national insurance and business rates, that means they are struggling to keep going. Ahead of the autumn Budget, will the Government commit to break the link between gas and electricity prices, as the Liberal Democrats have called for, to provide much-needed relief for businesses and families?
Chris McDonald
I acknowledge the work the hon. Member does in Parliament on energy-related issues and her Adjournment debate on high street businesses; that theme clearly runs through a lot of her work. She is right to point out the fundamental weakness we have that, when it comes to our investment in renewable energy, the price is ultimately set by gas. We want to address that through our clean power mission.
Christine Jardine
UKHospitality estimates that the industry contributes £8 billion a year to the Scottish economy. A major increase in standing charges would hit it hard. Many businesses in the sector are energy-hungry—for example, distilleries, pubs and restaurants—and across my constituency there is concern about the winter ahead. They want to know what this Government will do to protect them and ensure fairness for small businesses.
Chris McDonald
I do understand just how important the hospitality sector is to the hon. Member and her constituents, as a major part of the local economy. The Government’s clean power mission—investing in renewable energy, lifting the onshore wind ban and investing in offshore wind at pace—is bringing down energy costs and will bring down energy costs from 2030 onwards. The crucial challenge is how we help businesses to manage the transition between now and 2030. Measures such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which was announced in our industrial strategy, will support over 7,000 businesses across the country.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the increased help the Government are giving to energy-intensive industries such as Tata’s Llanwern works in my constituency through the increase to the electricity network charges discount. However, given that they still face problems competing with other European steel producers, may I urge the Minister to keep discussing with ministerial colleagues and trade unions what further measures we could take to protect them and shield them, to the benefit of sites such as Llanwern?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Llanwern; it is a site that I know very well and have worked on in the past. She is right to raise the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. In my earlier answer, I talked through a number of measures we are taking to reduce levies and energy costs for those industries, but she can rest assured that I continue to look at whether anything more can be done.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The ceramics industry across the country is foundational to every single part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Ceramics is an energy-intensive industry. Can the Minister confirm whether recent discussions about high energy costs for business have made mention of ceramics, an energy-intensive industry with deep roots in my constituency, where Armitage Shanks has been operating for over 200 years?
Chris McDonald
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss Armitage Shanks. I am concerned about the ceramics businesses in his constituency and across the region. We want those businesses to be competitive, and while much of our earlier discussion was about electricity prices, for ceramics and many other energy-intensive industries, the issue is gas. After policy costs, the UK is competitive with many European countries on gas, but I understand that there are competitive pressures from outside the EU, and I will continue to engage with him and the ceramics sector to look at these issues.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The recent Cumbria Tourism business survey showed that 56% of businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills, with an astonishing 14% actively considering selling up or closing down. Once a community loses its pub, it loses its heart, and it very rarely gets it back. Ahead of the Budget, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor and others in the Treasury to back the Liberal Democrats’ call for a 5% cut in VAT to support this vital industry, which is, after all, at the forefront of sustainable business practices and at the heart of so many of our communities?
Chris McDonald
I must admit that, as a regular tourist to Cumbria myself, I absolutely appreciate the joys of a countryside pub in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I understand the pressures that they are under. I will leave any commentary on the Budget to the Chancellor at the appropriate time, but rest assured that every day in this job I am making the case for increased competitiveness in British industry.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
We are reviewing the system of consumer protection and oversight for home retrofit installations, as the system we inherited is deeply flawed. We are committed to creating a simpler, stronger system of standards and oversight that will give consumers the confidence they deserve. We will consult on proposals for retrofit system reform early next year.
Tom Gordon
I appreciate the response that the Minister has given. He will not be surprised to hear me banging on—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Mr Easton, you are going to have to sit down, because you are standing in front of the Member who is speaking.
Tom Gordon
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me talking about spray foam insulation once again. One of the biggest frustrations that people have is that they do not have faith or trust in Government schemes because of the failure of the installation of spray foam insulation under the previous Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that mortgage lenders do away with the blanket ban on providing mortgages to people with spray foam insulation, what steps has he taken to reform TrustMark, and what consideration has he given to fixing the problem once and for all?
Martin McCluskey
It is fair to say that I am gripped by this problem, because without confidence in the consumer protection around the installation of these schemes, we will not hit the targets for clean power by 2030, nor create the warm and safe homes that we need. I appreciate the constructive manner in which the hon. Gentleman has addressed the issue. As I discussed with him last month, we are working with lenders and financial institutions to resolve the accessibility of some outstanding financial products, but it is now not the case that all lenders have a blanket ban—we are making some progress on that. We will conduct further assessments to quantify the extent of spray foam, and I am keen to work closely with the hon. Gentleman and others who have examples from their constituencies that can inform how we design the future system.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comments. Last week on the Public Accounts Committee, we heard about the shocking scandal of faulty cavity wall insulation under the energy company obligation 4 scheme, for which the last Government outsourced oversight to TrustMark. I have heard from constituents across Shipley who potentially face bills of tens of thousands of pounds to put right shoddy work. They are living in damp and mouldy homes. How is the Minister ensuring that those homes are remediated without cost to homeowners, and how will trust be restored in these schemes for the future?
Martin McCluskey
When I came to this brief, I too was shocked at the extent of the failures of the external wall insulation scheme under ECO4. We have set out the actions that we are taking to ensure that properties are remediated at no cost to the householder. Looking to the future system, the three principles that I believe we should follow are that work should be done right the first time; the system should be simple and easy to navigate from the consumer’s point of view; and when things go wrong—I do not want them to, but when they do—there needs to be swift remediation through the system to ensure that it delivers for consumers.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Clean power is the route to energy security and energy independence for the United Kingdom. For far too long, families have faced high energy bills thanks to our exposure to international fossil fuel markets over which we have no control. Through our clean power mission, we are ending that situation by rolling out clean, home-grown power that we control.
Gordon McKee
Since Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, energy bills have gone up because we are reliant on international gas markets. That means that families in Glasgow are paying more for their heating because of factors totally outside their control. What are the Government doing to ensure that Britain has control of its own energy supply?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to say that his constituents in Glasgow—and constituents right across the country—have faced sky-high energy bills because of our exposure to fossil fuels. Although very little Russian gas came into our system, we remained exposed to the volatility of the international markets.
The Opposition want us to go back to the fossil fuel casino and hope that this time we get a better hand, but we are determined to protect the public of this country in the long run from those price spikes and to ensure that we have energy security because of clean power grown here in the UK, delivered by jobs that we are investing in. That will help to remove the volatility that so many of our constituents have faced for too long—energy security, good jobs and tackling the climate crisis.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Energy sovereignty and energy security are vital, and gas will play an important role in that for years to come, but our domestic production is falling because of this Government’s policies. Imports of liquefied natural gas are up by 40% this year, and domestic production is meant to get to 25% by 2030. We must support domestic production, and to do that the Government must scrap its policy of an increased energy profits levy and open up new licensing. When will the Government do that, and when will they support jobs, investment and domestic production from the North sea?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right: domestic production is important, which is why we have said that for decades to come, oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy picture in the UK. The number of imports has been increasing for a long time—it is not a recent trend. The North sea has been in transition for decades, and we must build up the energy that comes next. On her specific question, we consulted on what the future of the energy profits levy will look like. It comes to an end in 2030, and it is a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget. On the future of the North sea generally, we had a wide-ranging consultation, including on the future licensing position, and our pragmatic plan will be published in the coming weeks.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Through Great British Energy’s local power plan, we are rolling out the biggest expansion of community energy for decades. We are supporting projects with funding through the community fund, and Great British Energy will also support communities to roll out small and medium-scale renewable energy projects by providing commercial, technical and project planning assistance. That will increase its capacity to build a pipeline of successful projects owned by local communities.
Lisa Smart
More community energy is obviously good for the planet and for the pockets of bill payers, and it is certainly good for our energy security. The amazing volunteers at Stockport Hydro, Greater Manchester’s first hydroelectric producing plant which is in the River Goyt in my Hazel Grove constituency, tell me about the problems they are having with the Environment Agency stopping them doing their work. They were kept waiting for 227 days for the result of a licence inspection, and they have struggled to get information from it. A lead volunteer told me that if the EA continues in this way, community energy is “doomed”. What conversations is the Minister having across the Government to ensure that community energy delivers the clean power that we need?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and pay tribute to all those involved in Stockport Hydro for the work they are doing. Clearly, it has been too much of a challenge, and we need to make it easier. Alongside much-needed funding, we must make the regulatory landscape much easier, and across Government we are having a review of regulation to ensure that we can move faster to build things in this country. Nowhere is that more important than in communities that have come together to deliver a project. That is good for us as a country, good for social and economic growth and good for local communities, and we need to make it easier. I am happy to discuss the issue further with the hon. Lady, because these are the kinds of projects that we want across the country.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Ministers in my Department have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of matters, including solar policy, but the large-scale solar projects that are given to the Secretary of State to make quasi-judicial planning decisions on are not part of such conversations. Solar power remains a hugely important part of our energy mix. It is the cheapest and fastest to deploy, and will be a key part of how we meet our mission for clean power by 2030.
Charlie Dewhirst
Given that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has yet to publish its land use framework or its 25-year farming road map, would it be prudent for the Government to pause all major solar farm applications until such time as they have a joined-up strategy for energy production on agricultural land?
Michael Shanks
There were 14 years when the Conservative party could have had a land use framework or a centralised strategic spatial energy plan, but it did not. We are now doing those things, and there will be an alignment between the strategic plan for energy and the work that DEFRA is doing on a land use framework. On solar, even the most ambitious plans for the roll-out of ground-mounted solar would use only 0.4% of UK land by 2030. These projects are important for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and for people across the country if we are to bring down bills as quickly as possible, and of course they go through a rigorous planning process.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Solar energy is an important part of securing clean, cheaper energy for our country, but one way to reduce its pressure on land use is to ensure that we are making better use of rooftops. It is fantastic that after my campaigning, we are going to be much tougher in requiring new homes to come with solar panels, but all too often car parks and commercial properties are still not making full use of the technology. How can we do far more to make use of those rooftops too, in order to generate the clean, cheap power that we all need?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a broad consensus across the House that if we can put solar on rooftops, that space can be utilised to generate clean power. We are ambitious and excited about the opportunity to put solar panels on as many rooftops as possible. We consulted recently on whether car parks should have solar panels on them. We are looking through the responses to that consultation and will say more in due course, but wherever possible, if we can generate clean, cheap power by utilising rooftops for solar, we want to do it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that rooftops are the place to put solar. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made clear when she was Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, agricultural land should be protected from ground-mounted solar installations. The campaign group Stop Oversized Solar has found that operational sites and solar facilities in the planning pipeline alone are set to replace an area of farmland bigger than Merseyside, and that overall up to 5% of UK cropland is at risk from solar, so why do the Government persist with their claim that land take will be 1%? When Labour said that food security is national security, did the energy team not get the memo?
Michael Shanks
I always welcome consensus in the House, so I am delighted to hear that there is still consensus on rooftop solar. The Conservatives have moved away from so many of their previous positions and I was not sure if this was going to be another, although I wonder why that rooftop solar was not built over the past 14 years. But we will leave that to one side.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about land use, we have been clear that ground-mounted solar will play an important part as the energy cannot all be generated from rooftop solar, but we want to ensure that communities are part of the decision making. The planning process is hugely important in that, but we also recognise that some communities have felt that there has not been a joined-up strategic approach. That is why we are publishing the strategic spatial energy plan, alongside the land use framework. Even in our most ambitious scenarios, 0.4% of land will be taken up with solar.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Great British Energy and Great British Energy Nuclear will invest over £8.3 billion this Parliament in home-grown clean power. We will keep backing renewables through contracts for difference, which secured record amounts of solar and the world’s largest floating offshore wind farm last year. Allocation round 7 will build on this success, for which we have already announced a budget of over £1 billion across offshore wind. The results will be announced in due course.
Susan Murray
Across Scotland and the UK, towns that once powered our economy have been left behind, as coalmines, steelworks, dockyards and, as we are now hearing, refineries and chemical plants are closing down, taking generations of skilled workers with them. We now have a chance to revive those communities by rebuilding British manufacturing to supply the components for our green transition, as well as for the wider net zero economy. As the Government prepare to conclude their consultation on the future of the North sea, do the Government plan to invest in the factories of Britain and in upskilling our workforce to be the innovative and sustainable local supply chain that the North sea and our net zero economy need?
Michael Shanks
Yes. The hon. Lady touches on a number of points. The transition means building on the industrial strategy that we outlined as a Government, because are not agnostic about industrial policy—we care that things are built in this country again. That is why there is a £1 billion supply chain fund to ensure that we get the economic advantage of the clean power transition, as well as energy security. There is a broader question around building up the skills to ensure that there is a future workforce that can take advantage of that. She and I both know that that sits with the Scottish Government, who are woefully underfunding further education—a route that so many young Scots might take to create the opportunity to embark on a career in the energy sector—so I hope there will be a change of Government in Scotland soon.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I am thrilled that University Hospitals Dorset NHS foundation trust, one of the region’s biggest emitters, has secured two grants totalling £3 million from Great British Energy for solar investment, but its ambition goes further. The trust wants to develop a geothermal solution that pulls energy from the geology under the Royal Bournemouth hospital. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the trust so that we can explore this potential decarbonisation project together?
Michael Shanks
It sounds like a great idea. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from the trust to discuss that.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
We have set out our plans for clean power by 2030, which is the best way to get bills down for good. This winter, one in six households will receive the warm home discount—a £150 discount on energy bills for those who need it most.
Dr Pinkerton
The National Audit Office recently reported that 98% of the 23,000 homes fitted with external wall insulation under the previous Government schemes are at risk of damp and mould unless they are swiftly remediated. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that homes in Surrey Heath insulated under those schemes are remediated in a timely and trustworthy manner, and what assessment has he made of the role that home insulation will play in our wider efforts to reduce bills but also protect climate and nature?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Member will have heard my earlier response regarding ECO4 and the appalling situation facing people across the country. To be very clear, all those affected by the ECO4 situation will receive letters offering them a free audit; many have already received those letters. I encourage hon. Members across the House to make sure that their constituents are taking up that offer, because that is the gateway to remediation. Earlier I set out the principles for designing the future system and ensuring that we do not get into a situation like this ever again. As for his final comment on—
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Having inherited a flawed system of oversight and regulation established by the previous Government, we now have much closer oversight of TrustMark, including a board observer and clear reporting requirements. TrustMark has also improved its processes and systems, and our warm homes plan will set out a strengthened consumer protection regime for the ECO4 scheme shortly.
Shockat Adam
Hundreds of my constituents in Leicester South installed external cladding as part of the ECO4 scheme. Despite using TrustMark contractors, my constituents have been left to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines because those contractors failed to obtain correct planning permission. To make matters worse, when these homeowners approach the contractors to complain, they discover—surprise, surprise—that they have all gone bust. These are not rich people, and they now face stress and financial hardship, so will the Minister please meet me and my Highfields residents to discuss how this issue can be redressed?
Martin McCluskey
I share the hon. Member’s concerns about this issue, which is the result of a shocking dereliction of duty by the previous Government in the oversight of these schemes. I am aware of the particular situation in Leicester, and we are undertaking specific work to engage with the community there to ensure that people take up the offer of an audit and therefore get their homes remediated. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and any affected Members who have this situation with ECO4 in their constituency.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Climate are in Brazil at the conference of the parties, fighting for Britain’s interests in the global transition and playing our part in securing leadership on the climate crisis. Since our last oral questions session, we have announced that 250 schools will benefit from Great British Energy’s solar roll-out; SSE has announced £33 billion of private investment in the energy system; we have set out our clean energy jobs plan to create 400,000 new clean energy jobs; and letters have started to arrive for the 6 million families who will receive £150 off their bills this winter. That is the difference this Government are making in order to deliver energy security, climate leadership and good jobs, and to protect households and businesses.
Rachel Taylor
Last year, over 1,000 former mineworkers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth benefited from this Government’s historic decision to release the surplus from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Now, members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, such as my constituents Ray Sweet, Don Jennings and Andy Callow, are seeking that same justice. I held an event with the BCSSS members in my constituency, at which I heard from a woman who joined the National Coal Board at 16 and went to the mines at 5.30 in the morning to ensure night shift miners got their pay packets. Could the Minister reassure—
Rachel Taylor
Could the Minister reassure my constituent and others like her that the Government are doing everything they can—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but one of us is going to have to sit down. Please—topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. You cannot do a full statement. I think you ought to try to catch my eye for an Adjournment debate, because this is a very important subject. Minister, I think you have got the principle of the question.
Michael Shanks
I pay tribute to all those who toiled in our coalmines for a very long time—we owe them a great debt. As the Prime Minister said in the House on 12 November, the Government remain committed to agreeing a way forward with the trustees that will benefit scheme members. We will make an announcement on this issue in due course.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
At this COP, acres of the Amazon were chopped down so that the Secretary of State can lecture us about saving the planet. Can the Minister justify why his Government did not even put a single penny into the forest fund, which could have at least repaired some of the damage?
Michael Shanks
I think the shadow Secretary of State has a bit of a cheek talking about anyone’s action on the climate crisis when she has completely reversed her own position on it. The UK’s climate leadership is an incredibly important contribution to the world’s action on the climate crisis. That crisis is not a future threat, but a very present reality. The UK has been a part of the forest initiative; we have supported Brazil and others to make that happen. Of course, coming up to a Budget and with tight fiscal considerations, we want to make sure that every pound of British taxpayers’ money is spent. We have not ruled out any future support for such schemes. Britain’s leadership at COP and at other international forums is important for our own economic interests, but also for tackling the global climate crisis.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
This is partly why the upgrade of our grid is so important. My hon. Friend references the particular example of the Isle of Wight, but right across the country we need to build much more transmission infrastructure so that we can get power to communities and businesses that need it most and bring down bills by getting clean power to people. I am happy to speak to him further about the specific case, and I know he is already engaging with the distribution network operator responsible for this case to make things happen.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
The warm homes plan will be funded to £13.2 billion, and we will announce it before the end of the year.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the importance of port infrastructure in the north-east. We made a manifesto commitment to support investment in our ports through the National Wealth Fund, and I would be happy to discuss with her how the north-east in particular could benefit from that.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Chris McDonald
In response to earlier questions, I outlined the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which we announced in our industrial strategy. That will extend support to a wider range of businesses. We recognise the issues that businesses are facing with high energy prices, primarily as a consequence of the previous Government’s policies not to invest in renewable energy. We are changing that by investing in British home-grown renewable energy.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
May I also suggest that this is such a big issue, but nobody put in for an urgent question? I really do think it is important.
Michael Shanks
First, I am sure the whole House would echo my hon. Friend’s comments about her constituents in Monmouthshire. Our thanks go to the emergency services, who have done an incredibly diligent job in difficult circumstances. She is right that it is yet another example of where the climate crisis is not some theoretical future threat, but a present reality. We have to tackle the climate crisis as quickly as possible. That is why this Government are doing everything we can to get off of fossil fuels, while also investing in flood defences across the country.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Martin McCluskey
While I cannot comment on specific planning decisions, I can reassure the hon. Member that the planning regime considers the importance of peat for biodiversity, water and carbon storage in decisions about renewable infrastructure, and there are existing protections for peatland habitats and deep peat in the national planning policy framework.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Michael Shanks
I congratulate the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It will start to receive money off its bills immediately, which of course can then be reinvested into delivering exactly what we want schools to be delivering: better teaching facilities and resources for schoolchildren. When I visited a school that had GBE solar panels on its roof, I learned that the children had had a number of lessons on clean energy; they had learned about how sustainability was improving their school and about the wider impacts on the planet. That is an important curriculum benefit.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Martin McCluskey
The warm homes plan, which will be launched before the end of the year, will address issues in rural homes. The hon. Member may also be interested to know that a consultation on alternative heating fuels was launched today, and she and some of her constituents may want to submit a response to it.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Healthy peatlands are among the most carbon-rich environments on the planet, acting as a carbon store and reducing flood risks. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs draft policy says that disturbing these peatlands leads to negative carbon impacts. We cannot be in a situation where building wind farms comes at a carbon cost. Will the Minister please look at bringing DESNZ policy in line with DEFRA policy?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend will have heard me respond on peatlands a moment ago. As I said, there are existing protections for peatland habitats in the national planning policy framework, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the Government’s plans for clean power and the impact of them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Michael Shanks
That is exactly why we are embarking on upgrading the national transmission system and investing in that. I would gently say that the hon. Member’s party seems to be opposing most of that action at the moment, but it is critical not just for future power sources, but to ensure that we can get power to demand centres where we know there are economic growth opportunities. It is hugely important, and that is why we are driving it forward.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool has one of the largest clean energy economies in the north of England with thousands of local jobs—jobs that Reform would destroy. At the same time, we have one of the largest nuclear industries. We have signed the biggest deal in our history—jobs that the Greens would destroy. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to energy policy, we’ve got clowns to the left of us and jokers to the right?
Chris McDonald
As my constituency neighbour has said, the green energy industry in his constituency is delivering thousands of jobs. On this issue, certainly, I am very happy to be stuck in the middle with him.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In October 2024, I asked the Secretary of State about the previous Government’s idea of pumpwatch. He said,
“I will not comment on the Budget, obviously. We are very sympathetic to pumpwatch”.—[Official Report, 8 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 159.]
The Competition and Markets Authority has looked into this, and the Government seem to be bringing something forward called fuel finder. It is apparently due to be launched at the end of the year. Can the Minister update us on what that will mean and how the public will know about it? Cheaper fuel at the pumps is really important.
Martin McCluskey
The House recently discussed in Committee some of the regulations that will make fuel finder a reality. As the hon. Member said, it will be launched by the end of the year. It will enable people to see real-time fuel information, and we will produce an API to allow things like Google Maps to list it. That will be launched before the end of year.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Reform-led Derbyshire county council has recently abolished its climate change committee and scrapped its aim to tackle the causes and impact of climate change. Will the Minister outline the steps that his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities continue to address climate change effectively and meet national targets?
Michael Shanks
That sounds like just another example of the chaos that Reform-led councils across the country are inflicting on communities. The truth is that we had just a few moments ago an example of why local councils thinking about the impact of climate change is so important, and we now have Reform councils dismissing the very action that would protect communities from devastating floods and other impacts of climate change. It is important that we stay the course, recognise that the climate crisis is important and do everything possible to protect communities.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Earlier, the Minister said that only 0.4% of land is being taken by solar, but he knows that in the Gainsborough constituency the number is far higher, because I went to see him—he was most gracious and reasonable. He will know that 14,000 acres around Gainsborough will be taken from some prime agricultural land. Just to be reasonable, will he have a look at this again and try to take all these solar applications together?
Michael Shanks
Let me say that the Father of the House was also very reasonable in the meeting that we had; I am glad that we had that opportunity. If we hit the absolute ambition of the solar roll-out, we will have 0.4% of land, but as I said to him, I recognise that a number of projects in particular areas have not been strategically planned for a long time. That is why we are bringing forward the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we plan the system across the whole of Great Britain and so that communities feel that things are being done not to them, but with them.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Today’s news that ExxonMobil is to close the Fife ethylene plant in Mossmoran is a devastating blow to many of my constituents. I am furious that contract workers appear to have been locked out of the site this morning. News reaching me suggests that ExxonMobil staff, many of whom have decades of service, have been told that they will lose their jobs but have no idea of the redundancy package they will receive. That follows months of attempts to engage with ExxonMobil in good faith, during which it was not forthcoming about its intentions or about what the Government can do to save the plant and the jobs. ExxonMobil continues to ignore my requests for clarity. Will the Government do all that they can to support a future for the plant and its workers? Will the Minister join me in calling on ExxonMobil to share vital information at this incredibly—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I am speaking to the hon. Lady. This is a very important subject, and I really do think it matters—she is absolutely right. I think such issues should be heard and discussed in the Chamber. It might be worth thinking about putting in for an urgent question, because this issue is so serious.
Michael Shanks
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This is obviously a hugely concerning time for the workers in Mossmoran, their families and the wider community. The Government have been in regular contact with the company. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) met with the Business Secretary recently and has been trying to engage with the company as much as she possibly can. The company has faced significant global challenges, including closing a chemical plant in France. We stand ready to provide whatever support we can, but the issues she has raised are obviously deeply concerning. I know that the Business Secretary will look to speak to her and others to ensure that we have as robust a response as possible and that we support the workforce at what is obviously an extremely difficult time.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
With just a few days of COP30 left, it is incredibly disappointing that UK climate leadership is at risk because of the Government’s decision not to contribute to the tropical forest forever facility to end forest destruction. Can the Minister please confirm whether reports that that decision is under review are accurate? Can he assure the House that the UK will play its part in contributing directly to taking its fair share of ending forest destruction?
Michael Shanks
We are taking a leading role at COP and at home by driving forward the clean power mission, which requires the infrastructure that the Green party regularly opposes—the party talks on this issue, but it does not actually deliver it. We are at COP fighting for Britain’s interests and playing our part in leading the world and ensuring that collectively we can collaborate to tackle the most existential crisis the planet faces, and we will continue to make that a key priority of this Government.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Polling by National Energy Action has shown that four in 10 adults with prepayment meters have found themselves without credit and unable to access heating or power in the past 12 months. Families often face immense distress as standing charges continue to accrue as a debt that must be cleared before energy can be accessed again. Does the Minister agree that Ofgem must explore practical reforms to ensure that households are not penalised for maintaining access to energy?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend is fighting for her constituents on this issue, and I know of the burden that energy is placing on bills and, in particular, standing charges. My hon. Friend may be aware that Ofgem has announced proposals to require suppliers to offer their customers tariffs with lower standing charges, which will be on offer from early 2026, but further work needs to be done in this area.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Last year, 2,000 acres of farmland in my constituency were approved for solar by the Government, and now a further 2,000 are being eyed up immediately next door. Together, those plants will build the first UK solar city, bigger than the Vatican and Monaco put together. When will the Government bring forth the land use strategy, and when will they impose minimum compensation for those who are currently losing their countryside and their communities?
Michael Shanks
I have always appreciated my engagement with the hon. Lady on these questions. The cumulative impact of applications is covered by the planning system, which considers all those impacts, but the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan are about taking a more strategic approach to the way in which we look at where such projects are sited. As for the question of community benefits, we have consulted on that and will say more shortly, but our general view as a Government is that communities should benefit from hosting infrastructure, particularly solar, which has often not produced the same community benefits as other infrastructure.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Last month the Energy Minister stated that the £200 million investment in Grangemouth from the national wealth fund that was secured by Scottish Labour Members has brought private investment to the table. Does he agree that we need an anchor industry in Grangemouth with a scale and skills profile similar to those of the former oil refinery, and that we also need the Government to take a partial stake and to make an announcement, this side of Christmas, on the direction of Grangemouth’s industrial future?
Michael Shanks
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked extremely hard with the Government and with the national wealth fund to ensure that we are bringing projects forward. More than 100 projects came forward for that £200 million investment by this Labour Government through the wealth fund; we are considering all of them, and hope to make announcements soon. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, given the substantial amounts of public money involved, we must ensure that due diligence in respect of all those businesses and projects is complete before we can make any announcements.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
In the light of the deeply damaging situation at Mossmorran, what is the Minister’s assessment of the potential impact on the Acorn carbon capture, utilisation and storage project?
Michael Shanks
We are obviously still processing that news this morning, but I can say that I have had a number of conversations to ensure that the wider energy infrastructure as it relates to Mossmorran and to Grangemouth itself, and the pipelines that connect them, will not pose any risk to our energy system. As for the wider question of Acorn, I have taken that forward recently, having gained the carbon capture part of the brief, and I meet the company regularly. We have put money into that project because we want to see it succeed.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
XLCC’s project to build the UK’s first high-voltage direct current subsea cable manufacturing factory at Hunterston, with its headquarters in my constituency, represents a major opportunity for Ayrshire. It is exactly the kind of investment in renewable energy that we need to drive growth, create jobs and strengthen our energy security. What steps is the Minister taking to support firms such as XLCC to delivery these projects?
Michael Shanks
One reason why we are so keen for the supply chain for the upgrade of our grid to be in the UK is our wish to ensure that there are opportunities for factories in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, and I recently met her, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and XLCC, to discuss those opportunities. XLCC is currently changing its business model but remains committed to being part of the supply chain for cables in the future, and we will continue to do everything we can to support it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The oil refining industry employs tens of thousands of people and is crucial to our energy security. It is also a key part of the ministerial brief. The sector is under immense pressure, so can the Minister tell the House when he will meet industry representatives directly?
Michael Shanks
I have met industry representatives, and when I did so they told me that it was the first time they had met anyone from the Government in 13 years. Many of the issues that are now emerging have been long in the making because of the last Government’s failure to recognise their importance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that refineries are an important part of our energy mix and our economy. We will do all that we can to support them, and I continue to meet their representatives and those of Fuels Industry UK regularly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Here is a pithy question, which I hope will be important for us in Northern Ireland. Will Northern Ireland receive a dedicated share of UK-wide peatland funding schemes such as those covered by the Nature for Climate Fund?
Martin McCluskey
I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Member, as I am sure will the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), when she returns from COP30.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, and given that the news broke after Members were able to submit an urgent question, might you inform me, and indeed the rest of the House, how it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today? Hundreds of workers, the entire community and the wider energy system need to know as soon as possible what the situation is and what the Government are doing to resolve it.
Mr Speaker
A lot of Members obviously have a keen interest in this matter, as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request. I am more than happy to support that request if the Government bring it forward.
China Espionage: Government Security Response
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions, and on the Government’s action to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and wider state actors.
Before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidesurge who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship’s company, and to their families back home. This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice that members of our armed forces make in the service of our country.
Earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to Members of this House, Members of the other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we are doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert, and for your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert, and to get in touch with the Parliamentary Security Department if they have any immediate concerns.
Our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK Government. MI5 has stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers—often masked through the use of cover companies or external headhunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this; parliamentary staff, economists, think-tank employees, geopolitical consultants and Government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture.
Let me speak plainly: this activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this Government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we have seen from China, with cyber-operations by Chinese state-affiliated actors targeting parliamentarians’ emails in 2021, attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022, and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including by working with our allies and partners.
The world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago, and while some things have changed, some things remain the same. In the various roles I have held since then, I have always believed in the importance of being clear-eyed about the nature of the threats that we face, and about the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This Government’s first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account.
On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly relating to the UK’s Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. Today, I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures that we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by state actors more widely. We are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan, which is supported by Ministers from across Government and co-ordinated by me. I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.
First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to Government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include measures to safeguard against covert political funding. They will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients, and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. I can confirm that we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-type tool to disrupt proxy organisations that are undermining our security, and an extension to the maximum penalties for election interference offences.
Secondly, working with the parliamentary security authorities, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns, co-ordinated through the defending democracy taskforce. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity. The campaigns, which will build on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October, will include tailored security briefings for the devolved Governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.
Thirdly, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at the Government’s disposal to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies, organisations and individuals that are being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority, building on its “Think Before You Link” campaign, will strengthen its engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.
As Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly, day and night, to keep the UK safe. Noting China’s low threshold for information gathering, this Government are providing the resources needed to protect our national interests. I can announce that the Government have committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology that our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure that sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor.
I can also announce that this Government have completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China from all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year, through the integrated security fund, in building the UK’s resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build Counter Terrorism Policing’s ability to enforce the National Security Act 2023, and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority’s work supporting our most critical businesses in protecting their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority’s work is an important reminder that China poses threats not just to our democratic institutions, but to other sectors. Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular.
The first sector is education, which is one of the UK’s most important global assets, in part due to the UK’s steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today’s uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states like China are attempting to influence these universities’ independent research, and to interfere with activity on campuses. Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the Office for Students recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms that their staff and students enjoy. I can announce that as part of our ongoing commitment to working collectively to address these risks, Ministers will host a closed event with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference, and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Secondly, on advanced manufacturing, the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new economic security advisory service, which will help businesses navigate economic security issues, such as espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging with businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector, and as it matures, it will support other sectors of the economy. It will provide a new digital offer, and will assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating the support from His Majesty’s Government.
In October, I told the House that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for widescale cyber-espionage operations. We stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold. Earlier this year, the NCSC, with international allies, called out three technology companies, based in China, for their global malicious cyber-campaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will help make it harder to target critical sectors of the economy and the public sector with cyber-attacks, including malicious cyber-activity emanating from China’s territory. The Government will continue to take further action against China-based actors involved in malicious cyber-activity against the UK and our allies. This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Let me assure hon. Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary.
Our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation that trades with countries around the world that share our way of life, and with those that do not. China is the world’s second-largest economy, and, together with Hong Kong, is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. It is in our long-term strategic interests to continue to engage with China. We must co-operate on issues on which our interests align—climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, and serious and organised crime, to name just a few—but we will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will take all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today. I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to disrupt and deter China’s espionage activity, wherever it takes place. We will update our security powers to keep pace with the threat, help those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and work with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.
Our strategy is not just to co-operate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests, and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
The Minister took 14 minutes. This is a very important subject, so I have no problem with that, but it may be helpful to say to the shadow Minister that if she needs more minutes, they are there.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
My heart goes out to the missing crew member, their ship’s company, and their loved ones at home. Let us all hope for good news.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement, and for his time last week, but the revelations today are no surprise. They are the latest in an ever-growing list of actions by the Chinese Communist party to interfere in our sovereign affairs and try to undermine our democracy and our country. The pernicious nature of this threat should not be underestimated. I welcome the Minister’s plans for a new proscription tool to counter foreign interference, and the fact that the Government have completed the work that we started of stripping surveillance equipment manufactured in China from sensitive sites. On education, however, the plans to discuss foreign interference with vice-chancellors are quite inadequate. I have had those discussions, and faced nothing but naivety and intransigence. They are also useless unless the Government are willing to use their teeth to defend those institutions that are under attack.
Earlier this month, Norway and Denmark alerted us to the existence of dual-use kill switches in Chinese-made electric buses. These switches allow China to switch off buses and bring chaos to transport systems. Can the Minister give an update on the investigation of our bus networks, and the chips that have been placed in Ministry of Defence vehicles, which require our members of the armed forces to be silent while travelling around our country in defence of our nation?
On academic freedom, Sheffield Hallam University was blackmailed by Chinese security services into cancelling research on state-sanctioned Uyghur slave labour. What update can the Minister give on the police investigation into that, and the coercive campaign? Will he admit that it was a mistake for his party to cancel our university free speech provisions, and will he convince the Government to reintroduce them, now that the threat is on the front pages of our newspapers? It is only by drawing a red line and taking action to establish some form of deterrence that we will see threats abate.
In the face of this hostility, the Government appear to be delegating difficult conversations to officials. On the collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, the Government saw fit only to call in a senior official to have a conversation with a Chinese chargé d’affaires. Last week, Hongkonger Chloe Cheung said that the Government were not keeping her safe. The Government’s response to a bounty being put on her head, and to kidnap notes being delivered to her neighbours, asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy, was the same rhetorical tap on the knuckles. This is insufficient if the Government seriously want to deter further attacks on our country.
We Conservative Members recognise the threat from the Chinese Communist party, and we want to work with the Government, so we have a few suggestions. The Minister today stated that the Chinese Government are using proxy organisations to interfere in, and commit espionage against, our democracy. That is literally why we introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. Instead of carrying out their communications plan and holding the private, closed-door meetings announced today, we urge the Government to put China in the enhanced tier of the FIR scheme. In opposition, Labour supported our National Security Act 2023, yet in government, it refuses to use it as it was designed. That is perverse. Why vote for a defensive tool, only to leave it on the shelf when we are under threat?
The decision on the new Chinese embassy is expected shortly. We would refuse permission for that embassy. If the Government will not, will they at least require the Chinese Government to pay for sensitive underground cables to be re-routed away from the embassy? We hear that multiple Government visits to China are planned before Christmas and the new year. Will those now be cancelled? What message does it send when, despite an attack on this House and our Parliament, Ministers are happily jetting off to stride down red carpets with the Government responsible?
Finally, we need a comprehensive audit of our vulnerabilities across our society and our economy. The recent export controls on critical minerals demonstrate China’s willingness to weaponise its economic heft. We need to know where our vulnerabilities lie, and to increase our resilience accordingly. That means publishing the shelved China audit, because how can an entire civil service base its posture on a document that most will never be allowed to read? It needs to be published. Sensitive parts can be redacted. As for the possibility of the Chinese authorities taking any offence at its contents, the contents are down to their actions, not ours.
We face an acute threat to our democracy, and in the face of that threat, we have yet to see repercussions for the Chinese Communist party. To defend our nation, the Government must have a firm policy of deterrence. Justice was denied last month, but the Government have the tools and the ability to act. When will they take action to make it clear to the Chinese Communist party that it will not get away with attacks on our democracy?
The Government can cancel the Joint Economic and Trade Commission talks, impose sanctions, cancel propaganda visits to China and put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced foreign influence registration scheme tier. When they do any of those things, the Opposition will be here, ready to help. Until that time, the Chinese Communist party will think that our country is unwilling to deter future acts of hostility and unwilling to defend our democracy or our country.
Dan Jarvis
It is good to see the hon. Lady in her place. I am grateful for her comments today and for the contact that we have had recently. I hope she knows that this is a conversation that I want to continue to have with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches. We take very seriously the points she has made today and on countless other occasions.
Let me try to provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance; if I am not able to do so, I would be happy to meet her again in the very near future. As she will understand, there are sensitivities that mean it is more difficult to get into the detail of some things, but let me see what I can say to try to provide some assurances.
The package that we have announced today is, by any metric, comprehensive, although I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further when and where that is required. The measures we have announced today will help us to tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that we face from China and other state actors. The impact of the measures will be immediate, but, as I say, we will not hesitate to go further where necessary; when we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we take that incredibly seriously.
The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face from China require actions not words, but I gently reiterate some of the announcements that we have confirmed today. The work that we are taking forward will be co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office and me as part of a new counter-political interference and espionage plan; that will be the fulcrum point for co-ordinating activity right across Government and across law enforcement. She will have heard what I have said about the new guidance briefings that will be issued to Members of this House, the devolved Assemblies and candidates standing for election next May.
We are also putting our money where our mouth is. We have announced £170 million specifically towards renewing our sovereign encrypted technical capability and another £130 million on projects such as building the capacity of counter-terrorism police, working with the NCSC and the NPSA to protect intellectual property.
I have also referenced, as the hon. Lady did, the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to China’s national intelligence law—work that I absolutely acknowledge began under the previous Government. I am pleased to confirm that we have completed that process today. I have issued a written ministerial statement with further detail on that. There is also an important legislative angle to all this, which is why we introduced the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill just last week, and why I give an assurance that we will introduce the elections Bill at the earliest available opportunity.
All these measures are important in their own right, but they are more important when they are brought together. In the end, though—I think the hon. Lady will agree with this—what really matters is our mindset, and our mindset is born of an absolute desire to work collaboratively across this place to protect our country and all the people who live here. Will that involve making some tough choices? Yes; the truth of the matter is that it will involve making some tough choices. The previous Government made some tough choices, and this Government will have to make tough choices. Like all our G7 counterparts, we will engage with those choices in a clear-eyed way. I do not think any serious Member of this House thinks that we should not be engaging with China—the debate is around the nature of the engagement.
The hon. Lady made some important points, and if I am not able to address them adequately, I will come back to her. She raised the importance of education and academic freedoms; I completely agree with her on that. She referenced Sheffield Hallam University specifically. She will understand that because of ongoing active inquiries into the matter, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of what has allegedly happened at Sheffield Hallam. However, her points are well made, and I give her an absolute assurance that we take them incredibly seriously.
It did not come as a huge surprise to me that the hon. Lady also raised the issue of FIRS. She will remember that FIRS is a product of the National Security Act 2023. Some Members of this House said that we would not introduce FIRS at all; then, when we confirmed that we were going to introduce it, they said that we would not be able to do so by 1 July. I gave a categorical assurance that we would introduce it by 1 July, and we did. We are looking closely at whether it is necessary to make further additions to the enhanced tier, but I can say to the hon. Lady that no decision has yet been made with regard to China specifically.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the embassy. There has been much discussion about that matter in this place, and we are moving towards a point of decision. She will understand that that is not a decision for me; it will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in a quasi-judicial capacity. As a consequence of that, I am limited in what I can say. However, as I have said previously, I can say that national security has been the core priority throughout.
The hon. Lady spoke about visits to China. I would take a different view to her characterisation of those visits: I think it is important that members of this Government—Ministers and senior Ministers—engage with our counterparts in China, as it is only by engaging that we are provided with an opportunity to deliver tough and consistent messages. I can categorically assure her that any Minister or official who travels from this country to China will deliver a series of strong and coherent messages aligned with the messages that I have delivered to the House today.
The hon. Lady also asked about the audit. She will know that the previous Foreign Secretary gave a statement in this House about the China audit, but I will look carefully at the specific points she has made.
In concluding my response to the hon. Lady, I hope that she knows how seriously we take these matters, and I assure her categorically that I am very happy to work collaboratively with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches to ensure that we secure the right outcome for the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I, too, send my condolences to the family of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary member who has been lost. The RFA is unique in that it is largely civilian-crewed by members of the RMT trade union, working alongside Royal Navy personnel. They work as a very professional, tight family; any loss like this will be a real blow to them.
I wish to raise the issue of the security of Chinese nationals and others in this country. Two weeks ago I was at a demonstration on behalf of Lee Cheuk-yan—our colleague, the former general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong—who has been in prison now for four years. At those demonstrations, there is always a fear of the monitoring of demonstrators and particularly for the security of Chinese nationals in this country. I would welcome the Minister’s view on what further action could be taken to reassure people that, in the exercise of their democratic rights in this country, they do not become vulnerable to any actions by the Chinese state here.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least for his opening remarks, which I know will have been shared by the whole House. He raises an important point about transnational repression. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We have relatively recently completed a very significant piece of work looking at the issue of transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce. The Government are absolutely crystal clear that it is completely unacceptable for China—or any other country, for that matter—to target individuals resident in this country.
I recently met members of the Hong Kong community, who raised significant concerns about their being targeted. I was clear to them, as I am clear to my right hon. Friend, that none of that activity is remotely acceptable to the Government, and that we will do everything we can to ensure both that the individuals he refers to are kept safe and that they feel as though they are being kept safe.
Mr Speaker
I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who obviously has some extra time allocated as well.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for advance sight of the statement. The news that the CCP is waging a campaign to infiltrate our Parliament is deeply offensive to our sovereignty, though perhaps it is not surprising to those who have been paying attention to the recent collapsed espionage case and the uncovering of interference at a UK university. The attempts to corrupt our democracy and Government must be rooted out.
We therefore welcome the counter-political interference and espionage action plan as a first step. It is absolutely right that the Government implement those measures to challenge Beijing’s espionage capabilities in the UK and the transnational repression it exports to our shores. New measures to disrupt proxy organisations, new penalties for election interference and the removal of potentially compromised surveillance equipment have our full backing. However, in the face of persistent, flagrant transgressions by the CCP, the plan by itself is not sufficient.
Beijing has tried to bully our Government, most recently on permission for the proposed new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of consequences if the Government do not approve the plans. Beijing has oppressed and intimidated British nationals. We cannot afford to shy away from this challenge and leave key, pressing issues unresolved. I note the Minister’s comments about the Chinese mega-embassy. May I put on record my party’s repeated call to urge the Government to block the plan, to show that attempts to intimidate will be firmly rebuked? I further note the Minister’s comments about FIRS. Will he update the House on his current thinking about when he might come back with a decision to add China to the scheme’s enhanced tier?
The Minister said that the forthcoming elections Bill will include measures
“to safeguard against covert political funding…tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission.”
This is a good opportunity. Will the Minister confirm that that will include donations via cryptocurrency and the associated transparency concerns? Will he also confirm that there will be new risk assessment rules and enforcement powers for donations funnelled through third-party organisations such as think-tanks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her broad welcoming of the plan. She makes a number of points, including several about which she has consistently raised concerns in the Chamber and with me outside it. Let me say to her and to other Members that, with regard to the embassy and any other area of policy, nobody will intimidate members of this Government to do anything other than what is in our country’s national interests.
I understand why certain hon. Members want to refer to the embassy as a “super-embassy” or by other descriptive terms. The judgment will have to be made by the Secretary of State, but I, along with other ministerial colleagues, have been crystal clear that national security is and will remain a core priority throughout this process. There have been various comments and points made by people inside and outside this House on the national security implications of the embassy that are not correct. It is a quasi-judicial matter and I am limited in what I can say, but I reiterate the assurance about the importance of the national security elements underpinning any decision.
On the elections Bill, the hon. Lady made some important and valid points. She will understand that that piece of legislation sits with another Government Department. I am sure the Department will have heard her points, but if it has not, I will represent those points on her behalf.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Sheffield Hallam University in my constituency is home to internationally respected researchers, including Professor Laura Murphy, whose excellent work on forced labour in China has been met with coercion, intimidation and attempts at interference linked to the Chinese state. At a time when universities are increasingly financially vulnerable due to a sharp decline in international student numbers, the risk of hostile states exploiting that vulnerability is growing. I welcome the closed event for vice-chancellors to address those concerns. Will the Minister explain whether that event will explore how academics such as Professor Murphy will be protected from being silenced, and will more robust support be provided to universities that are left exposed to pressure, intimidation and undue influence?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Sheffield is a great city, and she will know better than anyone that it is blessed with two outstanding academic institutions. She knows that as the local MP, and I know that from my time spent as the regional mayor. For reasons that I know she will understand, because there remain active inquiries into this matter, I am limited in what I can say about the specifics. I can say more generally that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government made that clear to Beijing after learning of the case.
The new Office for Students recently issued guidance to make it explicit that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom. I am pleased that she welcomes the closed event with vice-chancellors. We will make sure that both the vice-chancellors from the city of Sheffield are invited to attend. I am happy to discuss these matters further with her.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Does the Minister consider that China represents a current threat to this country? Will he also expand on the work his officials are doing with the Members and Members’ Staff Services Team to remove potential security weaknesses, not just from this building but from MPs’ constituency offices and our homes?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, as I always am. On her second point, let me come back to her. She raises a valid concern and, rather than give her a response now, let me consider the facts of the case and I will come back to her with a more considered response.
On her first point, I fear that I will disappoint her and maybe some other Conservative Members by not diverting from the policy that the Government have previously confirmed in this place. The Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security in the form of cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions, including the transnational oppression of Hongkongers in this country. That is why we have made the announcements that we have and why we will continue to do everything that we can to guard against that threat.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and put on record my tribute to the missing crew member, those searching for them and all those who keep us safe.
I welcome the package of measures that the Minister has set out today. With the news about the networking sites, while not new, it is important to keep the risk elevated and to remind those potentially affected of that. He knows, because we have conversed about this regularly, that I take an interest in the defending democracy taskforce. Will he therefore say a little bit more about the series of protective security campaigns that will be co-ordinated through it? I suggest that as part of the outreach to all the different stakeholders that he has mentioned, the taskforce gives thought to some sort of centralised toolkit that pulls together all the guidance and information, which is evergreen and constantly updated, to ensure that all affected stakeholders, in and outside this place, have it at their fingertips so we can keep ourselves safe from people who are a threat to us.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments today and for his previous points about the importance of the defending democracy taskforce. It was not a given that the Government would necessarily continue in the way that the previous Government and the previous Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), had invested in the taskforce. However, I took the view, on good advice from my predecessor, that that was the best way—the fulcrum—to co-ordinate that activity across Government. I think he was right about that. That is why we have really invested in it as a process, that is why it is truly wired across Government and law enforcement, that is why the Prime Minister recently renewed its mandate and that is why I personally invest a significant amount of time in it every single day. I believe in its work and I believe that it provides the right forum to lead that work, including the kind of work that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The protective security campaigns are really important because, while most right hon. and hon. Members are sensible and diligent Members of this House, we have to ensure that everybody who might be at threat or at risk has the information that they need in order to make informed decisions. That is why, on a number of fronts, we will up our game and ensure that all the necessary information is provided to the people who need it. My hon. Friend’s point about the toolkit is a really good one, and I will take it away, consider it and come back to him. I am grateful to him for his contribution.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I shall begin, if I may, by saying to the Minister: you’re welcome. It is a pleasure to hear his statement today and to hear the areas where he is taking things forward. I particularly welcome the update on connected devices. There are a few other areas where connected devices are very real. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke from the Dispatch Box about vehicles, which are intelligence-gathering platforms on wheels when they are made in Beijing and shipped over here, and there is a whole series of other areas where we are seeing this level of threat continue and deepen.
The Minister also spoke about the fact that we need a relationship with China, and I do not disagree with him on that, but it is somewhat insulting when the Chancellor goes to Beijing and comes back with £600 million of investment over five years. Frankly, that is peanuts. Chinese foreign direct investment in the UK is less than 0.2%, according to the Government’s own trade and investment figures. We need to look at where we can compensate for that dependency, perhaps by increasing US FDI by 1%, which would be almost double the Chinese investment. We need to look around the world at alternatives. We also need to be clear eyed about the threats, and I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made from the Dispatch Box: we need to place China on the enhanced tier of FIRS.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his points and the advice that he has offered previously. His points about connected devices and vehicles are well made, and I can give him an absolute assurance that we consider them very carefully. He made a point about engagement and referenced the Chancellor’s visit. I can assure him that all Ministers and officials who visit China will deliver a coherent and strong set of messages about our concerns with regard to our national security. I said earlier that the Foreign Secretary had spoken specifically about these matters with her Chinese counterpart on 6 November. She was absolutely clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security would not be tolerated, so I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that, even where there are engagement activities that might, on the face of it, relate to other areas of Government business, there will be a consistency about the messaging.
The right hon. Gentleman will know, though, from his time in government that in addition to the areas of co-operation and areas where there is a requirement to engage that I listed earlier, both within departmental responsibilities that sit in the Home Office, there is often merit in engaging with China on a range of matters that are not necessarily particularly well understood. We need to have that constructive engagement with the country, but it needs to be underpinned by a desire to enhance and preserve our national security, and that is the approach that I will always take.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for the strength of his message about our efforts to stop the transnational repression of our constituents, including the Hongkongers in Milton Keynes. Can we continue to have a dialogue about how my constituents continue to feel unsafe in the UK? I want to raise an issue that goes alongside the Speaker’s Conference, which is how we protect and defend our democracy in the online world, particularly from foreign state actors and their proxies and non-state actors who use the online environment to destabilise our democracy. Will the Minister meet me to talk about the amendments that I am preparing for the elections Bill to ensure that we protect ourselves from online threats just as much as we do from offline threats?
Dan Jarvis
Let me reiterate what I said previously about how completely unacceptable it is that any transnational repression takes place in this country. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated here to the UK. My hon. Friend is right to raise the important work done by the Speaker’s Conference. At the most recent meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, we looked carefully at the recommendations. A lot of positive work has been done, and we want to work closely with Mr Speaker to deliver where we can on the recommendations.
My hon. Friend is also right to raise the importance of the online environment, and these are conversations that I am having with colleagues across Government, including in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. On her point about a meeting, she will understand that that particular piece of legislation is a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government lead, but I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister, whether that is myself or a colleague in the other Department.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham, we have a really strong Hong Kong community, and they tell me regularly how concerned they are about the growing threat of Chinese espionage and China’s influence in our politics. Many of them have bounties levied on their heads. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns in our Hong Kong community, especially among my constituents, and what is he doing to protect them and our institutions?
Dan Jarvis
That is an entirely fair and reasonable point. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a reassurance, further to what I have already said today and on other occasions. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated here to the UK. I recently met members of that community myself, specifically to discuss their concerns. The defending democracy taskforce is doing a lot of work on our response to transnational repression, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further concerns, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them further.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that China is a bad faith actor whose basic technique can be summed up by a single phrase: buy influence and build dependency? Is that not exactly what has happened in our universities?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on this matter, and he will know that I am limited in the way in which I can describe the nature of the relationship. I have given him the characterisation that I think is appropriate. We have to be pragmatic in the world that we live in. We have to do what we can to secure our national security, while at the same time ensuring that we are engaging in a way that is advantageous to our country and our economy. Any Government—the previous one and this one—have to balance those sometimes competing interests, but this Government will do it in a way that always ensures that we safeguard our national security.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have great respect for the Minister. However, listening to what he has said today about the China espionage case, which follows the collapsed spy case, the Christine Lee case and the other spying that took place here in the House, does he not look back and think that it is peculiar? We now have Hongkongers here in the UK with bounties on their heads who are being threatened daily by China and dragged into illegal police stations. He talked about all the other things: threats to our democracy, threats to our industry, cyber threats through the internet of things, threats to our universities, and threats to our MPs who are sanctioned and who have to face these challenges daily. Does that not make a mockery of the idea that China is not a continuing threat, and of the fact that it is not in the upper tier of FIRS, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister called for? Surely it is time for that to happen. The No. 1 priority for a Government is the defence of the realm. Balancing priorities does not trump defence of the realm.
Dan Jarvis
I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has engaged with these matters consistently for a number of years, and rightly so. We have today announced a comprehensive set of measures, but I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further where required. I have also been clear on this and previous occasions about the nature of the threat and the Government’s concerns about it. He is right that the defence of the realm is the most important job of any Government, but we must also be honest about the fact that we need to engage with China. We must therefore engage on our terms and in a way that is advantageous to us.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the embassy, and he knows what my response about that will be. I understand his point about FIRS; he will have heard the response that I have already given. I hope that, despite the concerns he has expressed, he acknowledges that we take these matters seriously and are doing everything we can to address the nature of the threat.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said in his statement. As I am sure he agrees, just as we know that China can simultaneously represent a national security threat and economic opportunity, China knows it too. That means that—even if it were not the right thing to do in and of itself, which of course it is—standing up for our national security is unlikely to prejudice any international trading relationship that we seek to pursue with China, because China respects strength.
May I ask the Minister for help on one specific question in relation to the embassy? I know that he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that Committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgment on matters in which intelligence is involved and the House cannot do so itself. The embassy is clearly one such matter. If the Government seek to make a decision on that before Christmas—he may not be able to say whether that is still the case—will he ensure that the ISC has all the material we need to make a judgment on behalf of the House? As yet, we do not have it.
Dan Jarvis
I often find myself in violent agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who makes good points in a reasonable way. It is not necessarily for me to talk about the nature of our diplomatic relationship with China, because, as he will understand, that is an issue on which the Foreign Office leads, but he is right in his characterisation of our approach. I believe in being straight with this House and with the countries that we deal with. He is right that it does not in any way disadvantage us to be straightforward and strong. That is why I have chosen the language that I have used today very carefully to indicate the strength of feeling about the nature of the threat that we face.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about the embassy. I will not bore him and the House with further discussion about it being a quasi-judicial decision that will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, although that is clearly the case. There is an important role for the ISC in considering the nature of the decision. At the appropriate moment, when we are able to do so, I will ensure that his Committee is properly briefed on that issue.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s comments and repeat the calls for China to be added to FIRS. I have specific concerns about Edinburgh and Scotland in general. One relates to our energy security given the continuing lack of clarity about what is to happen to Mingyang and whether, if it is to take part in the construction of the offshore wind farm in the North sea, mitigations will be in place to prevent it from having on/off switches.
We have a large Chinese consulate in Edinburgh West. My constituents are concerned about the size of the dishes on the roof and about activity there. Having myself been subjected to filming while speaking at a Hong Kong rally, I am concerned about the security of Hong Kong nationals in Edinburgh. With the Scottish elections coming up next year, can the Minister reassure me that there have been discussions with the devolved authorities to ensure that they are aware of the continued and increasing threat posed by Chinese espionage?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes important points about her great city. I can give her an assurance that there is such engagement, but I will reflect on the points that she makes and consider whether we need to do more. She will acknowledge that I referred specifically to the devolved Assemblies in my opening remarks, but if she thinks that we could and should be doing more, I would be very happy to have that conversation with her.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is a welcome statement from the Security Minister, whom I hold in high regard, as does the House. He will be familiar with the report on China produced by the ISC—of which I was and remain a member—which dealt with exactly the matters that he has described: the widespread penetration of our universities, the theft of intellectual property and the attempt to compromise our democratic institutions. Will he add to his list a review of contracts with China—public sector contracts, Government contracts and so on—particularly those relating to sensitive matters? He said that he was a plain-speaking man, so, mindful of the collapse of the recent trial, will he do the simple task of saying from the Dispatch Box that China is a threat to our national security?
Dan Jarvis
I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—one of my predecessors—for his contributions, to which I listen very carefully. On his final point, he knows precisely what the Government’s line is with regard to China. He makes a good point about the contribution of the ISC. I hope that members of that Committee understand and recognise the importance that we attach to their work. We intend to have regular contact with the Committee, including in the near future. He makes an entirely reasonable point about contracts; I will take that away, undertake to look at it and come back to him privately with a response.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the package and the Minister’s commitment to continued engagement with Beijing, but does he share my view that one cannot reason with a tiger when one’s head is in its mouth? We are rapidly approaching that position because of the stranglehold that China has on this country by virtue of our reliance on critical minerals and rare earths. As he seeks to strengthen our position, will he ensure that we diversify our ability to gain access to those critical elements, thus ensuring that China respects this country rather than sees us as weaklings—a situation that would of course deteriorate further in the event that, God forbid, China controls Taiwan?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am. I am conscious that I have now been joined on the Treasury Bench by the Foreign Secretary, so I will have to be extremely careful about how I characterise the relationship with China. I hope it will provide some reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government will bring forward a critical minerals strategy. It will be led by the Department for Business and Trade but there will be significant input from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I hope that he understands how seriously we take these matters. I understand why he characterises the relationship in the way that he does, but I know that, as a former Minister himself, he will understand that there is a degree of practical reality about how we manage that relationship. Yes, we ensure that we underpin our national security, but we must engage in other areas. It is important that we do that in a clear-eyed way, and that is how the Government will proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I encourage the remaining Members to ask short questions and the Minister to give short answers. There is an important statement and a very heavily subscribed debate to come.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Our devolved nations, local authorities and educational institutions are not being made adequately aware of the risks that China poses, as is evidenced in Sunday’s report by David Leask. The Minister has mentioned briefings with devolved Governments, guidance for candidates and a closed event with university vice-chancellors, but will he ensure that those are not one-off events, and that they will be continual and offer up-to-date information from this day forward? Will he meet me and the SNP group urgently?
Dan Jarvis
I can give the hon. Member the assurance he seeks in terms of our desire to work closely with the devolved Administrations. That is absolutely the way in which I want to proceed, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) a moment ago. Of course I would be happy to meet with him and his group.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not clear that the threat from China is becoming deeper, wider and more serious? While I welcome the Security Minister’s statement, it does not have a single deterrent in it, as was highlighted by the shadow Security Minister. I want to be helpful to the Minister. He mentioned the encrypted system that he will introduce and fund. Will he consider reviewing Government security classifications policy, so that we can have a review of Government papers that are classified but also of the threat to this place? He mentioned China’s low threshold. Would he consider reclassifying confidential, pre-publication Select Committee inquiry documents, so that any leaking of those documents—as with the leaking of Government documents by civil servants—has a far tougher sanction?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Member makes an important point about leaking, which is something I take very seriously as the Minister responsible for the Government security group. I can give him an assurance. I hope that the package of measures we have brought forward conveys the strength of feeling and how seriously we take these issues. As he always does, he made a number of other really useful and constructive points. Rather than come back to him now, I will look carefully at them and consider them further.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is not a coincidence that, just a few weeks after the collapse of the China spy case, MI5 is issuing this major espionage alert. China smells weakness. With regard to the embassy, while the Minister says it is a decision for another Minister, the reality is that it is a strategically important decision by this Government on behalf of the British people. Does he understand that the British people will be shocked if planning consent is granted, and China will again smell weakness?
Dan Jarvis
This is a strong package of measures we have announced today, but I have also been crystal clear about our determination to act further where necessary. That is the right approach. It will mean we are best able to guard our national security, while at the same time engaging with China on other areas of policy, including illegal migration.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister stresses the importance of mindset, so can he tell me whether it was a failure of mindset that underpinned the failure to secure the prosecution of two alleged Chinese agents? Why should parliamentarians now trust that he has the mindset to keep us safe?
Dan Jarvis
As I said in the House yesterday, and as I hope the hon. Lady and other Members will understand, those decisions were not taken by the Government; they were taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is rightly independent of Government. The Government have today brought forward a strong package of measures, and I hope that she and her colleagues will support them.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I have previously mentioned that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on transnational repression specifically singled out China for having the most comprehensive TNR campaign in the UK of any country. The report called for China to be on the enhanced tier of FIRS. If all the actions the Chinese Government are taking—the espionage, the bounties on people’s heads and the clear attempts to subvert democracy—do not qualify them to be on that enhanced tier, does that not undermine the scheme?
Dan Jarvis
First, let me say that I very much appreciate the work of the hon. Member’s Committee, and specifically the report it published on transnational repression, to which we responded fully. I understand why he makes the point about FIRS. He knows what the Government’s position is at this particular moment, and I spelt it out earlier: FIRS is an important tool, and we will carefully consider how best to use it.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Chinese general Sun Tzu said that
“the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”
Are we not presenting an opportunity for defeat when members of our military ride around in Chinese cars, and why on earth are this Government facilitating secretive trade trips to Beijing for members of the Scottish Government?
Dan Jarvis
Sun Tzu said a number of things, and perhaps they lend themselves to a debate all of its own. I am not aware of the specific point the hon. Member made, but I am happy to look into it if that would be helpful.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
According to media reports, administrators at Sheffield Hallam University told a professor of Chinese studies that she would have to abandon her research. That followed a separate defamation lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University, as was reported by the BBC. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but will the Government do more to support universities in resisting so-called SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation?
Dan Jarvis
It is worth my being clear about the importance this Government attach to academic freedom. We are incredibly proud of our universities, and as a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly proud of Sheffield Hallam University, as I am of Sheffield University. That is, in part, why we made these announcements today and why we will be holding an event that provides a very good opportunity to engage with vice-chancellors, look carefully at the nature of the challenges they are facing and support them in responding to those challenges.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 638.]
That is what the Security Minister said when I asked him for the fourth time last month why China is not included within the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. So I will ask the Minister for the fifth time in as many months, and I am hoping he will offer some clarity this time. Given the range of measures he has just announced, what would it take for the Government to deem China to be a threat, and when will he assess whether China should be added to the enhanced tier?
Dan Jarvis
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s perseverance and patience on this issue. Unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him by referring him to the answer I gave previously.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I take the Minister back to devolved issues? In the case of Northern Ireland, international trade, quite rightly, is a reserved matter, yet last Wednesday in Belfast, the Chinese Government, no less, hosted a major investment conference in collaboration with the local Department for the Economy, with 120 Chinese companies, including Huawei, ZTE and BYD. At the conclusion of it, they signed a strategic co-operation framework agreement with Invest NI. How is that possible when international trade is a reserved matter? Will this Government finally closely examine the operation of the Stormont Executive and their collaborations with China?
Dan Jarvis
I was in the hon. and learned Member’s part of the world just a couple of weeks ago. We take very seriously the importance of engaging with the devolved Administrations. I will look carefully at the points he has made and reflect on them, and if he wants to discuss them further, I would be happy to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement; we are greatly encouraged by the steps the Government are taking. I chair an all-party parliamentary group—some Members here are members of it—and we had our website hacked and stories replaced. I have also had conversations that were under surveillance by the Chinese Government while in Northern Ireland, so I am glad the Minister has acknowledged this wide-scale threat. While pouring moneys into security is good, there must be a ramification for trade outcomes where Chinese agents are involved in espionage. The mishandling of the recent court case can never be repeated, and the Government must send the message that our language is set, our defences are raised, and we are not to be trifled with by any foreign powers, certainly not by the Chinese Government.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. I hope he sees the commitment this Government have to ensuring that we are best equipped to engage with the nature of the threats we face. That is precisely why I brought forward this package of measures and why I have been crystal clear about the requirement potentially to go further in certain areas. I hope he sees—if he does not, let me give him an assurance—how seriously we take these matters and our desire to work with Members right across the House and with the devolved Administrations, to do everything we can to guard against the nature of the threat, while at the same time ensuring we engage in a way that is in our national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Security Minister for his statement.
Gaza and Sudan
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I want to update the House on two of the world’s gravest conflicts—in Gaza and in Sudan—following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and on the action that the UK Government are taking to pursue peace.
First, I turn to Gaza. After two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye has been in place for six weeks. Twenty hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza. But the ceasefire is highly fragile, and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace.
Last night, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an international stabilisation force for Gaza, and transitional arrangements including the board of peace and a Palestinian committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority, and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond. The resolution is a critical staging post that sustains the unity around President Trump’s 20-point plan.
Momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an international stabilisation force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left that Hamas can exploit. We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the board of peace. As we made clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law, and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self- determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the west bank, and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza, because Palestine must be run by Palestinians.
The work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue. That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on 7 October, so that their families can properly grieve. We urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses in Jordan holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month; yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed. People there told me that there were 30 more warehouses nearby, with food, shelter kits, tents and medical supplies—less than 100 miles from Gaza but still not getting in.
I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing, Zikim, is now partially open. But it is not nearly enough. We need all land crossings open—including the Rafah border with Egypt— with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and to provide shelter as winter draws in. Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international non-governmental organisations need certainty that they can continue to operate. I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit that stands ready to be moved into Gaza—but, again, they cannot yet get it in. The Israeli Government can and must remove the restrictions and uncertainty now.
As well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace. We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring, based on the Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting on demining and unexploded ordnance, including with £4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service, and we are funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group, whose impressive work I recently saw at first hand. On civil-military co-ordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US-led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.
Beyond Gaza, stability in the west bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu Government should be extending, not threatening to end, the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks—arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy for Palestinians. This is crucial for stability, which is in Israel’s interests too.
The pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest. While I welcome Israeli President Herzog’s expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient—practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence is vital to protecting a two-state solution, in line with the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine.
Let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding, right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as:
“the epicentre of suffering in the world”
and he is right. Over 30 million people need lifesaving aid. Twelve million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading. Cholera and preventable disease are rampant. In El Fasher, following advances by the Rapid Support Forces, there are horrifying scenes of atrocities, with mass executions, starvation, and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war—horrors so appalling they can be seen from space.
As the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. Satellite pictures show discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves. Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken.
A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, at our London-Sudan conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding, but the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El Obeid.
We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate the suffering and bring about peace. That means more aid to those in need. The UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering lifesaving support to over 650,000 people—treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine, and supporting survivors of rape—but the challenge is still access.
The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The Sudanese armed forces are bringing in new restrictions that stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers, supplies and trapped civilians. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce to open routes for lifesaving supplies, but aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by the warring parties, so we desperately need a lasting ceasefire underpinned by a serious political process.
At the Manama dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan as we have seen around Gaza. At Niagara last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, for the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid, and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security. We are engaging intensively with the Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States—which have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce, and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. I strongly support Secretary Rubio’s latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan.
Last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK-drafted resolution was passed, securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events. We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.
The UK will play its full part to ensure that it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan’s future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians; they radiate instability, undermine the security of neighbouring states, and lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. We are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, and striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. From Gaza to Sudan that can only be done through international co-operation, and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the passing of the US-drafted resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the middle east, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved ones, and the families of all the deceased hostages, in the forefront of our thoughts. We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured.
Key to yesterday’s resolution was a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force, but can the Foreign Secretary set out exactly what Britain’s contribution will be to that force? The Government speak about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid a potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. What is Britain’s contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence, funding, action on the ground, or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about those details. Will she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate, and say what their contributions will be?
Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and their full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday’s vote, what practical contribution will the UK make to those efforts? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there are several points in the US President’s plan specifically on that, so where does the UK dock into those initiatives? Has she identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day-after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and education overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the west bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the middle east in that domain, and this must now be a moment of reckoning for the curricula in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that is vital if we are to build a sustainable peace.
On the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza? Have specific proposals and solutions been conveyed by the British side to Israeli Government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved?
Turning to the situation in Sudan, in El Fasher and elsewhere we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words, all in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered. In the immediate term, the UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators, and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain the conflict. Will that be forthcoming, and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having on that with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan quad and others? Will she also update the House on the Government’s response to US efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire, and say what role Britain is playing in that?
On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery. How has the situation evolved in the past two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? Finally, on day-after planning, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups, to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? We have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week, and I hope that similar initiatives will be possible with regards to Sudan. As penholder, the UK Government have a special responsibility, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gear.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the issues relating to Gaza and Sudan, and I will take his points in turn. We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the international stabilisation force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil-military co-ordination committee that is led by the US. It is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20-point plan. On the nature of the role that we expect to continue to play, we already provide training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training. I met them in Jordan, and other countries are also offering to provide such training for Palestinian police, which will be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise on decommissioning. That is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we have experience and expertise, mostly immediately around de-mining capabilities in terms of both funding and expertise.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of curriculum reform, which I agree needs to take place. That is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed that directly with President Abbas. The importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform must be central in both the west bank and in Gaza. On practical issues about the opening of crossings, we want to see all the crossings opened and restrictions lifted. The co-ordination committee, which has a UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli Government to seek to improve access and monitoring, and to improve arrangements to get more aid through. I continue to urge swifter action to get that desperately needed aid in place.
On Sudan, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for sanctions. I have had personal direct discussions with all members of the quad, including most recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, and I know how strongly he feels about the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan. We will continue to offer our support to that process.
On aid delivery, based on what the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though some of the routes into the region are currently completely inadequate, so security and infrastructure need to be provided to get the desperately needed scale of aid into the area. We will need to look at air routes as well as truck routes. He is right to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese civilian organisations. It is crucial that ultimately we have a transition to a civilian Administration in Sudan and an end to the horrendous fighting, abuse and sexual violence that we have seen, with reports on all sides of those sorts of atrocities taking place.
Finally, US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza, but it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress so far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan and we need the whole international community to pull together to deliver progress in the same way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
This morning, Members received a private briefing on Sudan, at which one of the academics stated:
“El Fasher is a slaughter house. Our low estimate is 60,000 people have been killed there in the last three weeks.”
That would make it the biggest atrocity crime since the 1990s. These are civilians, not soldiers, and this is not about conflict; it is about genocide. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been briefed on the likelihood of a mass-casualty event for years. In November 2021, the FCDO was publicly warned of a likely genocide. The recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact report concluded that last year, officials took “the least ambitious option” on civilian protection. I say to the Foreign Secretary that scrutiny and diplomatic surge can slow down this slaughter, so are we leading the 25 states who signed the joint statement on 11 November to work together to put pressure on the United Arab Emirates? Why has our atrocity prevention team not been surged? Tawila now needs to be our focus of our protection. What are the evacuation plans to protect up to 650,000 people from genocide? The Sudanese civilians need a champion. As UN penholder, will that be us?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her work and that of her Committee on this issue. She is right to point out the truly horrendous nature of what is happening in Sudan and the atrocities that we have heard about. People have been executed in the middle of a maternity hospital and lives are being lost at scale, and the fact that so few people are emerging from the area makes it deeply troubling to consider what more we may discover. Because I am so deeply concerned, I have raised the issue not just at the Manama dialogue, but at every international discussion that we have been having with foreign ministers, and directly with all members of the Quad, including the UAE and the US, as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as we need urgent action. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is also about preventing further atrocities, which are at risk of happening at any moment if we do not have that urgent action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advanced sight of her statement, which I welcome.
The Foreign Secretary is right that the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is horrendous, as are accounts of systematic murder, rape and torture, often targeted at civilians from specific ethnic groups, and, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence towards women and girls. The UK has a special responsibility as the penholder for Sudan at the UN. We must be relentless in pursuing true protection for civilians, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House with her assessment of the role of external actors in supporting the warring parties? Will she lead efforts at the UN to secure and implement a country-wide arms embargo? How will the UK ensure that the UN inquiry that she referred to can gather evidence, so that those actors, both inside and outside Sudan, who are responsible for these atrocities are held to account?
Turning to the middle east, last night’s UN Security Council resolution marks an important step forward, and I hope that it will reinforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. However, vital details are missing from the resolution. What will be the remit and scope of the international stabilisation force? How will Hamas be disarmed? How will those responsible for atrocities in Gaza be held accountable, and how does the Foreign Secretary envisage that a Palestinian committee will ensure that Palestinian self-determination is respected?
The resolution focuses on Gaza, but we desperately need a clear road map to securing a two-state solution. That requires an end to illegal settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and reform of the governance of the Palestinian Authority. How is the UK supporting reforms to the PA, and will the Foreign Secretary today commit to banning all UK trade with illegal settlements?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the response by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I agree with him about the importance of an arms embargo around Sudan, and about ensuring that it is properly implemented. It is deeply disturbing that weapons are still being supplied to the RSF, despite the atrocities, and that there are still weapon flows to all sides. That means that there are immensely serious issues, including around borders, access and routes, that we need to continue to pursue through international pressure.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the investigations. The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drafted with partners provides for the UN-led investigation of these atrocities, but that will be scant comfort to anyone if there is not also the urgently needed action to prevent further atrocities. There must be accountability, but there must also be urgent action to prevent atrocities in the first place.
On Gaza, work is under way to constitute the International Stabilisation Force. Some countries are prepared to come forward and contribute, and crucially the mandates were provided last night. The ISF must operate in line with international law. Further details of how the new Palestinian committee will operate need to be developed, and we want it to be constituted as rapidly as possible. Also, we must see an end to illegal settlements. We need to rebuild the connections between the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so that we can have a Palestinian state, in which people live in peace and security, alongside the Israeli state. That is the only way that we will get to peace for both.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about potential additional sanctions and aid access, but surely, given the nightmarish reports, we need to go far further if we are to do what she has committed to doing—if we are to prevent further atrocities, and prevent impunity for perpetrators. Will she push the Quad to pressure the RSF to do two things: first, to allow International Criminal Court forensic teams and the media into El Fasher and on to other key sites; and secondly, to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to detainees, given that they seem to be routinely subject to torture and mass execution?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend has been raising her deep concerns and championing these issues for some time, including in her work to deliver the London Sudan conference, which took place last year. She asks a series of questions about the ICC forensic teams and the ICRC, and I agree with her.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, but she will know that, in plain sight of the international community, a slaughter of immense proportions is taking place in El Fasher. There have been clear and present warnings and evidence that this is ethnic cleansing, far worse than anything that took place in Srebrenica, and as the Foreign Secretary made clear in her statement, it is spreading outwards. This is a specific UK responsibility at the United Nations. Does she agree that it is essential that she and the Prime Minister hit the phones, speak to those at the African Union and in senior UN countries, and use our position to lobby President Trump to act? On solemn occasions each year, we piously intone—including in this place—“never again”. Does she agree that it is happening again, in plain sight before our eyes, and there is no effective plan to end it?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member has been a champion of the people of Sudan in the face of the most intense suffering for a long time. I agree that there is simply not yet the kind of urgent plan for Sudan that we desperately need. Bluntly, for far too long, the international community has failed and turned its back. The UK put forward the resolution, which has now been fully agreed at the Human Rights Council; when we sought to put a resolution on similar issues to the Security Council a year ago, it was vetoed by Russia. We have sought to increase aid, but that is simply not sufficient if aid cannot get in because of the continuing conflict. When it comes to Sudan, we need the same sustained, intense effort across the international community that rightly went into securing peace in Gaza. It can at least start with a humanitarian truce. That is urgently needed. I can assure the right hon. Member that this is a topic in every phone call that I am having, not just with those in the Quad, but more widely.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the Select Committee—of which I am a member—and the remarks of others who have spoken about the horrors unfolding in front of our eyes. We have heard reports that Tawila is next. There are 650,000 people there, including desperate civilians, and probably also aid workers who are British citizens. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the former International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). What more can we do to help protect civilians from harm right now? I hope that the ceasefire negotiations that the Foreign Secretary is doing so much to try to bring about include us looking seriously at some kind of peacekeeping force to protect civilians from harm.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has championed this issue for a long time, and I thank him for his continuing work on the Select Committee. Like him, I am deeply worried that Tawila will be next if there is not concerted action to pull the warring parties back from the brink, halt the RSF advances, and ensure a humanitarian truce that is at least long enough to get humanitarian aid in and civilians out. Frankly, though, we need an end to this horrendous conflict. As we have seen in Gaza, it is only when a huge international effort comes together that we can make progress. We urgently need to ensure that happens.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary announced additional funding for Sudan, including £2 million for survivors of rape and sexual violence. However, yesterday, this House debated ending spending £2 billion on asylum hotels in the UK—that is what they cost the UK taxpayer. When might we get back to spending less official development assistance in the UK, and more of it in the region, where it would help more people in desperate need, and keep them from fleeing to Europe?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Member knows, we have already taken steps to make savings on asylum hotels, and yesterday the Home Secretary announced further reforms to the asylum system. We clearly need to end asylum hotels altogether, and to stop spending taxpayers’ money on this broken system. We need to make sure that we can invest in aid and prevention. The Italian Prime Minister has talked about ensuring that people have a “right not to migrate” by preventing conflict closer to home. Most immediately, though, the hon. Member referred to survivors of rape and sexual violence. This has escalated in the most horrendous way in recent years, and we are funding additional action to tackle rape and its use as a weapon of war. We will need to increase that work.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
As the fighting has engulfed El Fasher and severe food insecurity has spread across Darfur, women and girls have experienced extreme hunger, displacement, death, and sexual and gender-based violence. What steps is the UK taking with its regional and international partners to protect and support civilians and, in particular, women and girls who are at risk?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is deeply disturbing that despite the UK having raised the issue of sexual violence in war over very many decades, we have seen it increase in recent years. We want to strengthen the work being done internationally, both through the UN and more broadly, to tackle sexual violence in conflict. Most urgently, though, that means action to prevent this conflict, and calling for all parties to the war in Sudan to respect international law.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On Gaza, will the Government consider making representations to the Israelis about the fact that it does Israel’s reputation no good, and does not help the BBC World Service to report accurately, if external journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip? Now that the fighting has diminished, the excuse for not allowing that access has disappeared.
Turning to the RSF, I note that the Foreign Secretary referred to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the need to end the supply of weapons and support to the RSF. Can she explain to the House who mainly is supplying those weapons and that support?
Yvette Cooper
On Gaza, I agree completely with the right hon. Member. Journalists must be allowed into Gaza; we need accurate reports. I am worried about the scale of devastation that we will then see, but it is essential that journalists are able to get in and verify that.
On the issue of the RSF, work done by the UN has identified a range of different routes and sources for arms. It is important that not only the Quad members, but other players, of whom the right hon. Member is probably aware, are held to account and involved in ensuring that arms do not get into Sudan.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her work, and for the update on Sudan and Gaza. I was really glad to hear her talk about the west bank, because while we hope that a fragile peace is taking hold in Gaza, the opposite is true on the west bank. Last month, the UN recorded 260 attacks by settlers on Palestinians, including olive farmers. That is the highest rate of settler violence we have seen since the UN started collecting records in 2006. The Foreign Secretary rightly said that the Israeli Government’s response has been completely insufficient, but what more will she do to press them to rein in these deadly, illegal attacks?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The olive harvest is particularly important to the Palestinian people, both economically and culturally, and we are clear that the settler violence must end. As she knows, we have introduced sanctions on particular Israeli Ministers as a result of some of the things that we have seen around the west bank. We will continue to maintain pressure and take action against settler violence and illegal settlements on the west bank.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I welcome the statement, but why is the FCDO’s atrocity prevention team not working with the Sudan team? Our briefing this morning gave a minimum estimate of 60,000 murdered thus far by the RSF in El Fasher, with bodies being buried by bulldozers. El Obeid is likely to be next, and Tawila camp is expected to be attacked on Christmas day. This is the worst human atrocity since Rwanda. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary need to call it out for what it is—mass murder—engage with the UAE to see it stopped, and end trade if it is not.
Yvette Cooper
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am worried about El Obeid and Tawila and preventing further atrocities. I have discussed the issues in Sudan and the huge humanitarian risks with the UAE and other members of the Quad. It is essential that we maintain maximum pressure through the Quad and beyond from the whole international community. I know that the US, which is also part of the Quad, is extremely keen to do that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the focus she is putting on Sudan. We know from the horrific bloodshed in El Fasher that the RSF has got its sights, as we have heard, on Tawila and then on Khartoum itself. We have got to stop those atrocities from occurring. We know that the conflict is being fuelled by the supply of mercenaries and weapons via the UAE, including Chinese drones. Can she set out a bit more detail on the talks she is having with the UAE to stop that supply?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at the issues around the weapons, but this is not just about addressing the weapons supplies; we also must put pressure on the warring parties. I have held discussions with all the members of the Quad: the UAE, the US, which is seeking to drive the process around peace, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is hugely important not just that all the Quad countries are involved, but that other countries, including neighbouring countries that have borders with Sudan, are involved. We have seen issues with weapons being transferred from those countries. We must involve countries much more widely across the world, ensure an international concerted effort on weapons and put pressure on the warring parties to refrain, to abide by international law and to agree to the humanitarian truce.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Given that the next debate is heavily subscribed, I thought it would be helpful to indicate to Members that I will finish the statement at about 3 pm.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary has neatly illustrated the problem with the British Government’s position in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. She mentioned the welcome return of Israeli hostages, but made no mention of the Palestinian detainees who have been returned to their families. She mentioned the return of the bodies of Israelis, but made no mention of the dozens of bodies of Palestinians that have been returned to their families. Can she not see that until we value both people equally and bring accountability to both peoples, we will make little progress in this appalling situation?
Specifically to avoid accusations of illegitimacy, how will the Palestinians be represented on this board of peace? Secondly, the UN resolution puts significant conditions on the Palestinians to ensure compliance. What conditions are being put on the Israeli Government to ensure their compliance in this project? Thirdly, the situation in the west bank is not just “appalling”, as the Foreign Secretary said in her statement, but the worst it has ever been, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) said. Will the Foreign Secretary fall into the same trap as her predecessor of being all talk and doing the bare minimum to keep those on her Benches from open revolt, or will she step forward and bring accountability for the daily acts of violence and terrorism that are taking place?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government are the first to take the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was taken exactly because for too long successive Governments have supported a two-state solution and yet recognised only one state. We believe it is right to change that and to recognise the state of Palestine. It is why we have been in continued discussion with the Palestinian Authority, who have welcomed the UN resolution and the peace process and have been involved in detailed discussions with the Arab states, too.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the detainees, those who have lost their lives and the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have lost their lives in Gaza as a result of the war over the past two years. It is also right that we recognise the huge damage that Hamas have done, including through their terrorist attack on 7 October. We need to address all the suffering that has taken place across Gaza and across the region if we are to bring people together to deliver a lasting peace. That is what the current process is working to do, and it is what we are working to do as part of it. There will be difficulties and challenges ahead. It will be complicated, but we need to continue that work.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Given the reports of thousands of civilians being prevented from fleeing El Fasher by the RSF and allied militias, what urgent steps are the Government taking to ensure that there are safe humanitarian corridors to support unimpeded access for aid agencies? That is a particular issue we heard about this morning in the private briefing. What more can we do to ensure that we are holding international backers to account—not only the UAE, but across the region?
Yvette Cooper
The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drew up and that was passed on Friday includes the urgent need for humanitarian access, as well as the investigation of the atrocities and the ability to hold people to account. The other important issue is that the Quad—the US, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—has now committed to the humanitarian truce, to a ceasefire and to ending external support to warring parties. It is essential that we all work to implement the commitment that the Quad has set out and ensure that there is huge international pressure to get that peace in place.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
This morning, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international law, justice and accountability, I hosted a briefing for parliamentarians on the crisis in Sudan, at which Nathaniel Raymond of the humanitarian research lab at Yale described El Fasher as a slaughterhouse, where 60,000 people have been murdered in just three weeks. Those same Yale scholars now forecast that by Christmas, the RSF will be in Tawila, where hundreds of thousands of civilians could face a similarly appalling fate. Everybody at the meeting agreed that what has been missing is the Prime Minister’s personal leadership on this issue. Will the Foreign Secretary encourage the Prime Minister to become personally involved and show that vital international leadership which could prevent Tawila becoming another slaughterhouse?
Yvette Cooper
I am not only worried about Tawila; I am also deeply worried that the full scale of the atrocities in El Fasher may yet prove to be even worse than has been reported and commented on so far.
On the Prime Minister’s engagement with this issue, I say to the hon. Gentleman that when I was appointed to this role, as well as in the months before that, the Prime Minister personally highlighted the importance of Sudan as one of the central areas that needed UK Government and FCDO focus, because of the scale of the atrocities. That included the work to lead the London Sudan conference in April this year. Before many people were raising concerns about Sudan, this Government were consistently highlighting the humanitarian risks, but the situation is still getting worse and we need international support for action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Please may I encourage short questions from Members, as well as short answers from the Foreign Secretary?
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her strong and principled leadership about conflict resolution. Can she update us on the international stabilisation force? She will be aware of the heavy rains and flooding in Gaza. She is absolutely right about the importance of getting food in, but there are reports that the Israelis are blocking mobile homes and tents. Could she say more about what we are doing when they say that a dry night is a luxury? On the investigation of war crimes, clearly the future of Gaza will also be about a truth and reconciliation process. Will the ISF play any role in that?
Yvette Cooper
The need for shelter is becoming particularly acute as we move towards winter. Some of the warehouses I saw in Jordan, for example, have winter supplies in them, including tents and shelter. Of course, a much bigger reconstruction effort will be needed to restore homes properly for Palestinians across Gaza. We continue to urge the lifting of restrictions on tents and equipment, and we will continue to do so. This is an issue that the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre is also raising.
My hon. Friend is right to raise issues around accountability, but I am sure she will agree that the most immediate issue is to ensure that the peace is in place. The immediate task of the international stabilisation force will be to sustain and monitor peace in Gaza, so that the IDF can withdraw from Gaza.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s proactive statement, and I hope that will be the pattern of engagement with Parliament going forward. In addition to the horrendous atrocities that she and others have detailed, the World Food Programme has identified that 700,000 people face catastrophic hunger conditions in the coming months in Sudan, so we really need that step change, but we need some evidence of it. Can she be clear that the exchanges with the UAE have been robust and that there are real efforts to engage the African Union?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is right to talk about the extreme hunger—the famine—taking place. In fact, I have seen worse figures suggesting that 8 million people are at risk of famine in Sudan. That is the equivalent of the population of London; there are that many people at serious risk. That is why he is right to talk about the issues in terms of the RSF and humanitarian access. The SAF has also been restricting humanitarian aid access and trying to introduce greater restrictions, so we need all sides to understand the vital importance of all those civilians across Sudan being able to get basic food.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reference to the west bank in her statement. Others have made reference to the highest levels of attacks by settlers on Palestinians in the area. Will the Government now consider taking the step that other European countries are taking of banning all trade with illegal settlements?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that my predecessor had already taken steps to halt the free trade discussions that were under way and to introduce sanctions for particular Israeli Ministers as a result of some of the things that were happening in the west bank. We need to ensure that the peace process under way now for Gaza includes a broader strategy for the west bank. We want to see that as part of this peace process, and as part of the work of the board of peace, and that is where we will be pursuing action.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am struck by the number of my constituents who, unprompted, will raise how weak international law seems to be at holding those accountable in Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere to account for the atrocities they commit. This is a moment where we must bolster international law, not undermine it. My question to the Foreign Secretary is this: what has happened to the UK response to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the occupation? She herself in her statement pointed out the stranglehold on banks, that the Palestinian economy is on its knees and that the illegal settlements continue to grow. This is not new; this has been happening for decades. What are we doing about it? We must abide by that opinion.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we take the advisory position from the International Court of Justice immensely seriously, and we will always look at any issues around international law, including advisory positions. The greatest progress we can make in upholding international law right now is to ensure that the peace process for Gaza, and more broadly for the west bank, remains on track and that we can have a process towards a two-state solution. We made clear as part of our representations at the UN last night that all of this needs to be implemented in line with international law.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary spoke in her statement of Israeli restrictions strangling the Palestinian economy. These are not restrictions; they are strategic attempts to undermine the viability of Palestine by illegal settlement, harassment, intimidation, murder and displacement of Palestinians from their land. Illegal settlements are still being fuelled by UK funds through trade in illegal goods and services produced there. That is completely unacceptable. I call on the Foreign Secretary to introduce a full ban on trade in goods from illegal settlements in the west bank, and to extend the sanctions already introduced on organisations like the Israel Land Fund to halt the flow of resources that are making this illegal activity possible.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns about the scale of the illegal settlements and the way in which they have been expanding, but also about settler violence. I would add to that the withholding of funds to the Palestinian Authority, which are desperately needed. As I say, we have introduced additional sanctions and the restriction of the free trade agreement process. It is critical that, just as progress is being made on Gaza, we ensure that we have a broader process to include the plans for the west bank and a two-state solution. We have continually raised this as part of the discussions, and will continue to do so. It is important that the UN resolution provides clearly for that journey towards Palestinian statehood. It is important that that process has the support of so many countries now, including the US.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the passing of UN resolution 2803? The Foreign Secretary mentions a two-state solution. Given that the Prime Minister of Israel does not seem particularly keen on a two-state solution, is that not a problem for a permanent and lasting peace in the region?
On Sudan, is it not the case that Russia is deliberately destabilising that country, and that it has a self-interest in that the Wagner Group, or the so-called Africa Corps, is seeking to mine gold and take out oil? What action can the British Government take against those supplying the supply chain to get those minerals out?
Yvette Cooper
On the position of the Israeli Government, we clearly strongly disagree with the Israeli Prime Minister on this. However, I would also say that Israel has signed up to President Trump’s 20-point plan, and it is important that that plan is implemented, which includes recognition of the importance of Palestinian statehood.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, we saw the most overt example of that when Russia vetoed the UK’s resolution on Sudan 12 months ago, which it did openly in the UN. He will know of our continuing concern about Russia’s engagement in a series of conflicts.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the leading role that the UK has played at the United Nations, both in trying to corral international action on the slaughter and sexual violence in Sudan, and on the international leadership we have shown in recognising the state of Palestine—an historic recognition, as the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged. I thank her for her personal commitment and action in getting sick and injured Palestinian children to British hospitals. Given the NHS’s expertise, can she tell us what more the UK can do to rebuild healthcare in Gaza itself?
Yvette Cooper
I strongly welcome my hon. Friend’s point. In Jordan, I went to the hospital and met some of the doctors who were helping with the transfer of the patients medevaced from Gaza, through Jordan, to the UK, and I thanked them for their support. We will continue to provide that support for sick and injured children. We are working with other neighbouring countries on how best we can support the rebuilding of healthcare in Gaza. That is urgently needed, and it is an area in which we have considerable expertise.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. With regard to Sudan, I agree wholeheartedly that both sides must allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian supplies. However, I do not share her confidence in the US-led plan, simply because the US is directly responsible for and a participant in the war crimes and genocide happening in Gaza. It supplied more than 10,000 tonnes of weapons, and more than 69,000 Palestinians have been killed. Does she agree that this is nothing more than the imposition of an illegal occupation through coercive methods? If this plan is adopted in its present form, it will be a mockery of the entire international legal system, and the United Nations will be acting in direct contradiction of the fundamental tenets of international law.
Yvette Cooper
It is because of the US-led plan, which is widely supported, including by countries such as Qatar, Türkiye and Egypt in the mediation talks, that we have a ceasefire in Gaza after two years of the most horrendous suffering. President Trump’s leadership and the US’s determination to take the plan forward are immensely important. The UN resolution passed last night had the support of and has been welcomed by the Palestinian Authority and neighbouring Arab and Muslim states. It is important to maintain that unity; we will not get progress if we do not. Ultimately, it is important that we can deliver the two-state solution that this Government are committed to, but we need everyone to work together to deliver that.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
My constituent was separated from her five-year-old son during the horrors of displacement in Sudan. By a sheer miracle, he made it to Saudi Arabia; he is now staying there temporarily until 1 December, after which time he will be forced to return to Sudan. What can the Foreign Secretary do to support families such as that by way of evacuation pathways or humanitarian schemes?
Yvette Cooper
I will happily look into the particular case of the constituent that my hon. Friend raises, but there is an urgent need to get humanitarian aid in and to provide safety for those who face the most horrendous circumstances at the moment. She is right that in a situation such as this, with such terrible conflict, families get separated and need the support to reunite.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I echo the Foreign Secretary’s horror at the slaughter in El Fasher, and I share her concern that further atrocities will take place unless the international community can secure decisive intervention. With that in mind, what response has there been to Friday’s resolution from the warring parties? How do the Government, in conjunction with their international partners, intend to apply pressure on the parties to comply with not only the resolution, but international law?
Yvette Cooper
I say bluntly that the response from the warring parties has been wholly inadequate. Both sides still refuse to deliver the ceasefire that we urgently need or even a humanitarian truce to let aid get in. Words have been put forward, but it is still completely inadequate, given the scale of the humanitarian crisis we face. We will need continued pressure on all warring parties to act.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the increased aid to Sudan and for confirming that no UK military equipment is known to have entered the conflict. As the UN penholder on Sudan, what early discussions have the UK Government had with the ICJ to ensure that those responsible for war crimes—especially against children and women, and including the use of rape as a weapon of war—are brought to justice?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes about aid and the restrictions on weapons. On the approach we have been taking, let me say that earlier this year we secured the renewal of the UN fact-finding mission, because the first stage is to ensure that there is evidence. Most recently, there is a Human Rights Council resolution on enabling a full UN investigation into the atrocities. It is crucial that we have those investigations so that the international courts can hold people to account.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What further concrete steps will she take to increase pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian access for the more than 30 humanitarian NGOs that have been blocked from delivering urgently needed relief and to stop Israel supporting settlement expansion and settler violence? On Gaza, what new concrete actions will the Government take to press those who support the warring parties to stop the slaughter? Specifically, how will she persuade the UAE to put more pressure on the RSF to stop the slaughter?
Yvette Cooper
In terms of the steps we are taking to get Israel to allow the aid agencies in, we have raised that directly with the Israeli Government and through the CMCC as part of the peace process. Bear in mind that the flooding of Gaza with humanitarian aid was a crucial part of the 20-point plan and the ceasefire agreement that the Israeli Government and Hamas signed up to, so we need to ensure the implementation of that as well as having direct pressure. We continue to raise issues around the settlements.
On Sudan, we continue to engage with all the nations that can have any possible influence on the warring parties in order to seek the peace we desperately need.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome the news of the UN security resolution passed last night, the establishment of the international stabilisation force and the arrangements that will follow for the board of peace and the Palestinian committee. With a record 260 Israeli settler attacks on the west bank taking place in October alone, does the Foreign Secretary agree that failure by Israel to punish such attacks is inconsistent with international law? What further steps will she take to put pressure on Netanyahu and his Government to stop these attacks?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes. We obviously have deep concerns about illegal settlements—they are illegal and should not be taking place—and the escalation of settler violence. There is a need for strong Israeli law enforcement action against the settler violence and a withdrawal from this approach to settlements.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
May I ask the Foreign Secretary not to link two statements together in one in future, so that we can seriously examine one subject? Is she satisfied that the British arms and equipment sales that go to the United Arab Emirates do not end up in the hands of the RSF or as part of the ghastly conflict in Sudan, which is fundamentally about people trying to grab the mineral resources of that country? Will she assure us that no more British arms are being sold to Israel and that there is no security sharing with Israel while it continues the illegal activities, killings and destruction—even since the so-called ceasefire—of 1,500 buildings in Gaza, until such time as there is a real ceasefire and real peace?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of both Sudan and Gaza. I felt that it was urgent to bring both matters forward so that the House could have an update and respond. He will know that we have very strong restrictions on arms sales, but I take this issue immensely seriously. When allegations were raised about three pieces of equipment in Sudan—a seatbelt, an engine part and a shooting target—I ensured that thousands of licences that the UK has were reviewed. There was no evidence of any of the parts that were identified or had allegations made about them being covered by any UK licences. I will continue to ensure that if any concerns or allegations are ever raised, there will be reviews of the licences, because it is immensely important that those restrictions are maintained. Let me also say that we are continuing the restrictions on arms sales to Israel that were set out by my predecessor, the current Deputy Prime Minister.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and for her ongoing efforts to pursue peace.
The rebuilding of Gaza must be Palestinian-led. Civil society and communities in Gaza have led the efforts on the frontline in the face of two years of genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation and military violence. They are the leaders, the experts, and the only ones who can determine their future. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that any initiative that bypasses Palestinians in Gaza in favour of externally imposed initiatives will always fail?
Yvette Cooper
We continue to take the view that Palestine must be led by Palestinians; that is immensely important. It is therefore important that the Palestinian Authority has supported and welcomed the resolution that was passed by the United Nations, and that the resolution provides for the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority alongside the west bank. We have also pressed for the Palestinian committee to be set up as swiftly as possible as part of the transition arrangements, so that, again, that Palestinian voice and expertise is heard.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Foreign Secretary is right: peace is fragile in Gaza. The Israeli Government have agreed the 20-point peace plan and the UN resolution, and—despite what she has said—have allowed more than 20,000 truckloads of aid into Gaza since the ceasefire, while at the same time Hamas have refused to accept the resolution, continue to terrorise individuals in the Gaza territory, stockpile weapons and have refused to give up their own weapons. What can she do to ensure that Israel is encouraged in its path towards peace, and Hamas are discouraged in their resolve to continue the conflict?
Yvette Cooper
As the right hon. Member has said, we have a 20-point plan that both the Israeli Government and Hamas signed up to. It includes the decommissioning of weapons, an issue about which the UK Government feel strongly. It also includes ensuring that Hamas do not play a role in the future governance of Gaza or of Palestine and the Israeli Government ensuring that humanitarian aid is properly restored to Gaza, and also that the IDF can withdraw fully from Gaza. This is an ambitious 20-point plan. We know that there will be difficulties in implementing it, but we also know how incredibly important it is. Only through the international community coming together, and the Israeli Government and Hamas respecting the commitments that they have signed up to, will we make progress, and keep the desperately needed peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement.
Points of Order
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary for coming here today and making that important statement, there does seem to be a pattern whereby the Government combine two very, very important subjects, as was pointed out earlier by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). These issues are of real concern to all our constituents, and I think that they merit and are worthy of individual statements from the Foreign Secretary or somebody else on the Treasury Bench. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving advance notice of it. He will of course be aware that the combination of statements is not a matter for the Chair—the Government determine statements—but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard his comments.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Scrutiny in this House requires timely and meaningful engagement by Ministers with shadow Front Benchers, but, disappointingly for me, as the shadow Safeguarding Minister, responses from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), have been woeful. There has been an average 48-day wait per letter written to her, and, at worst, the longest wait for a response was 97 days. When I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, my own Government responded within 10 days to all letters received. What advice can you kindly give, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we, as Front Benchers, can receive responses in a dutiful and timely manner?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Members should receive timely responses to their correspondence with Ministers, and it is disappointing to hear that the hon. Lady has experienced such a significant delay. Ministers themselves are responsible for the timeliness of their responses, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her concerns and will pass them on to the relevant Department. Members may also wish to raise their concerns with the Leader of the House during business questions every Thursday.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Responses to a number of my written questions from Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are currently overdue. In total there are 15 written questions—14 to which responses were due by the end of October, and one to which a response was due on 5 November. Six of the 15 were tabled as named day questions. Given that written questions are one of the ways in which Members can hold the Government to account, and with perhaps as many as 100,000 civil servants based in London, may I ask whether you have any advice on what Members can do when replies from Departments are not forthcoming?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He is right to say that written questions are an important way in which Members may hold the Government to account. As he will have heard me say earlier, Ministers themselves are responsible for the timeliness of their responses, but I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his concerns and will pass them on to the relevant Department, in this case DEFRA. Both the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee may also take an interest in these matters, so the hon. Member may wish to raise his concerns with them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my remarks last week I said that Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People had entered administration, but the process has not yet begun. I also noted the loss of 48 NHS beds, although those beds belong to the charity and are occupied by patients referred to it by the NHS. I apologise for any confusion, and take this opportunity once again to share my disappointment that Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People will be closing after 90 years of delivering its vital service.—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 317.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her point of order. She has corrected the record, as she did this time last week, and I hope she will not see this as a regular method and opportunity to reiterate her political points.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance, please? This is the second occasion on which I have sought to contribute to discussion of this extremely important and urgent matter, and have not been called to speak. I fully appreciate the pressures of time and the number of Members wishing to contribute. However, given both the significance of the subject and the contributions that I had prepared on behalf of my constituents, may I ask for your advice on how I can ensure that I am able to take part, and be heard, during future debates on this topic?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that he has raised two points. As we heard in an earlier point of order, the combination of statements does not help, and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard my comments about that; it is a matter for the Government when they decide to schedule statements, and, indeed, the issues and subjects to which they will pertain.
As for the second point, regarding the timeliness and the length of statements, I do think it important. It is always regrettable when not all Members can get in during a statement. However, on regular occasions throughout the statement, I exhorted Members and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary to make questions and answers short. We would have been able to accommodate many more Members if others had listened to that guidance.
Access to Finance for Women in Business
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on access to finance for women in business; to make provision about the publication of data relating to access to finance for women in business; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to confront—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady has an important ten-minute rule motion, and there are far too many private conversations preventing me—let alone the rest of the House— from hearing her comments.
Sonia Kumar
The Bill seeks to confront one of the most urgent and entrenched inequalities in our economy: the persistent barriers that women in business continue to face. Despite the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation demonstrated by women across the United Kingdom, they remain significantly under-represented among recipients of capital and public financial support.
The evidence is stark. In 2024, just 2% of UK equity investment went to female entrepreneurs—a decline on the previous year. Over 80% of venture capital funding is allocated to male-dominated businesses, despite research confirming that women-led businesses deliver, on average, a 35% better return on investment. However, women typically start businesses with 53% less capital than men do, and the loans they receive are, on average, 68% smaller.
Approval rates for funding are lower for women, and too often they must pitch to all-male investment panels. Evidence from early-stage equity markets shows that male investors express less interest in female founders, whereas female investors are more likely to back them. For black female entrepreneurs, the challenge is even greater: between 2009 and 2019, a mere 0.02% of venture capital funding went to black women.
This is not just a disparity issue; it is an economic one. The 2019 Rose review estimated that £250 billion could be unlocked for the UK economy if women were supported to start and scale businesses at the same rate as men. Adjusted for inflation, the figure now stands at a staggering £310 billion. That is the scale of the opportunity we are failing to unlock.
Even in challenging economic circumstances, women in my constituency of Dudley continue to lead the way, against the odds. For example, Iron & Velvet, the UK’s only manufacturer of eco-friendly, water-soluble cleaning sachets, is headed by a truly inspirational woman. Debra McDonald, its chief executive officer, told me:
“Investors frequently undervalue or question the ambition of female leaders.”
According to the Black Country chamber of commerce, just 20% of member companies are led by women, and such businesses are even rarer outside London. We cannot allow this to persist. The injustice goes beyond numbers; it holds back potential in every community, from the west midlands to every region of our country.
I welcome the Government’s recent commitment of £400 million to support under-represented fund managers, and the doubling of their investment in female-led venture capital funds to £100 million through the Invest in Women taskforce. Compared with our international peers, though, the UK is simply losing ground. The United States of America stands out globally as the leading country for women-led businesses in 2025. Over the past two decades, female-owned businesses in the US have grown dramatically, with a 100% increase. Between 2019 and 2023, these businesses contributed a whopping 1.4 million new jobs and generated $500 billion in revenue.
Meanwhile, Sweden and Poland are surpassing the UK, with more targeted strategies to improve women’s access to finance. In Sweden, 4.6% of all venture capital funding is now allocated to female-only founded businesses, outpacing the UK’s rate. Poland ranks first in the EU, and fifth worldwide, for female entrepreneurship. The progress in those countries is no coincidence; it reflects deliberate and sustained efforts to empower women in business.
I have a vision for a country where prosperity has no barriers, and where every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their potential—a nation where access to finance is not a privilege but a right, and where women entrepreneurs, small business owners and innovators from every background can turn their ideas into action. This is about fairness, ambition and unlocking the full promise of our people, so that no one is held back simply because of who they are or where they come from.
In this Bill, I propose three core measures, backed by experts, to begin dismantling the barriers. The first pillar mandates transparency and accountability within financial institutions. The British Business Bank would lead this transformation to ensure genuine equity in access to finance. Banks, venture capital firms and public funding bodies would be required to publish gender disaggregated lending data, review their practice on bias, and embed anti discrimination measures across every stage of investment and loan assessment. For too long, a lack of data has hidden the barriers for women entrepreneurship, and this measure brings the inequalities into the light. By exposing where decisions fall short of equity, institutions will be compelled to act—not out of obligation, but because inclusion strengthens our economy. The Bill would ensure that capital is allocated on potential and performance, not prejudice. As Becky Cotton, a pioneering woman in business and the co-founder of Lumino, told me:
“Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
Secondly, the Bill would direct the British Business Bank and related Government-backed schemes to expand their outreach and set measurable targets. At least 30% of all finance provided should support female-led businesses, and the percentage of equity finance for female entrepreneurs must increase from 2% to 10% by 2030. This reflects a key recommendation from the Women and Equalities Committee’s groundbreaking report on female entrepreneurship.
Thirdly, the Bill would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on access to finance. I have already laid out the inequality that exists in this area, but mandating the Secretary of State to produce a report is essential for transparency, accountability and progress. Without the clear reporting that this Bill is calling for, the scale of inequality will remain hidden. From that report, we can begin to develop other policies to unlock investment for women and other disadvantaged groups, finally bridging the gap between men and women in finance.
This is not just a Bill for women; it is a Bill for our economy, our communities and our collective future. It recognises that fairness and prosperity go hand in hand, and it will remove the barriers to women’s economic participation. We will all benefit from increased innovation, job creation, stronger families and a more resilient society.
This is a critical moment. Unlocking £310 billion of growth by investing in female-led businesses is not just the right thing to do; it is smart economics. Empowering women and women-led businesses is among the most effective investments we can make as a nation. This Bill is about the fixing the system, not fixing women.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sonia Kumar, Liam Byrne, Sarah Edwards, John Cooper, Dan Aldridge, Gurinder Singh Josan, John Slinger, James Asser, Rachel Taylor, Matt Western and Ms Polly Billington present the Bill.
Sonia Kumar accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 330).
Point of Order
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to your earlier observation that if hon. Members had asked shorter questions during the previous statement, so many would not have been disappointed, there was a time when if a Member read from a piece of paper when asking a question, there would be a chorus across the House of “Reading!” May I suggest that if hon. Members were required to remember their questions, they would obviously be shorter? May I ask you to discuss with Mr Speaker the possibility of returning to former habits?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is of course right, and were Members to refer to the guide on courtesies and behaviours in the House, they would find advice on whether questions, and indeed interventions, should be read, particularly from telephones.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.
Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.
Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.
Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.
The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.
What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court?
Hilary Benn
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.
Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.
There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.
The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders.
Hilary Benn
I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.
If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.
Hilary Benn
I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.
These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?
Hilary Benn
I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will make progress.
There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:
“There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”
What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:
“As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”
I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:
“I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”
I agree.
Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:
“What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”
The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.
We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.
I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others—
Hilary Benn
And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.
I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.
Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.
Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as
“a direct threat to national security”?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.
Hilary Benn
No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.
Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.
The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.
I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.
The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.
Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.
Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.
I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.
We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,
“it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]
I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.
Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received
“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”
He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should
“get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,
and encourages all of us as parliamentarians
“to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”
It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.
I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask those on the Front Benches to keep their opening statements short, because it eats into the time for contributions from Back-Bench Members.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.”
I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace.
The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions.
We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further.
In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history.
The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. The Government are claiming that they have no choice but to legislate. They are making that claim for three reasons. The first is that they object to conditional immunity. The second is their belief that the legacy Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the third is the fact that the legacy Act lacked cross-party support.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recognise that the immunity that was promised never came into action because the British courts rejected it? Does he accept that we are not taking away immunity, because it was never possible in the first place?
Alex Burghart
It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly.
Alex Burghart
No.
Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information.
We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was.
Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.
Colum Eastwood
Let me take this opportunity to refresh the shadow Secretary of State’s memory. Sinn Féin actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams is on record as supporting that piece of legislation—I wonder why. Sinn Féin also supported, at one point, amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Féin, who in turn pressurised the Government, to drop it. That is what happened.
Alex Burghart
I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.
No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.
In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Even if the Supreme Court had opined on the matter and judged it to be incompatible, that would not have changed the law. This House is not required to respond in any way to a declaration of incompatibility by a court. This House remains supreme.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend says that it is highly likely that an appeal would have succeeded. In support of that, I cite the fact that the Defence Committee took evidence in great detail from four professors of law in 2017. They were not talking about that specific legislation, but they all agreed that it was possible and legal to combine a statute of limitation, providing that there was a truth recovery process. A range of people gave evidence, from Professor Richard Ekins on the right of centre, shall we say, to Professor Philippe Sands on the left of centre. It was possible, it was legal, and even if that law was struck down, something similar could have been put in its place.
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done.
The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.
That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks.
The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things. Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do.
The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in.
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Gentleman has talked about doing the right thing, but is not doing the right thing getting justice for over 1,000 families, including 200 veteran families, who have waited too long for answers about their loved ones? Putting victims at the heart of this process would be doing the right thing—getting on with legislation that will deliver the justice needed, instead of the delays and dithering that the Conservatives’ legacy Act provided?
Alex Burghart
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Burghart
I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are
“to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.”
I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans.
Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.
Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all.
Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.
Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Burghart
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the wrongs of the Bill so clearly. A number of veterans called my office yesterday in great distress. One of their concerns is what the Bill means for future recruitment to the armed forces, which so far has not really been covered in this debate. They believe that if people sign up willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, their country should stand behind them. Will my hon. Friend set out why the Bill risks so heavily future recruitment to the armed forces, and therefore why that is another reason that this Bill is absolutely wrong?
Alex Burghart
I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State?
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.
Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.
Colum Eastwood
Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House who is actually in Government in Northern Ireland and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all?
Alex Burghart
The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.
Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court?
Alex Burghart
I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.
Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.
In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that
“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”
When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The peace process in Northern Ireland was hard-won, and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, it did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the troubles—either by terrorists or by the security forces—and nor did it provide an amnesty for crimes that had not yet been prosecuted.
Let us also not forget that, according to data from the House of Commons Library, around 3,520 people lost their lives during the troubles. They included 1,441 British service personnel, 722 of whom died at the hands of paramilitaries. Three hundred RUC officers were killed, and 301 individual deaths were the responsibility of the British military. Of those, 121 were republican terrorists, 101 were loyalist terrorists, and the remainder were all civilians. We therefore have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the troubles are dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally.
The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found several provisions of that Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and should therefore be disapplied. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found additional aspects of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the ECHR.
There are many separate elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I will keep my contribution to two specific areas: immunity from prosecution for historical crimes, and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving forward under the new legislation. As a veteran, I have never sought or agreed that, as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service. We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols, whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in.
There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said:
“This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it”.
Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, said that the British Army is “not above the law.” Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is now chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said only last week:
“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”
We must also understand that it is not just British service personnel who were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation; it was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. More than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers were shut down upon the enactment of the legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers’ families.
Immunity from prosecution is dangerous, because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims’ rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law and undermines long-term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution. It sets an awful precedent. If it were to be implemented by foreign Governments currently in military conflicts, we would be rightly appalled.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Member have any views on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that did exactly that?
Mr Foster
I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers.
Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard.
Mr Foster
I am almost done.
Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Although I have not held this spokesperson role for long, I have met veterans, victims and survivors, academics and Members from across this House and the other place. Those conversations have been humbling and instructive, reminding me of the horror that Northern Ireland endured and the courage of those who lived through and served during the troubles.
I begin by recognising the Secretary of State’s work in bringing forward this Bill. Dealing with the legacy of the past requires legislation and practical action that the public can trust. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the intent to repeal and replace part 2, and certain aspects of part 3, of the Conservatives’ failed legacy Act. That legislation was a profound misjudgment. It commanded no confidence in Northern Ireland, was opposed by every major party and placed the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Not only did the Tories provide conditional immunity for serious troubles-related crimes, but they offended victims and—the shadow Secretary of State seemed to forget this—alienated veterans by appearing to equate them with terrorists.
This Bill rightly removes those provisions, ends immunity and restores the principle that no one is beyond the law. Clause 1 confirms that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery will continue under a new name—the Legacy Commission—with reformed governance and functions. That recognises the need to rebuild the process to have one that the people of Northern Ireland can trust.
We support the Government’s intention to reform the commission, but expectations are high and confidence is fragile. Any effective legacy process must also ensure that the narratives of the troubles remain accurate and that victims of terrorism are neither forgotten nor morally equated with perpetrators. At the same time, they were victims of lawful, and occasionally unlawful, acts by the state, whose right to truth is equally important. Only a system founded on transparency, independence and fairness can command confidence across all communities, which previous actions, such as the letters of comfort issued to paramilitaries in the past, did so much to undermine.
Clause 3 sets out the Legacy Commission’s structures and functions, including investigating deaths and serious harm, holding inquisitorial proceedings, producing a full record of deaths and securing public confidence—a requirement I strongly welcome. It also establishes an oversight board to provide strategic direction and scrutiny, but with a board drawn from within the organisation, the real test of its effectiveness will lie in the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead the commission in the first place.
Clauses 4 to 6 give the Secretary of State power to appoint commissioners, directors of investigation and judicial panel members. Even with the consultation requirements under clause 9, that concentration of powers risks undermining trust. Appointments through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission or a similar independent mechanism would surely strengthen public confidence. My concern is heightened as the Secretary of State also appoints the victims and survivors advisory group under clause 8. When one person controls both the commission’s leadership and its advisory body, independence is difficult to discern.
Turning to the fundamental issue of veterans protections under the Bill, those amount to the following. Unsolicited contact would be limited to official channels, which is clearly important. There will be an end to repeat investigations, but the undefined caveat of “unless it is essential to do so” leaves the scope unclear. Veterans will have the ability to seek anonymity, although a provision to that effect already exists under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. Veterans will have the right to give evidence remotely, but there will not be a default presumption to do so. Veterans’ welfare will have to be considered, which is at best vague, and veterans will be represented on the ministerial advisory group, which while welcome does not in itself offer protection.
Veterans are surely right in arguing that this is not enough. This has implications not just for them, but for our current service personnel and potential future recruits. As the nine four-star generals who wrote to The Times last week made clear, the provisions of the Bill have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
My family has served in the Army for many generations, including myself in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and indeed my son is serving now. We have seen and deeply admired the Army’s core values of courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Would my hon. Friend accept that the retired generals and the many serving friends of my son make an extremely pertinent point when they say that the Bill will negatively impact retention and recruitment in the British Army, and at a time when we are desperate to bolster our armed forces?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Mr Kohler resumes his speech, let me say that we must keep interventions short. Many Members wish to contribute.
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. The Bill will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly with respect to our special forces. That is why it must go further.
With more than 10% of the Lib Dem Benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks that veterans talk about and the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made. Our concern is fairness, not shielding wrongdoing.
Under this Bill, many veterans will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgment and scrutiny of sensitive personal data and service records. That concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. The actions of veterans were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. That results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is noteworthy that while the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State’s discretion over the handling of sensitive information, the Bill gives veterans no such safeguards.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The IRA’s campaign of terror against the British people was one of the darkest chapters in our history; the shields of Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry demonstrate that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the armed servicemen represented here today defended us, and it is the job of this Parliament to ensure that they are now defended?
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. We must never equate our armed forces with the paramilitaries and terrorists on both the nationalist and Unionist sides.
Veterans deserve assurances that their service rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately. That is why we call on the Government to come forward with binding statutory safeguards, including a clearer presumption against repeated investigations without objectively certified new and significant evidence; an expanded duty to consider operational context; strengthened welfare protections; and a presumption of remote participation.
It is important that the voices of not just veterans, but all victims and survivors are heard. Clause 8 does that by establishing a group to advise both the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State. However, its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its numbers limited to as few as three and no more than seven, which risks its voice being limited and its independence being compromised. By concentrating sweeping powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, the Bill risks creating an opaque system that offers little genuine parliamentary oversight or scrutiny.
As hon. Members are aware, there is already a Commission for Victims and Survivors, which has for almost two decades ensured that those most affected by the troubles are heard. There is a danger that the proposed victims and survivors ministerial advisory group, despite its separate function, might trespass into the existing forum’s domain, which, with its wide range of perspectives, including veterans from both Unionist and nationalist backgrounds and those who have served in the Crown forces, has the all-important cross-community legitimacy. Trust is so important.
Capturing that breadth and establishing that trust in the newly proposed and much smaller advisory group will be difficult. I therefore ask the Government to clarify how the new advisory group will interact with the existing forum. Will the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors have a formal role in the advisory group? Otherwise, how will the voices of veterans and former security personnel, who are both victims and key stakeholders, be heard?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and were then pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there deserve more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless “the duplication is essential”?
Mr Kohler
I absolutely agree. We must go further and do more for veterans. The Bill does not go far enough at this stage.
My party has always opposed the legacy Act, but we are clear that its replacement must address the legitimate concerns of veterans. As one can see from the joint statement issued last night by the veterans commissioners of the devolved nations, that is not currently the case. They have expressed concerns, which are shared on the Lib Dem Benches, that the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards for veterans, nor does it provide sufficient safeguards against lawfare, historical narrative revision or disparities between how ex-security personnel and others will be treated.
That is why my party has submitted a reasoned amendment, and will support the Conservative reasoned amendment, to deny Second Reading of the Bill until the fundamental issue of sufficient protection for veterans is addressed, along with enhanced parliamentary oversight, safeguarding of the independence of appointments, clarification on the role of the victims and survivors advisory group, and measures to ensure that no Government can use ministerial discretion to shut down the search for the truth. I realise that that will disappoint the Secretary of State, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party commends him for all his hard work in seeking to move on from the Tories’ failed legacy Act. Its successor, however, must command genuine confidence across all communities while ensuring our veterans’ peace of mind. I pledge on behalf of my party to do all we can to help him to achieve that goal.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
In December last year the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, launched an inquiry into the Government’s emerging plans. Since then, we have received nearly 80 pieces of written evidence; held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups; and heard twice from the Secretary of State—and I thank him for that. Importantly, we have visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from the people directly affected by the troubles. We met victims and survivors from all communities and none, hearing their concerns, their requests and, most movingly, their stories.
Because of the timing of the announcement of first the joint framework and then the Bill, we have been working apace to gather new evidence on the Government’s plans and have yet to consider and agree a report following our inquiry, but I hope we can do so shortly, and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. The points that I shall make in my speech are based on the evidence that my Select Committee has taken, but any conclusions I draw or recommendations I make about the Government’s proposals are my own.
One question that we consistently asked those to whom we spoke was, “Have the Government consulted you on their plans or proposals?” The answer from many was that they had felt listened to, but not heard. I know the Secretary of State’s response has always been to say, gently, “They will not know whether we have listened to them until they see our proposals,” but previous consultations—for example, the one on Stormont House—were much more comprehensive than this one. It now seems from many of the provisions in both the framework and the Bill that Ministers have indeed been listening, and I thank the Secretary of State for that. The fact remains, however, that if these proposals are to gain the confidence of as many communities as possible, including veterans, the Government will need to listen more, bring them along and enable them to take ownership of what is being put forward, and confidence will be key.
The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery has been unable to garner the kind of trust and authority across the communities that would enable it to carry out its work effectively. We have seen evidence of that, but it is no fault of the chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, or of any other senior commissioner or commission officer. We took evidence from ICRIR representatives in May and met them privately, and we became very aware of the professionalism, integrity and decency with which the commission has approached its work. Unfortunately, however, its roots in the legacy Act hampered it from the beginning. Some people thought that its investigations were too light-touch, while others thought that it was not doing, or able to do, enough to address potential conflicts of interest between investigators and their investigations. We heard that its investigations were rigorous and could lead to prosecutions, and that it was introducing its own robust conflict of interest policy, but we know how it is when trust is lacking: root-and-branch reform seems inevitable.
Many Committee members, including me, have been greatly moved by listening to the families we have met. I would personally urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the decision on the sensitivities and prejudice of documents held will be the decision of the Legacy Commission, and not that of the agencies who currently hold that information and need to pass it on.
In respect of case referrals, stakeholders have submitted supplementary evidence to us on many of the Government’s proposals. For example, the Government’s plan to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new Legacy Commission seems sensible, but there are potential changes that could be made to the definition of “close family member” which would make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life, and of the time that it has taken for some families to gain an investigation. As we know, trauma, and the search for truth, can be passed down the generations.
I have to skip a large part of my speech, but one of the things that I must address is resourcing. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand for its services—something that will only continue under the new commission. Given that it has greater responsibilities, including taking on coronial cases through its enhanced inquisitorial mechanism, its funding will need to be under continuous review. It is to be noted that the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others, which have new demands on their records, will also need to be considered.
I will draw my comments to a close. There is much to be commended in the Bill, but there is also much that still needs to be worked on. I look forward to bringing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s inquiry to a close.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This is a terrible Bill. Its central failing is that it will lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to the case of Soldier B and the judge’s dismissal of it as a “ludicrous” challenge funded by legal aid. I have known Soldier B for 30 years; I count him as a friend. He is tough and clever yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years and more, on what is effectively preparation for a murder charge, would have been unbelievably stressful. The point my hon. Friend made is that the process is the punishment: four years of stress and wear and tear.
In Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules, but in Northern Ireland the courts have sometimes interpreted those rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. To illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case that highlights what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances.
On 16 March 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving toward them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the mind of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. They made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death. It is a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, given that the soldiers could have been killed.
Today’s debate is actually about morality. It is about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The Government claim that today’s problems arise from legislation passed by the previous Government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts?
Labour, under Blair, effectively gave a de facto amnesty—maybe it is challengeable in law—to at least 650 terrorists, who had carried out more than 3,000 killings. Early release schemes, on-the-run letters and the royal prerogative of mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. It was secret because the Government knew that people would not accept it.
David Davis
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
People knew that the system would not be accepted, which is why Gerry Adams asked for an “invisible system” for dealing with on-the-runs. Why are they on the run? They are on the run because they are criminals, and this was a secret system to deal with it.
In contrast, 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, democracy and the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, whom we often forget in this. They acted as the direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised all communities in Northern Ireland. By the way, I mean “all communities”; remember that the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics to terrorise that community. Yet today those who upheld the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law received leniency, letters and legal shelter.
Let us not forget that the IRA are also protected by the fact that witnesses, or would-be witnesses, against them know that they risk murder if they turn up. I was in Omagh a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot—six times, I think—only a couple of years ago by the Real IRA, or the New IRA or whatever label they have today. Instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism. We should not treat them worse than the killers they defeated. This House must say, “Enough. Enough moral inversion, and enough rewarding of terror, while hounding those who defended the public.”
We are told that the Bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives, but when real leaders must choose between consensus and justice, they choose justice. This Bill must not rest on appeasement. The world watches while Britain chooses today. Its allies watch with concern, and its enemies with enthusiasm, as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer in future, and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Time is short, but I hope that we can consider why, as well as how, pain is to be addressed in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party approaches legacy from a basis that considers the rule of law, equality before the law, and the impact on reconciliation. We recognise that this is not a sterile debate, taking place only in this Chamber or in Committee Rooms, and it is not a knockabout for a headline or a tweet; it is a daily reality for many thousands of families. While the issue of legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland, shaping the tone of our politics, and affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing, and the ability of Government to deliver. This Bill is not perfect—legislation rarely is—but we cannot miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. This is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent and reconciled future.
It is positive that we are discussing a bilateral agreement between the Irish Government and the Government in London. This is a much-needed departure from the unilateralism pursued by the last Government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy Act, which was not only struck down by the courts, but rejected by every single party in the north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record. They exploited the fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working, while fighting and stalling the processes that were in place. The Conservative party’s approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities and, worse, wasted the time, the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors.
The joint framework allows both Governments to begin meeting their responsibilities for dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State and his officials. Although we will seek by amendment to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well-intentioned political oversight, I understand that people are working closely on this across the Irish sea, and that Dublin’s legislation will be published swiftly once this Bill has made its way through the House, so that its architecture is compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that these things be delivered in parallel, and right that it is a partnership. When people make lurid claims about what the Irish Government have or have not done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it, I can view that only as cynicism.
The SDLP does not pick and choose which victims we support. We do not pick and choose who we demand accountability from. Every death was a tragedy, and every murder was wrong. Publicly and privately, we will push Dublin, as we will push everyone else, on its obligations and its omissions from this framework, and on the Omagh inquiry. We will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism of those, including many on the Opposition side of this House, who attempt to draw an equivalence, from London, between the Government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement of paramilitaries.
From the early days of the conflict, victims have borne the most—including lacklustre investigations and the release of prisoners—and asked the least, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. To go far outwith the Good Friday agreement, they have had that compounded by an uneven transition for paramilitaries, on-the-run letters, decades of cynical memorialisation, and the immunity scheme that was in place under the previous Government.
Unlike others, the SDLP does not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of context, for military commanders and IRA commanders, violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice. Brushing all those crimes under the carpet, as the previous Government attempted to do, was also a choice.
The deaths of far too many innocent people were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth less, having been expended for a goal that could never have been achieved that way. That has never been properly acknowledged. The IRA has never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and it made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, and that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith that they were born into. They do not need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point. Likewise, the running of state agents by security forces was not a “necessary evil”; it was reckless and morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it, and those trying to pretend it did not happen.
Uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure in order to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. For many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claimed to defend.
Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on confidence in policing. There is no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there is not a pathway to justice, or even truth, for every family, but we have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years.
As for those who suffered loss, I hear daily their dignity, fortitude and the wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and heed those voices, and we should proceed with the Bill. I will finish with the words of a fine Ulster poet, John Hewitt:
“Bear in mind these dead:
I can find no plainer words.”
He asked us not to differentiate between people, depending on how they died, but to offer truth and justice for all of them.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). We do work with each other on these issues, although we do not always agree.
It is fair to say that our history is sorrowful. It is pitiful and painful, and grounded on a corruption of justice. While we listen to the politics and the back and forth between Labour and Conservative in this Chamber, we have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice: the release of prisoners, the litany of failures, and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our communities across society in Northern Ireland. The on-the-run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort; it was a royal prerogative of mercy, and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries. Only two weeks ago, a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office met 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party, was shot in 1981 in Aughnacloy by a member of the Provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland and Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and was arrested at the count. He was convicted for 20 years for the attempted murder of one of my colleagues. That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was brought into the political process.
The innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard the Government promise to repeal and replace, yet that is not what they are seeing. They have heard a promise to protect veterans; that is a mirage. There is no specific protection for veterans in this piece of legislation—none. Last week, when the Minister for Veterans was asked on the radio four times whether she could rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum, she could not. That the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to say that he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries from that advisory board is, I think, a shame, but shame runs throughout the legacy of our past, and Governments’ approach to it.
Does the Bill work for innocent victims? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people from across this Chamber—maybe even those on these Benches—pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true that some innocent victims want truth and to know what happened, but others want justice. They have not received it.
Does the Bill contain protections for veterans? No. Does the word “veteran” feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of the gaslighting and psychological torture of having their own beliefs, understanding and memory challenged and questioned to the point that they think they have got something wrong.
What about paramilitaries? Paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through. They will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour Government.
I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again his lamentable failure to support the commissioner for investigations, solely because he has a history in the RUC. What is the answer to that? The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. Even though the High Court has attested the independence of the commissioner for investigations and the ICRIR, the Secretary of State has decided at the behest of the Irish to create an equal position, for fear of contamination. That is outrageous. It is not legally sustainable or legally required, and it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and integrity of not only that individual, but all who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 302 of whom were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
We hear about protections for veterans, but what about those who served in the PSNI, or the RUC before them? What about those who served and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces? Where is their support, Secretary of State? It is not in this legislation. Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court, who paid its bills? It did. Retired police officers had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past and asserted “collusive behaviours”—a legal phraseology that does not exist. Those retired police officers have had to defend their honour by themselves, because no Government of any hue have stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, Secretary of State, and we should defend them.
The Secretary of State has sullied himself and this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic. I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic has cautioned against amendments to the legislation. The Irish Government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to mean that they would assist only in answering the question of what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity; they will not say what they could have done, yet for decades they harboured terrorists, refused extradition and supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Has the Secretary of State put them under any pressure? No, he has not. What legal obligation is there, if the Bill passes, to see that they adhere to the European convention on human rights? None.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.
The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.
I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.
Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan?
Colum Eastwood
I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.
A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day.
Jim Allister
Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?
Colum Eastwood
There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.
What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.
What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. How many times do I have to remind colleagues about the use of “you” and “your”? There is not much time left.
Colum Eastwood
Why are those Members supporting people who, by their own admission, murdered innocent civilians—civilians who should be seen by anybody in this House as citizens of the United Kingdom? Everybody can see the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place many times. I know that many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well, there are lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and they are sick, sore and tired of this. If this legislation has any chance of giving people some truth and justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with the Bill. We have issues around the national security parts of it and around sensitive information, and we will table amendments in that regard in the process, but we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance, and all this—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the speech that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has just given, and the reason I welcome it is that he recognised correctly, fully and truthfully that almost all those who were victims in those terrible years of the troubles were UK citizens. They deserve the same recognition, respect and protection as any other citizen of the United Kingdom. One of the foundational reasons that I am a Unionist is that I believe that we are all equal on these islands—or rather, on that part of these islands.
I understand where we are, but we can look back a lot at history. We can look back a lot at what has got us to the position we are in, but if I may, I want to drag the Government’s eyes forward. The reality is that what we are doing here, in reopening and ending our own version of the South African truth and reconciliation committee—with all the problems, failures, lacunas and gaps that that necessarily has—is ending the opportunity to move on, with all the pain that that brings. We are reopening wounds that, sadly, we all know will never close.
I can look at the agreements that were made in the 1990s. I can speak about the deals that Tony Blair did, and like everybody here, I can be deeply critical about the injustices that he allowed, but I cannot then welcome the peace that he brought. I cannot welcome the peace if I am critical of the process that he and others needed to make it happen, so I am very cautious about those who would go back and criticise and call out. I understand the pain of so many, but if we want peace we have to move forward, and that is where this Bill is really difficult. It does not just affect the peace of these islands, important though that is; it also affects the peace of Europe and the wider world, because it is telling people across these islands that their service when they sign up will not be for five or 10 years, or whatever it says on the recruitment contract, but for as long as our enemies and those who seek to do us harm wish to bring prosecutions against us. I wrote about this for Policy Exchange in 2013 and again in 2015, in two papers: “The Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”.
The fundamental point is that we think this is about us. We in this Chamber have the idea that, somehow or other, the law, the justice system and what we shape and decide here is all about us, but I am afraid it is not. You do not need to take my word for it. Read the Mitrokhin archive. Read what the KGB was doing using instrumentalising. There were many honourable people in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but there were also some who were willing to co-operate with the KGB. Members should read what the KGB and its successor organisations have been trying to do around the world, using the law as a way of continuing actions against British forces and a way of disarming our forces before they get into conflict.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister—he and I have always got on very well, and I admire his dedication—but the tragedy is that, for all the well-meaning aspirations of this Government, and although he, the judges and inquiries have a responsibility to the past, the system that was set up had inquiries and an ability to find justice and the truth. Yes, it made a compromise that many of us did not like, and yes, it gave conditional immunity that many of us found pretty abhorrent, but it also gave the possibility of moving forward. It sent a message to our enemies that we would simply not tolerate our soldiers being dragged through the courts ad infinitum, because all that does is demonstrate weakness.
Let us look at the numbers. This country has a population of roughly 65 million people, and we have security forces numbering maybe 350,000. The equations and challenges are pretty clear. We also have enemies mustering at our gate, as we know very well. Our friends in countries such as Denmark and Sweden are reintroducing conscription, because they realise the threat from the east. Countries such as Poland are spending much more on defence than we do, because they know that Russia is a real threat. We will simply not be in position to stand with them and defend ourselves and our values if we are not willing to stand behind those who risked everything to serve our country.
I have fought on the frontline and know what the heat, dust, confusion and fear can be like. There is a difference between that and having to explain oneself in a courtroom 20 years later, when all we have is gossip and rumour—because nobody else was there, nobody else was telling the truth, nobody else witnessed the reality of the difficult decisions that were taken. All we are doing in holding lance corporals, corporals and commanders all the way through the process is abdicating our responsibility for choosing to send them.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I will keep my remarks brief, because many valued voices are yet to be heard in this debate. I welcome the Bill. Northern Ireland has a special place in my heart. It gave me my mum and treasured memories of time with family, and it will always feel part of me, but it also left the younger version of me with many questions, such as why kerbstones were painted red, white and blue in some places, and why the police had guns and their cars looked like tanks.
As I said after the Secretary of State’s statement last December,
“Nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 425.]
I have seen that progress at first hand. The streets of Belfast are a fundamentally different place compared not just with the stories my mum tells of her youth, but with what I remember from mine. However, progress is not finished and peace should never be taken for granted.
We must make sure that we get this right, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to build a clear, robust and fair system with which justice and closure can be sought. Creating a reformed Legacy Commission with strengthened governance, giving the Legacy Commission the powers that it needs so that answers can be provided to families— including those of servicemen and women—and taking a new approach to inquests and coronial cases will all help to provide answers that are sought and needed by grieving families.
However, we must also ensure that the system itself is not used as a weapon. I genuinely believe that, as a package, the Bill’s six measures to protect veterans should provide significant reassurance to those who served. There can be no equivalence drawn in this or any other process between those who served in our armed and security forces to protect life and promote security and stability, and terrorists, whether loyalist or republican.
The thing that was too often forgotten during the troubles were the ordinary people—those who found themselves caught in the middle and who, on too many occasions, lost their lives because of it. We must not forget them now. I thank those who served to protect people —our veterans, who found themselves in communities not too dissimilar from the ones they grew up in, having to do an immensely difficult job. I also thank those who saw that peace was the way forward. As we debate this Bill, it is incumbent on us all to remember where we have been and just how fragile progress can be. Let us get this right and provide justice for grieving families and protections for those who served.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I want to thank all the military servicemen and women who served on Operation Banner. It was not just the military. On every visit to a police station in Northern Ireland, I saw the long lists of officers who were lost. I pay tribute to members and family members of the RUC and to our security services, agents and staff. I also pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues past and present who served in Operation Banner.
I condemn utterly the mindless and needless violence of the IRA, who were, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois),
“one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 46WH.]
I also pay tribute to innocent victims of the troubles. The list of atrocities is long, and the IRA principally is responsible for the vast majority of them, along with loyalist paramilitary groups. Neighbours, sons, daughters, husbands—thousands of families were impacted in this smallest part of the United Kingdom.
Given that broader legislation on legacy has been so long awaited, it is important to emphasise the regulations I brought in as Secretary of State on behalf of the last Conservative Government on victims’ payments, which were the first stage of the legacy process. Many people have applied successfully for those payments, but I urge the Secretary of State to promote them to military and other victims and veterans, because I understand that many more people could apply for them. I also urge him to consider what could be put in place for the bereaved, using some of the principles that we adopted to exclude anybody who was injured by their own hand.
I would like to make a number of observations. I pay tribute to those on the shadow Front Bench for representing and standing up for our soldiers and for articulating the clear dangers of lawfare and the rewriting of history. Perhaps our party and this House should have listened earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when his inquiry presented the option of a statute of limitations, but that would have had to be done as part of a much bigger reconciliation process.
We need to be so careful, when debating the issue of amnesties, to recognise that these were often British citizens killed by the very limited number of armed forces who behaved badly. It was an amazing achievement for David Cameron to have his speech shown in the Museum of Bloody Sunday in Derry. He acknowledged through his tone the wrongs that were committed. They were limited, but they were committed, and we have to admit that that happened.
I urge the Secretary of State to look at further options during the passage of the Bill for strengthening protections for veterans. First, the noble Lord Caine has suggested amending the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 in order to deal with cases where a soldier thought they were acting in legitimate self-defence. Secondly, there are significantly larger volumes of legal aid paid out in Northern Ireland. Can that be looked at? The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised the roving mandate of many inquests. Can that be looked at, to focus those inquests that are coming back under this Bill?
On the commitments from Ireland, I worked very closely and positively with the Irish Government to restore Stormont in 2020 and in 2024, but I remain sceptical as to how far Ireland will go, or will be able to go, in the provision of information to families. Will the Irish Government really be able to open everything up on Omagh? We have to be frank that, given the political headwinds they face, there is limited incentive for them to do that. It would be useful to understand what commitments have been made. We also need to be honest about our security services; there are going to be limits to what they can release—we have to be honest with families about that.
There are various statutory commitments in the Bill, but none on funding. The Omagh inquiry will cost about £50 million, and Finucane about £20 million. There is a risk that day-to-day policing in Northern Ireland loses out in the absence of that funding. On memorialisation and reconciliation, the clauses from the previous legislation remain. Again, who will pay for this, and how will the impossible task of getting consent on these matters be achieved?
I know that many families in Northern Ireland and beyond still want answers, and will hope that they can get them through this Bill. The lack of closure for so many leaves the next generation taking on the baton of grief and grievance. The issue for them is that time has not healed matters, nor has it lessened their pain. I hope that they can be front of mind as the Bill is debated here and in the other place in the weeks and months ahead. I think of the many individuals and families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today, and I hope, in what is probably going to be the last piece of legacy legislation, that we can all bear those families and individuals in mind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Speaking limits have dropped to five minutes because too many Members want to contribute. I am doing my best to get everybody in.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for his thoughtful contribution?
Ever since the Northern Ireland legacy Bill was introduced by the previous Government in 2019, thousands of innocent victims’ families have waited to see this day. Of the many reckless things the Conservatives did to our relationship with Northern Ireland in their 14 years in government, I struggle to think of a more egregious example than that legislation. It was a direct attack on the Good Friday agreement, it undermined accountability and the rule of law, and it has caused significant pain to thousands of victims’ families. Indeed, in the bringing forward of that Bill, there was no consultation with any victims’ groups or families. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the South African truth and reconciliation commission, but a key difference is that that commission put families’ and victims’ voices at its centre.
For people across Northern Ireland, the legacy of the troubles is not a chapter in history, but something carried in every family and community to the present day. I know this from my own family. I am a relative of Father Hugh Mullan, one of 11 innocent victims of the Ballymurphy massacre, which took place in 1971—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. Hugh was a Catholic priest, and was trying to help another victim and offer the last rites when he was shot and killed unlawfully by a member of the Parachute Regiment. He was shot first in the abdomen, and then again in the back as he lay on the ground.
What is often missed in discussions of troubles-related cases is that what followed often compounded families’ grief. Hugh was labelled as a gunrunner, and there were attempts to smear him that could not have been further from the truth, but it would take 50 years for the words “entirely innocent” to appear on public record in a ruling by Mrs Justice Keegan.
I have had the pleasure of working with victims’ groups right across Northern Ireland, on a cross-community basis, and I want to remark on the words of Sandra Peake, the chief executive officer of the Wave Trauma Centre, a fantastic cross-community charity. Sandra said:
“Whatever the previous Government’s intention the result would have been that terrorists who carried out the most egregious crimes imaginable would be able to walk free if they told their story to ‘the best of their knowledge and belief’. They could say that they stabbed John Molloy, an 18 year old, in a frenzied attack, leaving him to bleed to death yards from his home because he was a Catholic. And the state would say, “Thank you and we’ll say no more about it”. A witness saw them laughing and dancing down the road after they murdered John. Thanks to the Legacy Act, they would still be laughing and dancing. What John’s parents, Linda and Pat, were being told”—
by the previous Government—
“was that they should grieve in private while the evil perpetrators could celebrate in public. And this in the name of ‘reconciliation’.”
I have met many victims’ families, and they are some of the best people I have met. In the face of unimaginable trauma, they have led campaigns for justice with immense courage and dignity. They are motivated not by revenge or retribution, but by their love for their relatives and their determination to secure truth and justice. The legacy Act introduced by the last Government denied them all those things, and did so without consulting them.
I will finish with the words of Michael O’Hare, brother to 12-year old Majella, who was shot by a solider in south Armagh on her way to church one morning in 1976. I am pleased to see Michael in the Gallery today. He has said:
“This is an important day for families like ours, who thought we’d seen the door closed forever on these cases. Majella was just an innocent little girl who didn’t deserve to be gunned down when walking along the road with her friends. We deserve truth and accountability. It’s a huge relief that that is now a possibility again, even if we’ve had to wait half a century. It’s never too late to do the right thing”.
Today is about doing the right thing. It is a step forward, and I thank the Secretary of State for all his work, as well as every victims’ group that has been part of bringing forward this Bill.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
“For your tomorrow, we gave our today”, would have been the phrase that many in this House stood for in honour, sombre, last Remembrance Sunday, as we stood across this country, remembering those who served and those who sacrificed. When I stood at those memorials in South Antrim, at Ballyclare and Antrim and Crumlin, and I saw wreaths laid for the members of the UDR, the RUC and the home battalions, it brought home why, when we talk about veterans in this place, we must also reflect and respect those veterans from Northern Ireland who did not return to home or to barracks in England, Scotland or Wales, but who every night returned to their own homes, having defended their neighbours, their loved ones, their families and workmates.
With regards to the victims have been mentioned, I note that the Secretary of State listed a number of atrocities but he did not mention Teebane, when 14 construction workers who were returning home from Omagh were blown up because the IRA considered them targets. They were working on a military base, and therefore the IRA described them as collaborating with forces of occupation. Our veterans and innocent victims are still waiting for their tomorrow, and they suffer, reflect, and carry the scars and pains of the 30-year terrorism campaign that was delivered on the doors and workplaces of their neighbours.
What is challenging about this, then? The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), mentioned that the trust and involvement of the Irish Government in this process is particularly challenging and galling. The Belfast agreement has been mentioned a number of times. I do look with honour and respect at what my party delivered in bringing forward that peace process, but it was delivered in three strands: a Northern Ireland only basis, a north-south basis and an east-west basis. I have asked the Secretary of State this question before and I will do so again now: where does legacy sit within those three strands?
It seems now that the Secretary of State is abdicating, and that he is working in parallel with the Irish Government to bring this forward. He stood on 19 September beside the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who told the media afterwards that there would be no specific protections for veterans—and, as we have seen, there are no specific protections for veterans in the Bill. The example that has been used once again is that veterans will not have to go to Northern Ireland to give evidence. Tell that to a Northern Ireland veteran! What protection—what special coverage—are this Government actually giving those men and women who served over there?
Yesterday, after the British-Irish intergovernmental conference, the Irish Government insisted that the legislation must remain “true” to the framework that had been agreed. So where are the amendments that will come from this place, and from the elected representatives of the United Kingdom? We will look for those amendments that are necessary to the Bill—I look for support across the House—and we will look for the definition of an innocent victim; we will have the opportunity to clarify that those responsible for the planning or implementation of an unlawful conflict or related incident are not included. Crimes that trigger an investigation must include sexual crimes as well, as we should not underestimate the use and deployment of sexual crime by terrorists and terrorist organisations to influence and control the population of Northern Ireland.
As has been raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), what powers with the second director of investigations have, and why? Those powers will be in the gift and patronage of this Secretary of State, and they will include the power to appoint a constable. If that second director of investigations is from outside the United Kingdom, not only will they have access to all the information and detailed records that our military and police services hold, but they will be able to appoint someone with the powers of a constable.
There is no special reference to a veteran being on the victims and survivors advisory group. Where is the place for the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner or the commissioner for victims and survivors in regards to who may be appointed—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Bill, particularly its reversal of aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and its effort to restore human rights compliance and public confidence. It resolves court-identified incompatibilities and makes changes to legacy cases. Alongside the remedial order, it removes immunity from prosecution, restores civil actions for troubles-related conduct, and reinstates some inquests. Other matters will be handled through the legacy commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, enabling family participation and appropriate handling of sensitive information. These measures acknowledge that previous approaches caused deep harm and were, in many respects, unlawful.
However, as with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and the Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families, it is vital that this legislation gains the confidence of those affected in the north of Ireland. Amnesty International notes progress but also remaining concerns. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which limits police ombudsman investigations, is only partly addressed. Will the Minister say how incompatibilities with the ECHR, highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, will be resolved?
The Bill also retains the national security veto, giving the Secretary of State sole authority over sensitive disclosures. That risks undermining compliance and public trust, especially where state wrongdoing may be implicated. The family of Sean Brown, who was abducted and murdered in 1997, have long sought an independent public inquiry, and the Taoiseach called for such an inquiry this year. The PSNI has apologised for failings in the original investigation. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will commit to a fully independent inquiry into Mr Brown’s death, and that the proposed veto powers will not prevent it?
Given the legacy of mistrust, why do disclosure decisions remain solely in the Secretary of State’s authority? Will the Government consider an independent mechanism to balance national security with public confidence in legacy commission investigations? Although the Bill narrows the definition of sensitive information and introduces a public interest test, only the commission can appeal disclosure refusals, and only judicial review principles—not merits review—apply. Families’ rights to truth under articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR therefore remain vulnerable. Outstanding cases, such as that of Sean Brown, highlight the need for full, independent investigations. Courts have confirmed that an article 2 inquiry is required, yet none has been convened.
Concerns also remain about universal protections. Veterans appear singled out, potentially undermining fairness. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the Bill will ensure that protections apply equally, and that no group is seen as prioritised over victims and families? Additionally, the Bill states that human rights are to be “respected”, rather than imposing a binding obligation. Clearer language would strengthen accountability and reassure the public that all bodies must comply fully with the ECHR. Will the Government make that explicit? Finally, independence in appointments, particularly of judicial panel members, is essential. The Secretary of State’s broad appointment and resignation powers risk perceptions of political influence. Strong safeguards are needed to maintain trust.
In conclusion, although the Bill and the remedial order mark progress, significant issues with disclosure, independence, inquiries and universal protections remain. I urge the Minister to clarify how the Bill will rebuild trust and ensure fairness, transparency, and full human rights compliance for victims and families.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
We rely on British soldiers to keep our country safe—they put their lives on the line to defend our country, putting themselves in harm’s way to do so. However, a shadow hangs over our armed forces today, which is this Bill. As a member of the Petitions Committee, back in July I had the privilege of opening the debate on the petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution. It was inspirational to see so many veterans come to Parliament for that debate. Again, here today in Parliament Square and in the Gallery, we see veterans gathered in opposition to this dreadful piece of legislation.
By the time the petition closed, it had over 200,000 signatures. I had the honour of meeting the creator of the petition, Ian Liles, who spent 36 years in the Army, including 13 in Northern Ireland. It was his palpable anger at this Bill that caused him to start the petition. The decision of this Labour Government to repeal the legacy Act is one that will shame our country for generations to come. No matter what the Secretary of State has said, this Bill means one thing: veterans face being dragged through the courts in politically motivated witch hunts. In fact, the Prime Minister’s own Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said that this is “immoral”, that it is “two-tier justice”, and that it will lead to “vexatious lawfare” against former soldiers. I was struck by the comments of Lieutenant General Nicholas Pope, who was forced to correct the Secretary of State for claiming that he supported the Bill.
This Bill sets a dangerous historical precedent, too. Are we really saying that if the Government today sent our troops to Ukraine—or to any other country, for that matter—they could be held to account in years to come for simply following instructions given to them by the Government of the day? If that is the case, why would anyone choose to serve our country again? Decades on, people sit and judge events in retrospect with little new evidence, and come to conclusions that are entirely at odds with the legal investigations carried out at the time.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is a coastal constituency with a strong forces tradition. Many of my constituents served in Northern Ireland and are now terrified of being pulled into a process that continues with no end. Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe those veterans a process that is fair, proportionate and final?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent pint. It is the fear—the prospect of being dragged through that process—that is causing so much anxiety. I suspect that is why so many veterans are so strongly opposed to this Bill.
We should also be clear about the difference between the actions of soldiers and those of terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent—to use violence to attack our democracy and our nation. Soldiers do not; they put themselves in harm’s way to keep people safe and protect our nation. The difference is the intent. Soldiers serving our country, whether in Northern Ireland or in any other conflict, are forced to make instant, life-or-death decisions. They are not lawyers sat behind a desk, able to gather a team and spend days deciding whether or not to act. The legacy Act was by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts.
There are nearly 2 million veterans across our country, and the sad truth is that many feel their service is no longer respected. Veterans are only demanding protection for following orders from high command, and from vexatious, politically charged lawsuits. Our armed forces are made up of extraordinary men and women who keep us safe—who go on difficult missions in dangerous and challenging places. We must defend those who defended us, which is why I oppose this Bill so strongly.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Kilsyth war memorial bears the names of the men of the town who lost their life in foreign wars—men whose service we recognise and remember every year on VE Day, VJ Day and Remembrance Sunday. On one face of that memorial sits a single, solitary name—a name set apart. The difference between that name and the others is stark. This son of Kilsyth also lost his life in the service of his country, but in his case he was killed by the Provisional IRA. In a town where his family still live and where his school friends are marking their significant birthdays, his name on that memorial is a reminder that his life, and the ultimate sacrifice that he made, will not be forgotten.
Just 2 miles down the road live another family. They, too, lost a loved one—a cousin, killed in an ambush by loyalist paramilitaries in the ’90s. I have known about the military deaths for a long time. They were one of the first things that I found out about as I became a candidate. I discovered the other one when we met families as part of a Select Committee visit to Belfast. One of the family members we met said, “I know your area. I spent summers there. My cousin lives in Kirkintilloch.” It reminded me of exactly how strong the links are between my part of the world and Ireland.
With a name like mine, I should recognise that there is a strong connection, but we are completely intertwined. It means that we know those families who lost loved ones during the troubles. We know the lack of answers that they have had, and the grief that still endures and is still raw. In the Select Committee inquiry, it did not matter who we spoke to among victims, survivors and families, because the message was the same. They told us about their loved ones and the brutal ways in which their lives had been taken, and they told us again and again that they wanted legislation that respected them, treated them with dignity and took them seriously. They wanted answers, and the previous Government’s legacy Act did not deliver that. It rode roughshod over the wishes of families, victims and survivors. It made promises to the armed forces that it could never deliver, and the mechanism that it created, despite the intentions of all the people working within it, inspired little confidence that families would be treated with the dignity and seriousness that they deserved.
I welcome this Bill, because it puts families at its heart. It recognises that the victims and survivors are the people this legislation must serve. It recognises that members of the security forces are also victims and survivors. It builds into the process the need to reflect and to stay engaged with those families. Across the board, those experiences have not necessarily been good. Where there have been inquests, they have been nothing more than tick-box exercises. They spoke to us, and we heard of anger, frustration and despair. It was the first time we had heard those stories, but it was not the first time that they had told them, because they have been saying it for decades upon decades in the hope of change. I thank every single one of them for sharing those stories with us.
The other part of this legislation that commends it is the fact that it recognises that if Scotland is a village, Northern Ireland is an even smaller one, and everybody is interrelated. The Bill builds on the best aspects of Operation Kenova, which is one of the big strengths in making it work. Like any piece of legislation, the Bill is not perfect, but it is a necessary and long-overdue step in the right direction. For the sake of those victims, survivors and families, we cannot afford to get it wrong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to support the Opposition Front Bench in their concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out. First, the Bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones. It essentially means that they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing or even asked to give evidence. Secondly, Labour’s protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the Irish Government have denied that they exist at all. It remains unclear how they will work in practice to protect veterans, and the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris has said that no additional protections will be given to veterans, so there is a conflict between the two parties to the agreement.
Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the protections for veterans in the new legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked the Secretary of State that question at the Dispatch Box, and he never answered it. I would be grateful if at some point he, or the Minister when he gets up, would say whether the protections extend to both sides.
The main point that I want to make, having served in Northern Ireland, is how quickly people forget what a peculiar and terrible event it was—so peculiar to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom with British citizens all around them, having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom. It seemed almost outrageous, but that was what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and those were very tough to follow at times because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around any corner. You never knew when you went to a house whether someone would be sniping or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and on the alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background in which that happened.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The right hon. Member makes an important distinction about the manner in which we deployed our soldiers. What he has described is a policing action, and there are very different requirements for delivering scrutiny. Is he not incredulous that other Members of his party are conflating that with the concern that we would put those requirements on future veterans, who would be fighting a conflict where we hope they would be acting forwards in a way that is entirely different from what he described?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will not follow the hon. Member down that road, because I have limited time and there is something I want to reflect on, but the reality is that many people and veterans believe that this will be a problem for future recruits.
I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the legislation passed by the previous Government because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded in the final analysis by one particular case. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine. I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we would ever find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland. We have had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured and that he was executed, but we never get to know. His parents died not knowing and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Is it true that he was cut up? That somehow spread, and nobody wants to own up to it.
It struck me that for as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for it, we would never know or get closure. I was persuaded on those grounds that it was time to shift from the way we were behaving—the way we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. As Soldier F even now tells us, it is unlikely that we will achieve what everyone here keeps talking about as justice. What we will achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of it. It struck me that the only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, have those cases explained and get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened and why. Therefore, they would at least have closure through having knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.
I wish we knew where Robert Nairac lies, if he lies anywhere at all. I wish his family knew. Many other soldiers and civilians are in those circumstances too. The terrorism and brutality of the IRA was appalling, yet we are still arguing about it even today.
Let me take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit’s funeral. I remember when he watched the person who set the bomb and blew up the Grand in Brighton walk free. I remember him saying to me afterwards, “It was the worst moment in my life—I went through all of this and I had injuries. This man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland, but my wife will never be free, because she is immobilised for the rest of her life, and I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds in the bombing.” For his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, as horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made.
Let me simply say that the attacks on the previous legislation forget that it was about trying to get truth and reconciliation, and about learning from other countries such as South Africa. As difficult and problematic as this issue is, there are major faults in this legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and that he will accept many of them.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Just over 20 years ago, in my red Vauxhall Corsa, I rounded the bend at the bottom of the Woodstock Road in Belfast and drove straight into a pregnant pause in the middle of a riot. To my left was a baying mob of young east Belfast men, and to my right was a baying mob of young men from the Short Strand. They were being kept apart by a British Army unit gathered around a group of armoured Land Rovers.
As I buzzed my window down, I heard a crunch as my tires passed over the bricks and debris. The worry must have been written across my face. The pause in that moment was pregnant in more ways than one—above all because of my heavily pregnant wife sitting next to me in the passenger seat. She was managing her contractions with breathing exercises as I told the nearest soldier of our need to get to the hospital on the other side of town and, crucially, on the other side of the road.
In that brief moment of relative calm, the soldier made a split-second decision and waved us through; I did not need further invitation. Before long, we were safe in the maternity wing of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Later that day, our first child—our daughter—was born, and we have called her our Belle of Belfast city ever since. I will always be thankful for that soldier’s decision, but even more thankful that he and his colleagues were there that day to keep us safe in the first place.
I had moved to Belfast four years earlier to begin my first proper job, running the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s first ever youth peace and reconciliation programme. It was a new job, in a new city, in what seemed like a new Northern Ireland, just three years after the Good Friday agreement. It was a hopeful time; there was an appetite from the vast majority of the population to enter a new and peaceful era for that wee country.
There was also a realisation that the horrors of the troubles had to be processed and dealt with by the individuals directly impacted, but also by Northern Irish society as a whole. Yet here we are, 20 years on from that moment, still talking about making a serious start on dealing with the legacy of the troubles.
I can say with confidence that the legacy Act did not do that; it did not help with that legacy. For example, it meant that 200 military families were left in limbo, unable to pursue the truth of what happened to their loved ones. They were families like that of Mo Norton, whose brother Terence Griffin was killed in the M62 bus bombing in 1974. She said:
“That morning, everything changed. Twelve lives were lost, including children. Our family was shattered. There was no warning, no chance to say goodbye. Just silence, and then years of unanswered questions. I need to know that Terence’s death has been fully investigated, I don’t think it has been properly investigated in the past.”
Honourable soldiers follow the law and are glad to do so. That is what made my grandpa a good soldier, and it is what gives the British armed forces their outstanding reputation.
As strange as it may sound, I am pleased that we are debating the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Today represents the possibility of a huge step forward. I believe in the bonds of these islands that we share—that is why I am a Unionist—but our relationship with the Republic of Ireland matters deeply. The joint framework of the Irish and UK Governments states:
“The Governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole”.
I welcome that, but the challenge is that we need to hold on to reconciliation. Reconciliation is mentioned only once in the Bill, but we must hold on to the principle. Reconciliation is obviously hard.
No one in Northern Ireland came out of the troubles completely untouched, and the pain can twist down the generations. Truth alone is not enough for a community to reconcile. There must be trust and a resetting of our relationships, and that does not happen without acknowledgement, without memorialisation and even, in some cases, without repentance. We need community spaces, moments and symbols that do that. We know that no one can make anyone else reconcile, and a Government certainly cannot. At the same time, however, Governments have the resources, the convening power and the cross-cutting responsibilities to empower and enable those moments, spaces and symbols that can foster social reconciliation. We saw that at the time of the late Queen’s visit to Dublin castle.
I welcome that commitment, but we need more detail, and we need it more quickly. We need commitments from the other parties to this conflict, about whom we have not talked enough today—specifically the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, and all other militant and terrorist groups. They need to make those commitments, and acknowledge what they did.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for this welcome legislation, which seeks truth. I simply urge him to think creatively and ambitiously about how the Government can now help to turn truth into genuine reconciliation and hope for Northern Ireland’s future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I have the honour of being, in 107 years of the Royal Air Force police, the first of its veterans to be elected to this House.
Our armed forces are revered worldwide because they train for and execute one thing to a higher standard than anyone else, namely the moral component—discipline, and the will to fight. Without those two principles, an effective fighting force descends into what we see from the Russian military in Ukraine: the extrajudicial killing of civilians; soldiers motivated not by an objective, but by fear of their own colleagues and commanders; and the routine humiliation, torture and murder of their colleagues.
We must hold our armed forces to a higher standard than our adversaries, because they are better than those adversaries. They must be expected to act within the law. When they act outside the law but in good faith, they must be defended, in recognition of the unique pressures under which they operate. If there were no consequences for breaking the law while in uniform, no longer would we pledge to protect our own troops from the retribution of their own commanders, from illegal orders or poor leadership, whether in Northern Ireland or Afghanistan. No longer would we stand by our statement before the world, in Nuremberg 80 years ago, that “just following orders” did not excuse war crimes.
Private Bryan Soden from Tewkesbury was only 20 years old when he lost his life, on his third deployment to Northern Ireland. Like so many others, he was murdered in an ambush by cowardly paramilitaries. Those who bravely served in Northern Ireland did so under the constant threat of an enemy, often disguised as a civilian, lurking and awaiting an opportunity to kill them. Our Northern Ireland veterans should be in no doubt that this country will continue to distinguish their noble service from the deceitful and inhumane paramilitary terrorism that they stood and fought against. To do that, we cannot allow the IRA to be the barometer. We cannot resolve to hold our troops to the same standard to which they hold their terrorists. To do so would not only legitimise terrorism, but sell out those who conducted themselves with honour.
Those Conservative Members who, last week, hijacked a debate about remembrance to score political points about this Bill neglected to recognise that we are here only because their Northern Ireland troubles Bill was a hash, and satisfied none of the parties to whom it applied. Some of those who spoke in that debate referred to a letter printed in The Times the day before Armistice Day, written by eight retired generals and one retired air chief marshal under whom I taught the law of armed conflict to RAF recruits. The signatories asserted that the Northern Ireland Bill “tears up” our contract with our personnel, and that
“Today every…member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”
The letter paints an emotive image, but it is misleading. I served for 23 years, and from the very beginning, and every year thereafter, I was reminded that I had to act within the law, and that if I acted outside the law but in good faith, I would be protected by the law.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In the months in which I was the Northern Ireland spokesperson for my party, I engaged with lots of veterans’ groups. Their members told me that they were very keen for this legislation to recognise that they went to Northern Ireland, as service personnel, to restore the rule of law. They recognise that they should be subject to the possibility of prosecution, but prosecution should never turn into persecution. How does my hon. Friend reconcile those points with the issues that he is raising?
Cameron Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and he is absolutely right. We went to Northern Ireland to secure peace against terrorists, and the law should always recognise the difference between the actions of our soldiers and those of the terrorists they stood against. I always knew that I had to act within the law, but that if I broke the law in good faith, I would be protected by that law. Those who signed the letter may think that the Bill undermines that contract, but they have declined to clearly identify what part of the Bill does that, and I cannot find it. If this wider debate is about supporting our veterans and our armed forces, Members will find an ally in me, but if what they really seek to do is absolve personnel of responsibility for alleged war crimes, including those against United Kingdom citizens, then let them say so aloud.
Although I recognise the shortcomings of the legislation that preceded the Bill, the worst that I can say about this Bill is that the Government do not have the support of the Veterans Commissioners. Can the Minister clarify which, if any, veterans’ groups have approved the Bill? Furthermore, by opting to go with convention, rather than taking this Bill to a full Public Bill Committee, the Government have declined an opportunity for full, line-by-line parliamentary oversight and cross-party collaboration. Fiat justitia.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I come to today’s debate, as many Members on both sides of the House do, as someone who was proud to serve my country and who has the utmost respect for those Members who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. For me, this debate is complex, but at its heart are two simple questions: how do we respond to trauma, and how do we uphold accountability? The wounds of the troubles are still raw. I saw that earlier this year, when I visited Northern Ireland and went to the WAVE trauma centre. I met people who are still experiencing trauma, and I met victims of the troubles whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time—people who lost parents, people who lost limbs, and people whose lives were irreversibly changed by violence in which they took no part. I met Alex Bunting, a taxi driver who was going about his day when a sudden explosion tore his vehicle apart and severed his left leg in 1991. The question of who was responsible for the attack was never solved, but it was assumed to be an IRA operation that struck the wrong target.
I also met Kathleen Gillespie, who was held hostage by the IRA with her children while her husband Patsy was chained to a cab and forced to drive a lorry at an Army checkpoint; he and five young soldiers were killed. Patsy was used by the IRA as a human bomb. Kathleen was angry with the last Government, because she felt that his barbaric death was treated like it never happened under their legacy Act.
Alex deserves answers, Kathleen deserves answers, and both deserve accountability. So do many others, not only in Belfast but here in Britain. Families in the west midlands are still seeking answers after the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, which took 21 young, innocent lives. Half a century on, the families’ trauma remains, and they still wait for justice. That is why accountability matters—accountability for the terrorists, including the IRA, who carried out the overwhelming majority of killings, but also accountability for our armed forces when standards were not upheld.
However, the Conservatives’ legacy Act of 2023 undermined every route for accountability. Most gravely, it created a system of conditional immunity for members of the IRA—effectively a blanket amnesty for anyone who was willing to co-operate with the commission. That is not justice; it places terrorists and those who served our country on the same moral footing. Families were rightly appalled. Audrey, whose brother Private Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA in 1971, said:
“We always had a very slim hope of getting justice, but…this amnesty has let us and other families down. Our Government has let us down badly.”
Victims of IRA terrorism, and victims of state wrongdoing, deserve the opportunity for accountability. No veteran should be dragged repeatedly through processes dealing with the same matter. That is why the new protections in this Bill are so important. They mark a genuine improvement, and put veterans’ welfare first. They are important, sensible and overdue protections for our veterans, who overwhelmingly served with honour and distinction. This legislation seeks to fix the grave failings of the Conservatives’ discredited legacy Act of 2023. It helps victims to pursue justice, it restores the chance of accountability for terrorist crimes, and it provides stronger, fairer protections for veterans than anything in the previous Government’s approach.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
At the outset, let me restate unequivocally that we DUP Members will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will stand with the families whose loved ones were cut down by a ruthless and bloody terrorist campaign. Their pain has not diminished, and neither will our determination to defend truth, justice and moral clarity.
We continue to hear attempts to justify or sanitise and romanticise terrorism. We hear repeatedly from Sinn Féin’s leadership, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all and Mary Lou McDonald, that there was somehow no alternative to the IRA’s barbaric campaign of violence, and that it was justified. Justified? That is an affront to every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. There was always an alternative to murder; there was always an alternative to placing bombs under cars; and there was always an alternative to shooting innocent men, women and children.
I want to take the House back to two significant events in 1987: the IRA bombing of the service of remembrance at the cenotaph in Enniskillen, killing 12 people and injuring at least 60 more; and the Special Air Service’s engagement of heavily armed terrorists in Loughgall in my constituency. Which one of these incidents do Members think was granted a public inquiry? It was not the murder of innocents and the injuring of many more. Instead an inquiry was granted into the heavily armed terror gang, which was rightly engaged with and eliminated by the security forces, who saved countless lives in the process. Such is the subversion of the legacy process in Northern Ireland that the murder of innocents at Enniskillen has never had a public inquiry.
In recent times, the Secretary of State visited Loughgall and heard directly from innocent victims of the IRA’s East Tyrone brigade, one of the most brutal, ruthless killing wings of the IRA. He spoke with two men whose families endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of some of the IRA’s most notorious killers, and their testimonies were powerful and deeply moving. The East Tyrone brigade were not freedom fighters, but a heavily armed terror unit. Having already killed hundreds of innocent people, they mounted a killing operation at Loughgall, intending to obliterate any RUC officer in that station. They never paused in their murderous intent. They did not stop to give any officer an opportunity to walk away. Terrorism must never be sanitised or justified. Those who defended the innocent must never be sacrificed to appease those who glorify violence.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s promises to the House mean that the Bill would enable some of those people and their supporters to be included on the victims advisory group? Indeed, if the Secretary of State consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance party, she would say that they should be included, because they are just as much innocent victims as the people whom they killed.
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. That was a point well made.
This Bill speaks of inquests, and we firmly believe that every family deserves a full and fair investigation, but Loughgall—really? Not only has that event been before the European Court of Human Rights, where the UK was found to be justified, but there is to be a second inquest. How does that make innocent victims feel? There must be no more vexatious pursuit of the security forces, and this Bill does not protect them. Only 10% of troubles-related deaths were caused by the security forces, and almost all of those occurred in engagements with terrorists, yet the narrative we hear is deliberately inverted. There is no comparison—none—between terrorists and those who stood as a human shield in their path. The SAS soldiers who served in Loughgall deserve this Government’s full support.
The Government have allowed the Irish Government an entirely disproportionate role in shaping legacy, while innocent victims in Northern Ireland feel sidelined. Let us be very clear: the Irish state has its own legacy—a dark, uncomfortable legacy—that it has yet to confront with honesty or transparency. That same state’s own tribunal, the Smithwick tribunal, found collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the IRA on the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. Those two senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were ambushed and executed after information was passed by the Irish police to terrorists. It was the same with Ian Sproule, the 23-year-old from Castlederg. These are not isolated incidents. Across border areas, families have credible concerns about the Irish state’s failures—failures to arrest, to extradite, and to share intelligence, and failures that allowed terrorists to flee across the border and live openly.
We will stand with every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. We will stand with the RUC, with the Ulster Defence Regiment, with our veterans, and with the SAS. Terrorism was wrong. It was never justified, and it cannot be sanitised.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take you back to a Saturday in March 1993. I was getting ready to leave the house to get on a little blue Sprinter bus that stopped outside. It would take me into town. I was meeting friends there for a couple of hours. I had probably told my Mum that I needed to buy a Mother’s Day card, or something like that. The next day, I planned to walk my Border Collie, Gem, and maybe play some games on my computer. I would normally have been playing football on the Sunday, but we were shortly moving house and city, so I had stopped playing.
Just as I was about to leave the house, my mum told me I was not going. I was 11 years old and utterly indignant; the rage was ready to go. An emergency news bulletin was on the TV—rare then, but almost unheard of now—and the newsreader said that a bomb had exploded in the town centre. I was not going anywhere. Later news bulletins said that the IRA had carried out a bombing; they had also detonated a bomb at an industrial site in the town a few weeks before. There was no social media, and not really much more information, or even rumours. The news that night indicated deaths and multiple casualties. The town centre was closed off.
The next day felt strange, but not overly so. I had grown up on an RAF base, so I was very used to the threat of IRA bombings. I was used to checking the car, and I was aware of the kind of language being used on the news. The next day, I went out, as I had planned to walk Gem in the park—a huge park with football fields. I saw someone—I think it was Gary, who I used to play football with—and asked him why the team was not playing that day. He said the game was cancelled because one of the boys in our team had been critically injured in the bomb attack and was in hospital. That unnamed boy was in fact my friend, Tim Parry, and he was in intensive care, having suffered life-threatening injuries on Saturday 20 March, the day before Mother’s Day. I grabbed Gem’s lead and ran home, flushed—not crying; not even sad. I was an 11-year-old boy who just did not know how to respond. I was totally overwhelmed and did not know what to think. I crashed through the front door. While I was out, my mum had a phone call from a friend, telling her what had happened. I did not feel anything; I was numb. I do not remember anything of my reaction or anyone else’s.
With the hindsight of 32 years, I realise that the news five days later, on 25 March, was inevitable. Tim died after his life support machine was turned off. Another young boy, three-year-old Jonathan Ball, had died at the scene of the bombing. I missed Tim’s funeral—something I regret to this day. I was back with family in Scotland.
I do not know what happened in Warrington in 1993, other than that someone I was friends with and played football with every week had been killed. Since that day in Warrington, I have tried to understand. At university, I studied the politics of violence. I completed my dissertation on the politics of paramilitaries. I worked in Northern Ireland, where I had to meet and shake the hands of some of the people from the IRA who were ultimately responsible for the deaths of both Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball.
Prior to giving this speech, I messaged Colin Parry, Tim’s dad, whom I remember as being one of many parents shouting support from the sidelines during football matches. I wanted him to know that I still think about that day, and I still want answers. I do not seek revenge, and I do not think the Parry family ever expect to get justice, but I do want answers, and so do hundreds of others who have lost family, friends and loved ones as a result of horrific violence in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill can deliver the information and the truth that those people deserve—those innocent victims who, like Colin and Wendy Parry, still live with the pain and injustice of what they have endured for so many decades. I believe that everything should be tried. If this legislation is an attempt to help even one person, then it should be considered more than a worthwhile effort.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I would like to acknowledge all the brave veterans here today and to thank them for their service to this country.
I grew up during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland in a deeply patriotic household with a father who served in the British Army. I remember watching the news when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten in 1979 and the effect it had on my father, and again when the IRA blew up Airey Neave at the gates of Westminster, also in 1979. I remember watching the horrific footage of the 11 soldiers and seven horses blown up in Hyde Park in 1982. I remember watching the news when the IRA tried to blow up Mrs Thatcher in 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, killing five innocent people. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed the Baltic Exchange in the City of London in 1992, killing three and injuring 91, with a Semtex bomb—the biggest bomb to be detonated on mainland Britain since world war two. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed central Manchester in 1996, wreaking havoc and injuring 200 innocent civilians. I remember watching many more events, but I was only watching the news on the television. Like so many of us voting on the Bill today, I have no experience of the horrors on the ground that our brave veterans faced in this war against terrorism.
Like so many of our veterans, my father did not speak of his tours in Northern Ireland. He did not speak of what he did, what he saw, or the risks he took. It was simply his job and his duty. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is watching me make this speech and speak on behalf of our brave veterans—many of whom are watching these proceedings today—about the injustice of their facing prosecution for simply following orders. These brave men served their Queen, their country and their regiments without question. They risked their lives to protect us, and now, in their retirement years, they are facing prosecution from this Labour Government and their shameful Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The Good Friday agreement was undoubtedly a historic achievement, but I remember watching the television with my parents when the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness and finding that so hard to watch. Watching the prosecutions of our veterans, while IRA terrorists were given comfort letters and immunity from prosecution, has been equally hard to stomach. The existence of the public coroners’ court in this legislation to appease republicans is nothing short of the Government enabling show trials to demonise our veterans. All applications should be heard by the Legacy Commission and by the Legacy Commission alone.
This legislation is wrong and unfair. Moreover, it will dissuade young men and women from considering a career in the armed forces at a time when we are already struggling to recruit. We have benefited from years of relative peace in this country, but now, more than ever, the Government need to be prepared for hostilities and to defend this country and its citizens. In a recent joint letter to the Prime Minister, nine four-star generals said that, with this legislation, British soldiers must worry not only about
“the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”
How powerful are those words?
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is needed to repair the legally and morally flawed legacy Act passed by the previous Government, which created confusion in an already complex and sensitive area of law, history and military doctrine, and made impossible promises offering a route to immunity for terrorists who killed British citizens on British soil. What is worse is that those who created that mess now seek to mislead our veterans by portraying this Bill as some form of injustice. It is despicable.
As a veteran, I thank all those who served during Operation Banner and I understand the genuine concern in the veteran community that these issues have reopened. I hope that we hear some humility from those on the Conservative Benches who have caused this situation. This Government have had no option but to clean up the consequences of the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is difficult and sensitive work but necessary if we are to address veterans’ concerns properly and restore credibility. That view is shared by the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, who have recognised their constructive engagement with the Ministers. I welcome that spirit of honesty and collaboration.
In that same vein, I am proud to represent the position of the Royal British Legion as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. The RBL has said:
“The Government’s commitment to introducing safeguards for veterans is necessary. The legislation must protect veterans from repeated investigations, while ensuring bereaved Armed Forces families can continue to pursue answers to their longstanding questions.”
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to use the word “you” in those circumstances.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Those two principles—being protected from repeated investigation and giving families proper answers—must sit at the heart of the Bill. We know the previous Government’s Act shut down investigations into the deaths of our armed forces personnel and denied answers to hundreds of families. Further, its conditional immunity scheme was ruled unlawful by the Northern Ireland High Court, leaving us with the need for a new and credible approach.
In that spirit, the Royal British Legion has proposed several improvements. First, the provision of giving evidence remotely, anonymously and with welfare protections could be strengthened with clear guidance on how decisions will be made. Secondly, it should not be left to veterans to explain the context of the events that took place in the troubles. Rather, a senior member of the Ministry of Defence should be a representative to provide factual context and describe the dangerous situation in which our veterans found themselves. Thirdly, the Bill rightly recognises the impact of repeated investigation, and it is important to set out clear criteria for the Legacy Commission so that duplication happens rarely and only when justified. Finally, the victims and survivors advisory group rightly includes references to armed forces victims. However, the Bill should state explicitly that veterans or the families of those we lost will have guaranteed representation.
I thank the Ministers for their engagement so far. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to actively engage with the Royal British Legion ahead of the Committee stage? This legislation is not just about history; it is about truth, justice and reconciliation across these islands, and it is about ensuring that our armed—
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest possible terms. The Bill has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our veterans.
No one should underestimate the pain, the grief and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in its wake. Some 3,500 people were murdered and countless others were maimed, physically and psychologically, condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address that—not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly and above all with moral clarity.
Jim Shannon
On accountability, I think we all want justice for those victims who have never had justice. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men of Ballydugan, for instance: there was no justice for them and nobody was ever made accountable. My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA and they fled across the border. No one was ever made accountable. Does the hon. Member feel that the justice that my family and all the other families want cannot be delivered through the Bill?
Alex Easton
The hon. Member is perfectly right; the Bill will not give justice to innocent victims. Moral clarity is grievously lacking in the Bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks in effect to rewrite history. We are shamefully witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism western Europe has ever known being hounded to their graves. There are no letters of comfort for them. There is no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path. Instead, rather than naming and confronting terrorism, the Bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission.
Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it. This is an affront to justice, to truth and to the memory of the victims. Those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This Bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent and it fails the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets those who chose the path of murderous terrorism and those who stood in their path and defeated them. This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just.
I am also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures operating outside the framework even of the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finucane, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries. Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, has reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month.
Specifically on the Bill, I too have serious concerns about clause 5. The requirement to have policing experience in Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Kenova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It is a back-door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers, again to placate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executive to be part of the oversight board. How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions?
Finally, is the proposal to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have due regard not simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activist groups? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for example, such advisory groups will be required to give an undertaking and commitment to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left with a panel, some of whose participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those who were murdered? That is just not right. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that no terrorists will sit on the legacy board? That assurance is not in the Bill, and he needs to clarify that. I want it in the Bill.
Will the Irish Government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can genuinely be achieved. Let us preserve the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The thing that seems to bind us all together is the search for the truth. I just hope that, through this process, we might be able to agree about how we can achieve that. One of my earliest Adjournment debates, way back in 1999, was on the murder of Patrick Finucane. Only weeks before that, I had been on a platform with Rosemary Nelson as part of the human rights campaign. Weeks after was murdered by a loyalist bomb under her car, so we are all desperate to find the truth, because hopefully that might bring some closure.
I desperately want this Bill to work, and I want to ask a number of questions about how I believe some of the issues should be addressed. The first is about ECHR compliance. Clause 26 deals with that. It basically says that a statement will be published giving guidance to which investigations will have to have regard about standards and how certain elements of the investigation have to comply with certain rules of behaviour. That narrows it towards the ECHR, but there is no express provision on that. I just do not understand why there is no express provision requiring Legacy Commission inquiries to meet ECHR standards.
Clause 11 is the same. It says that
“human rights should be respected”,
rather than complied with. Why is there a change in the wording of the joint framework, which was specifically about compliance, not respect?
Let us be clear: the national security veto gives the Secretary of State the ability to redact reports to families on security grounds, and as a result there is a fear about potential concealment. The measure refers to the relevant Secretary of State—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but some of these people will be responsible for MI5 and military intelligence, which might be the subject of an investigation. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Why not assign security decisions to a judicial panel member rather than leaving them in the hands of a Secretary of State?
There are immense powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair, the commissioners, the director of investigations, the chief executive officer and the judicial panel. The Secretary of State has a duty to take advice from a relevant panel of persons—the names are to be subsequently published. It is not clear who those advisers will be, what their status will be or even what their experience will be. In addition, under the Stormont House agreement, the Justice Minister makes appointments on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why have we departed from that approach in this piece of legislation?
There has been reference to the internment clauses: clauses 89 and 90. I remind the House that a number of members of the Provisional IRA were interned, but it was not just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of Unionism, too. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. I believe that they deserve justice as much as anybody else.
I hope that, as we reach the next stage, there will be a cross-party element to the Bill’s improvement so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward. If we do not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future, and I do not believe that we would be serving our constituents or anybody else properly in that respect.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Defence Committee recently visited Canberra in Australia. For Members who do not know the geography of the place, the old Parliament building looks down a row of trees and across a lake to the national war memorial. When the new Parliament building was built in the 1980s, it was pushed back so that it had exactly the same view. The implication was that the decisions made in that Parliament ended up down at the war memorial—it was a sense of focus, and I hope that we can have that focus today. The curator of the national war memorial said that it is quite the thing to find—with no cameras and no fuss—the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet on their hands and knees scrubbing the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier.
I did four tours of Northern Ireland. My first was in 1992. I served three and half years there, trying to bring peace to that place. In the first week of my first tour, I was manning a checkpoint just by the Divis flats. My road man called me over because a Hilux van had driven in. He called me over and said to the driver, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” I looked into the driver’s eyes and he said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this van.” I knew immediately that he was lying. I had no experience there, but I knew he was lying because I had been trained. As my grandmother used to say, an ounce of experience is worth a ton of enthusiasm.
I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in government. I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in the military. If only we had some people with experience who could send the message to the Cabinet that what they are doing is wrong. Maybe it could be the 210,000 people who filled in a petition in record time and got a Westminster Hall debate. Many of the veterans who were there then are here today. I thank them for the presence, and have enjoyed meeting them again in Parliament Square today. Maybe it could be the 2,512 veterans in my Spelthorne constituency who have written to tell me that the Government are making a mistake. Maybe it could be the nine four-star generals who have written an open letter to the Government to tell them that they are making a mistake. I have tried to get my head around why the Government so glibly are ignoring them. What if nine former chief constables or nine former senior bishops wrote to the Government and said, “You really need to think again”? I find it bewildering that the Government think they know better than those nine four-star officers who wrote saying that this Bill does not offer sufficient, proper protection to those who were doing their duty in good faith.
The problem is—and the Secretary of State knows this—that this piece of legislation is part of the proxy war that answers the question, “Who won?” It is a shot being fired, and our veterans, I am afraid, are being used as chess pieces in that disgraceful proxy battle in order to relitigate and answer the question, “Who won?” When we last spoke about this in Westminster Hall, I begged the Secretary of State to listen to the advice of the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I can only assume from this Bill that he has not done so, and I will be voting against it tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have, unfortunately, run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, ma’am.
This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service.
One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.
Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.
For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot.
Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there is no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us, but his Bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded, because they will be hounded.
Mr Francois
On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable.
First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light.
Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons.
Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome.
Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release.
Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans:
“If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.”
What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently:
“If potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their Government will stand by them, when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why risk joining at all?”.
Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a
“direct threat to national security”.
If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless.
When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan:
“We must reverse it as soon as possible”.
The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill.
In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023.
Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I.
Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army.
When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. I wish to declare an interest. Members should be aware of my declaration in the “List of Ministers’ Interests”, where I have flagged that two family members work for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Today’s debate has been powerful to listen to, and many right hon. and hon. Members have raised important points and asked important questions. In the time available, I will try to address as many of those points as I can, and I will write to Members on any specific points that I am unable to address in time.
I will start my remarks with enormous thanks to the veterans who served us in Operation Banner, serving in intolerable conditions, and standing in harm’s way to protect life, as other Members have powerfully described. Quite simply, our armed forces are the best of us. I wish to thank those who served in the police—a job of enormous difficulty that brave men and women set out to do with distinction. We owe a particular duty of care to those who served our nation, and there will never be equivalence between our armed forces and police service, and the terrorists who set out to cause death and destruction.
As the Secretary of State has set out, this Bill is about helping people to get answers. I cannot begin to understand the pain of not knowing what happened to a loved one who was killed or disappeared. I can only imagine that the need for an answer, to know what really happened, never fades.
Matthew Patrick
I will not take interventions, as I am very short of time.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said that this legislation will be “reopening wounds”, but I believe they never closed. I have sat with families who simply want to know what happened to their loved one. More than 3,500 people were killed during the troubles. The Good Friday agreement recognised that it was essential to address and acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors, and it is our collective duty to deliver on that remaining Good Friday agreement commitment. If through this process, those relatives can be supported to get answers, then we will have met that duty. There are many things that the last Labour Government achieved of which I am proud. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) noted, the Good Friday agreement rightly sits among their very finest achievements.
I recently had a conversation with a veteran in my constituency who told me how important it is to deal in facts, so let us set some of those out. It is a long-standing principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are independent. Judicial independence has served our country very well for over 300 years. That is why when people read about recent cases, such as the trial of Soldier F, it is not relevant that the decision to prosecute was taken while the Conservative Government were in power, because the decision was independent. Equally, it is not relevant that soldier F was acquitted under a Labour Government, because that decision too is independent.
Since 2012 there have been 25 prosecutions relating to the troubles. Of those, the majority were for republican terrorists. There are nine live prosecutions relating to the troubles, and one ongoing prosecution relates to the conduct of the British Army. Again, the decision to prosecute was taken under the Conservative Government —under, not by, because they are rightly independent decisions.
I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment. Among other things, the amendment suggests that removing conditional immunity will lead to veterans being dragged before the courts. That is not true. The Conservatives’ failed immunity scheme, which would also have applied to IRA terrorists, was never commenced. All it did was offer a false promise that could never be delivered. Because this amendment is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding about the Bill and the way in which our prosecution system works, I urge the House to reject it.
Veterans were raised by a number of hon. Members. The Government’s commitment to honour Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. We must not forget that over 1,000 armed forces families lost loved ones during the troubles, and that over 200 investigations into the deaths of armed forces personnel and veterans were shut down by the last Government’s failed legacy Act. In search for answers, those families, as much as any families, deserve a fair, proportionate and transparent system. They would not want for the terrorists who took the lives of brave soldiers to have any form of immunity.
Members talked about our protections. I reiterate that our Bill puts in place strong and important protections that were not included in the failed Tory legacy Act. I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is himself a veteran of Northern Ireland, for his close work and attention to put in place these important protections. We have published our fact sheet that details where the protections sit throughout the Bill, so I will not rehearse them all now, given the time I have available.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked how we can continue with the remedial order. The Government abandoned their appeal and therefore have the ability to continue with the order. For those, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, who talked about morale, I am proud of the protections in the Bill. I am also proud more broadly that this Government have given an important pay rise to our armed forces, and I believe that morale was harmed by the actions of the last Government.
Matthew Patrick
I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.
On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.
Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.
A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political.
Matthew Patrick
I do not have time.
I now turn to the issue of inquests, which has been raised by hon. Members. As the Government have long committed to, clause 84 makes it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared with an inquest.
Matthew Patrick
As I have stated, I have a very short amount of time, and I want to address as many of the points that have been made as I am able.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the right hon. Member for Belfast East, raised the commitments made by the Irish Government and the role that they will play. The clear commitment of the Irish Government to provide the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission will help provide many more families with an opportunity to obtain information they have long sought. This partnership represents two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I believe that the Irish Government will honour the promises they have made—the agreement has been signed in good faith, and we are each committed to do what we promised to do independently in our Parliaments.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate—a debate that I know we will continue as the Bill progresses. As we do, I know that we will hold at the forefront of our minds who this is all for: for victims and their families right across the United Kingdom; for all those who bravely served us in intolerable conditions; and for Northern Ireland and its future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is it absolutely relevant right now?
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me how, within the rules of order, I can draw attention to the way in which the junior Minister, in summing up and purportedly taking part in the debate that has just ended, refused to take any interventions for lack of time, yet finished his speech with two minutes left? Can you say anything that might encourage a Government with an unhealthily large majority to enter into the spirit of real debate? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will decide whether it is a point of order. I do not need interventions from the Front Bench.
Sir Julian Lewis, you are a Member of astounding experience, and you know better than most that that is most definitely not a point of order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to accept or decline an intervention, and the Minister declined yours most positively.
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Chris McDonald)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the closure of the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran in Scotland. I thank Mr Speaker for accommodating this statement today.
Like many Members of this House, I am saddened to learn of Exxon’s plans to close its Fife ethylene plant. This decision is of course extremely worrying news for those employed by Exxon, as well as for contractors who work at the plant, those employed by the companies who supply the site with gas, and those at the adjacent natural gas liquids plant operated by Shell. While this is no solace to those impacted at Exxon, Shell has confirmed that it does not see its workforce or operations being affected by this closure.
The Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment of the plant since April, and my officials have endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Ministers also met Exxon regularly this year, underlining our commitment to exploring every possible opportunity to retain the site’s operations. This afternoon, I spoke with Paul Greenwood, the chair of ExxonMobil. He assured me that Exxon is not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on the Government’s part. It was a commercial decision made when the numbers simply did not add up. He reiterated to me that the site is 40 years old, inefficient and in dire need of modernisation to be commercially viable for the future.
The company estimates that it would have cost close to $1 billion in capital investment to bring the site to a point where it would be profitable. That fact, combined with a challenging petrochemicals market, including a sharp decline in ethane supply in the North sea, meant that the investment was likely to outweigh the return. ExxonMobil has already closed similar assets in Europe, and is divesting from activities where there is no short-term path to profitability. It explored alternative use cases for the site, but none offered a viable route to sustainable operations. As the site has been significantly loss-making for the last five years, and as it would take a further five years for the investment to reach its potential, Exxon decided against continuing operations. In those circumstances, the support from the Government that Exxon would need to change those calculations was beyond acceptable levels. Exxon was aware of this, and it has acknowledged that, even with support, the commercial circumstances were simply too stark, and the costs would have been too great. So despite tireless, inventive and determined work from both Government officials and Exxon, the challenges facing the site were ultimately insurmountable.
The decision that the Government would not provide financial or bespoke policy support was communicated to Exxon by my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary, but we have of course retained an open dialogue with the company throughout. This is not a decision that either the company or the Government have taken lightly. As hon. Members know, this Government have shown that we are prepared to step in and support industry when it is feasible to do so. We have stepped in to support businesses in the steel, shipbuilding and chemicals industries, protecting jobs and vital capability across the UK, including Scotland, but in all cases there was a fundamentally sound business proposition underpinning our investment. Sadly, here that was not the case.
I want to stress that, as disappointing and concerning as the closure of the Mossmorran site is, it is not symptomatic of UK industry as a whole. Our commitment to supporting UK industry is clear in the many steps that we have taken since coming into government last year. Our modern industrial strategy lays out a raft of policy interventions to ensure that British industry remains a world leader that is hugely innovative and investable—a strategy to cut red tape, lower energy bills and get spades in the ground. The fact that we have seen £250 billion of investment committed and over 45,000 jobs supported since July is testament to the strategy’s success so far.
The closure of the Fife plant is a commercial decision made by ExxonMobil, but of course it has a very human cost. There are 179 direct employees and 250 contractors employed, and there are more people in the supply chain. I know Members from across the House will be primarily worried about these individuals and the communities impacted. Let me assure the House that the Government stand ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and its involvement in PACE—partnership action for continuing employment. The Secretary of State is meeting Unite tomorrow as part of a wider visit, during which he will discuss options for more support for the affected employees. I also met Unite earlier today, and I will meet GMB colleagues tomorrow.
I have been assured by the company directly that Exxon, as a responsible employer, will ensure that it properly supports its staff in finding alternative work, including at its Fawley site at Southampton, and will support those employees in their relocation. Our focus now is on helping the workforce through this troubling period, and ensuring that responsible next steps are taken for the decommissioning and remediation of the site. Long term, we are ensuring that UK manufacturing at large benefits from this Government’s growth mission. We want to create the right conditions for British manufacturers to properly compete in the global economy and win. Over the coming days, my Department will update the House on the progress that we are making, not least on energy costs.
Before I conclude, Exxon chair Paul Greenwood asked me to reiterate a message that he has given to all the employees at Mossmorran. It is a message that I am sure all Members of the House will agree with: the closure of this site is no reflection on them, their efforts, or their work. They should be proud of what they have accomplished in the last 40 years. As Industry Minister, I personally thank the employees at Mossmorran and the Fife community for their contribution to the UK industrial economy and, through decades of ethylene exports, to our balance of trade for over 40 years.
This is not the end of Fife’s industrial story. As Exxon gradually decommissions and remediates the site, the Government are committed to working with the local authority and the Scottish Government to promote the benefits of this location for future industrial investment. This Government are committed to supporting the workforce and the community over the coming weeks and months, during what I know will be a difficult and painful transition. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Since the Government came to power in July 2024, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. Only this Labour Government would recognise that as a success. The Minister says that he is saddened. That is cold comfort to the workers losing their jobs today. Energy-intensive industries are in decline across the United Kingdom. Oil refineries and petrochemicals plants are facing the economic and fiscal realities of choices made by this Labour Government at Ineos in Grangemouth, at Prax Lindsey in Lincolnshire, and now at Mossmorran in Fife, where Exxon has told us that there is no competitive future due to the current economic and policy environment.
The Minister tells us that this was a commercial decision, and that the numbers did not add up. Er, yeah—due to Labour’s decisions. Honestly! He mentions the decline in the ethane supply in the North sea. He almost gets it. The Government’s destructive tax-and-ban policy in the North sea has led to disinvestment, and has undermined the petrochemicals industry and its ability to secure low-cost ethane. That is damaging our energy security, detrimental to our petrochemicals industry, and utterly devastating for Scottish oil and gas workers. The Labour party simply does not get it. Also, the carbon tax—£20 million per annum for the Fife ethylene plant alone—was crippling. We are suffocating industry in this country, and these are political choices.
Industrial emissions are mobile. If we decrease our domestic carbon emissions by crushing British industry, we are simply exporting our climate obligations and increasing reliance on imports of plastics, fuel, ceramics, glass, bricks, concrete and more. We must find a way to decarbonise without decimating our domestic industrial base. Simply forcing industry abroad does nothing to reduce global emissions; in fact, it does the opposite. The high cost of energy and this Government’s war on the North sea are killing industry in this country. We simply cannot afford this Labour Government.
Although the closure will be felt most acutely in Fife, the repercussions will reverberate across this country. For the first time since the UK invented polyethylene, we will not be manufacturing the primary component in this country. That is shameful. Industry has already warned that closures like Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost, undermining their competitiveness. We are not just talking about 400 jobs at Mossmorran; the impact of this will cascade down the supply chain. The domino effect is taking place already. Altrad, Bilfinger and KAEFER all announced redundancies at Mossmorran when Grangemouth closed earlier this year. Allowing another major industrial plant to close sends the signal to investors that under this Government, UK plc is closed for business.
We are losing domestic industrial capacity at a terrifying rate. The Minister claims that this is not symptomatic of British industry as a whole, but the drumbeat of job losses and plant closures tells a very different story. He talks of support for jobs, but unemployment has risen every single month since this Labour party took office. The closure will be felt by workers in Fife, but make no mistake: the crisis facing industry is stamped “Made in Whitehall”.
The Government have said in the House that they are ready to provide assistance to workers at Mossmorran, yet we still lack clarity about the support for the future of Grangemouth, and the status of the National Wealth Fund moneys promised by the Prime Minister. Can the Minister update us on the £200 million fund for the future of Grangemouth? We have not seen one penny spent so far. The Prime Minister’s promise looks like empty words yet again. What proposals have been brought forward, and when will workers have certainty about the future of the site?
This Government are taxing jobs, increasing the cost of energy and driving British industry off a cliff edge. Britain cannot afford this Labour Government; frankly, Scotland cannot afford this Labour Government. I feel very sorry for the Scottish Labour MPs who have been whipped in to defend this Government’s position tonight.
This is not a just transition; it is anything but. This is the wilful de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom. The Government are offshoring carbon emissions and driving up reliance on imports, and British workers are paying the price. Will the Minister outline the support that his Department intends to provide for the workers at Mossmorran, and provide an update on the Nation Wealth Fund moneys for Grangemouth? Does he agree that British industry is at a competitive disadvantage, due to the crippling industrial energy costs, the jobs tax and the carbon tax? Will this Government finally see sense, see what everybody else sees, and change their policies on the North sea?
Chris McDonald
I would be very happy to take the opportunity to educate the shadow Secretary on some of these issues.
Chris McDonald
No; it is real. He will realise that soon. I was genuinely upset when the shadow Secretary of State described my words as cold; they were not. They were sincere and heartfelt, because I have been in this position myself. I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues had shown similar vigour when the steel industry in Teesside was collapsing around us, and my colleagues and I were at risk of redundancy. The Conservatives stood by, and left 10 days for a buyer to be found for the most efficient steel plant in the country before it closed.
I take the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about the uncompetitive business environment in the UK with a pinch of salt, because the plant has been significantly loss-making for five years. I wonder why that is. Could it be because of our high energy prices, resulting from the previous Government’s decision to tie us to international gas prices and put us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?
The shadow Secretary of State talks about a transition. I know what a terrible transition is like, because I lived through one in the coalfield of County Durham. The Government are ensuring, in Scotland and throughout the UK, that the workforce in these industries have the benefit of a proper transition. That is why we have an industrial strategy, and why we have intervened in industry in the areas that I have mentioned.
Now we come to the point of education. Sometimes it is best to get our knowledge of industry, and industry in Scotland, from somewhere other than Twitter, because we do in fact still have ethylene production in the UK, at Grangemouth. I would have thought the shadow Secretary of State would have realised that. Perhaps he did not realise this, but none of the ethylene produced at Mossmorran was used in the UK anyway; 100% of it was exported to the EU. That was why I thanked the workers for their contribution to the UK’s balance of trade over so many decades.
Finally, the shadow Minister can debate the nuances of carbon taxes if he wants to, but this plant exports all its product to the EU. To do that, the plant needs to ensure that the product aligns with the market in which it finds itself, which obviously has the EU emissions trading system. If it received relief in the UK, it would have to pay that tax to the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman prefer that that money comes to the UK Government or that it goes to the EU?
The hon. Gentleman’s comments demonstrate that not only does he not understand this plant, but he does not understand the chemicals industry. I really wonder whether he cares for the workers at Mossmorran at all.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
This is devastating news for all the workers at the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant in Mossmorran, many of whom are my constituents. ExxonMobil must now be fully transparent and give proper clarity for the sake of all those affected.
This company made £25 billion in profits last year, yet over the course of multiple meetings with Ministers in recent months it failed to come up with any viable proposals to secure the plant and the jobs. In contrast, I have today met with representatives of Shell, which runs the adjacent Fife natural gas liquids plant, and it has confirmed that the jobs there are secure for the foreseeable future.
I am also in regular contact with trade union colleagues. Earlier today, both Fife council and I called for a new taskforce to be set up to explore future options for the plant and provide proper support to the workforce. Will the UK Government give full support and engagement to such a taskforce?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on the workforce. Earlier today, I sought and was given reassurances by the company on the support that it will give to the workforce. Its expectation is that, of the 179 permanent employees, 50 of those will remain in employment until at least 2027-28 to support the safe decommissioning of the plant, and a further 50 will be offered relocation to its Fawley plant. I have also made inquiries about apprentices.
On her specific request for a taskforce, that would be usual in this situation. I absolutely support it, and I think a new and distinctive taskforce is required for this plant to address the very specific areas, not only for the plant but for the Fife community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?
Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?
We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?
Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future.
Chris McDonald
I agree with the hon. Member that at its crux there has been a failure of long-term planning in industry. We can see that when we contrast the two ethylene plants in Scotland. The plant at Grangemouth imports a lot of its ethylene from the US, which is in plentiful supply and comes at a much lower cost. That required a significant investment in the port infrastructure at that plant. ExxonMobil was aware that, in order to ensure that Mossmorran was sustainable, it would need to make a similar investment. It would have been possible for it to have made that investment some years ago, but at this stage, an investment of about $1 billion that would not come to fruition within the next five years is judged by the company not to be sustainable. Of course businesses require some certainty in order to invest; I made that point at Energy questions this morning. The certainty provided by our industrial strategy—in particular, this Government’s commitment to renewable energy technologies—is allowing investment to come in.
I agree with the hon. Member that our focus absolutely needs to be on the employees. I understand that no employees have been offered relocation yet, but it is the company’s view that 50 such posts are available and it is inviting expressions of interest from employees at this stage. I understand that the other plant is a very long way away, and that relocation will not be suitable for everyone—perhaps people do not want to uproot their families or they are embedded in their local communities—but if some workers want to take up that opportunity, I am pleased that it is there. With the offer of relocation for 50 employees and 50 employees being retained, we can see a way forward for about 60% of the permanent employees at the moment. Clearly, I would expect the taskforce to provide support for the other 40%, and the UK Government are working with the Scottish Government and the local authority on that.
We must not ignore the jobs that are being created every day and every week in Scotland in our new clean energy industries, with up to 60,000 jobs by 2030. Fundamentally, this is about supporting that transition. It is my expectation that, as these new jobs are created, people will transition across. As I have said, I lived through a terrible transition in the past. The mission of this Government is to ensure that we have a supportive transition for workers and communities in Scotland and around the UK.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
This decision by ExxonMobil, and the manner in which it has been taken and announced, is a very poor way to treat workers who have given so much to the company and their communities. Given that only last year the company was announcing four-year apprenticeships at Mossmorran, including for some of my constituents, will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that those apprenticeships can continue and that the company, which has made record profits in recent years, recognises its duty of care to those young people?
Chris McDonald
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend earlier to discuss some of these issues in detail, and I am pleased that he has raised the issue of apprentices. I raised that personally with the chairman of the company earlier today, and I have established that there are approximately six apprentices involved. It would be usual in this situation for those apprentices to be found positions in local industry, and that will certainly be a priority. With only six apprentices, I do not think it will be a problem. Local industry tends to respond very rapidly in these situations, and of course it is a priority for us to ensure that those apprentices can continue their apprenticeships.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Exxon has said that the plant’s closure
“reflects the challenges of operating in a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.”
When are the Government going to take responsibility for the decisions that they are making? We see no prospect of energy prices reducing, while the ethane supply from the North sea is reducing at a huge rate. That is leading to these job losses and it will continue to lead to more and more job losses across Scotland, as the Minister knows, until policy decisions are changed and until the North sea is supported.
Chris McDonald
I am aware that that is what was reported in the press, but I actually spoke to the chairman of Exxon earlier and asked him specifically whether he could confirm that. He told me that there were a few issues, including the availability and cost of feedstock and the efficiency of the plant. He also said that without the $1 billion investment, he could not see a future for the plant in those circumstances.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for exposing the frankly ridiculous lack of transparency from ExxonMobil. My constituents certainly know exactly where the blame for today’s announcement lies: with ExxonMobil.
I wish to bring one issue to the Minister’s attention. A constituent—one of a number who work at Mossmorran —has contacted me with their concerns about the effect on opportunities for young people in the area. Given that we have also seen the SNP’s shocking failure on skills, including its cutting of college budgets by up to 20%, will the Minister reassure me that he will do everything he can work with the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to ensure that skills in the area are maintained and young people in Fife have the opportunities they deserve?
Chris McDonald
I, too, was particularly disappointed that the announcement was made so close to Christmas. Anyone making such announcements should take that into account. My hon. Friend mentions opportunities for young people, and he is absolutely right to do so. Our clean energy jobs plan was launched just a couple of weeks ago. It highlights the opportunity to create five new regional centres of excellence for clean energy jobs. I know that there will be great demand for the skills of young people in Fife and across Scotland and the UK in those clean energy industries. We have set out the jobs and skills, and the methodology by which we will enable people to access them. The Prime Minister was very clear about that in his speech to the Labour party conference: opportunity for young people is a mission of this Government. Ensuring that young people can access high-quality jobs in the clean energy industries in Fife must be a priority for the taskforce.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Unfortunately for the Minister, some of us have also spoken to Mr Greenwood today. Although the Minister argues that this decision has nothing to do with the Government’s policy on the North sea, that is certainly not what was conveyed to me, but I am sure that he will clarify that from the Dispatch Box. The Minister also says:
“Exxon are not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government.”
Meanwhile, Exxon’s statement says that the decision is down to
“the UK’s current economic and policy environment combined with market conditions”.
What we have tonight is 400 families knowing that they do not have certainty over their ability to pay their bills going forward, a whole community impacted as a result of this decision, and a UK Government Minister who is not being clear with them about why this has happened and why he is not helping them. He stated from the Dispatch Box just a moment ago that the Government have before chosen to intervene—we know that they chose to intervene in Scunthorpe—but they chose not to do so in Grangemouth, as Labour Members will recall, and the Minister is choosing not do so now in Mossmorran. The Government are sleepwalking into the deindustrialisation of Scotland. This is on them.
Chris McDonald
Maybe it would be helpful if I reiterated the direct quote from the chair of Exxon, who said that the closure was not due to a lack of action or will on the part of the Government. He was clear about the condition of the plant. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government have intervened in the past where there has been a fundamentally sound business proposition. The right hon. Member failed to mention—maybe he has forgotten it—the £200 million commitment that the Government have made to Grangemouth, and the 100 projects that are lining up behind it to support the people there. Obviously he did not want to welcome that. He talks about a strategy for industry. Well, I have not seen the SNP industrial strategy. Perhaps I missed it.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for hers, in trying to engage regularly with ExxonMobil for the last couple of months. However, they failed to extract any viable proposal from the company on a way forward. Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite, has described ExxonMobil’s decision to pull out as “a disgrace”. It is a £25 billion company walking away from 179 jobs and 250 more contractors. Will the Minister ensure that, despite the axe-grinding that we hear from the Opposition, he works with the Scottish Government, Fife council and the community when he sets up the taskforce, to ensure a future for those workers?
Chris McDonald
I spoke to Unite representatives today and heard directly from the workforce of their experiences. ExxonMobil tried, prior to announcing its closure, to effect a sale of the plant, but it was not able to find any interest. I have been informed this afternoon that, as a result of the announcement of the closure, there may be some interest in the plant. Of course, we will explore every possible avenue for that and to ensure that the employees receive support, but if there are interested companies, we would be very happy to explore that, in working with the Scottish Government and the local council.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward): this is devastating news for Fife. Although the Mossmorran plant is not in my constituency, I know that I will have constituents who are affected. I note what the Minister said about this decision not being due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government, but his statement was pretty silent on the economic circumstances referred to in ExxonMobil’s public statement—in what I saw when this closure was announced, there was certainly an attribution to the UK Government’s failures in that regard.
I am a bit disappointed that the first mention of the Scottish Government was at the very end of the statement, in looking forward. The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs, and taking an approach that does not involve the Scottish Government allows the SNP Government to blame the UK Government when such things happen. Although today’s announcement is not a surprise to the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government in advance of this decision?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement this evening. I share the concern of colleagues, particularly those based in Fife, about the effect the closure will have. The news that contract workers were locked out of the plant this morning is a major concern, as is the news that staff—many of whom have worked in the company for many decades—have not yet been given information about what redundancy packages may be available. That is very worrying. What engagement is the Minister having with trade unions on this troubling development, and does he believe the trade unions have been properly consulted, as they should be in a situation such as this?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those two issues. I raised the issue of redundancy packages with the company earlier, and it assured me that such packages had been made available. I then raised the same question with Unite the union, and it has undertaken to go away and confirm that for me—I want to do my own due diligence and make sure that is true.
I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend raised the issue of contract workers. It was reported that they were locked out of the site, but the actual situation is slightly more complex. Contract workers had their permits revoked this morning, which I realise sounds rather dramatic, but for a COMAH—control of major accident hazards—site, that is a normal procedure in certain circumstances. In fact, the workers themselves believed it was due to weather conditions this morning. It was actually to ensure that all workers on the site—either direct employees or contract workers through their contract managers—could be briefed at the same time on the issue. Contract workers were then allowed to return home or to resume work, recognising that not all of them would want to stay on the site at that time, having received such shocking news. Hopefully, that helps to explain the situation. Of course, I will ensure that I continue to ask these questions of the company and engage closely with both Unite and GMB on these issues.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
On the Business and Trade Committee, we hear all the time that energy costs in this country are unaffordable, and it puts industry of every kind at a disadvantage. We are seeing the results of that today. The other issue is the perverse carbon border adjustment mechanism, which actually makes imports of ethylene cheaper. The Minister referred to imports. Is it not the case that we need to look at all these policies in the round? We are crippling British industry.
Chris McDonald
I am committed to looking at the entire business environment for our-energy intensive industries—our heavy industry—because I want to improve the competitiveness. Perhaps I have an ally across the House who might help to point out areas that we could look at; I would certainly welcome that in the future.
I can perhaps provide a bit more detail on the two issues the hon. Gentleman raised: energy costs and the CBAM. On electricity costs, which are not the major factor for this site, the Government have introduced a range of measures to try to improve the cost competitiveness of the UK versus Europe, and we could talk about those in more detail at some other point. On gas, the UK is competitive with Europe; it is certainly cheaper than Germany and the Czech Republic, and it is slightly more expensive than Italy and Spain. The issue here is fundamentally the cost of gas in the USA, which is considerably cheaper, and we all understand why that is.
The CBAM issue is a bit more complex, because 100% of the material goes into the EU, so there is an issue around EU market alignment. Again, we could talk through that in more detail, but it means it is not quite as straightforward as if a domestic producer were asking for some relief from measures.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar story: private capital closing industry, leaving workers as disposable commodities to be tossed aside, and a community devastated. It is a carbon copy of what happened with Ineos and PetroChina and the Grangemouth oil refinery.
The Government stepped in at Scunthorpe, but they did not at Grangemouth and it looks like they will not at Mossmorran. Why not? Because Scotland is once again the victim of chronic deindustrialisation. For the sake of Scottish workers and communities, let’s get the £200 million spent, let’s get Project Willow going, let’s get new companies in, let’s get the good-paying jobs that my community and my town desperately need—and, for goodness’ sake, let’s have a bit of common sense and take some form of Government ownership in what comes next at Grangemouth.
Chris McDonald
I wholeheartedly reject the implication that there is some sort of anti-Scottish bias in this Government. I stand at the Dispatch Box as a McDonald, flanked by three Scottish Ministers. We all think very keenly about these issues in Scotland.
My hon. Friend made a point about British Steel at Scunthorpe. I mentioned the steel and shipbuilding industries, as well as other aspects of the chemicals industry, in my statement. The fundamental point was about having a sound business proposition. In this case, there was not a sound business proposition. The amount of money being asked for by the company, and the fundamental lack of profitability of the business over such a long period of time, meant that it was not a viable opportunity. That is why we need to look forward to how the workforce, in Fife and elsewhere, can transition into our new green economy.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister draws attention to the five Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but not one of them has said anything about the crisis facing those 400 families making a living from Mossmorran. The Minister seeks to hide behind the company’s statement that there was no lack of enthusiasm by the Government to find a solution, but that is not the point. The point is about what led the business to get into that situation in the first place, which is a direct consequence of Labour Government policy.
For the hard of thinking, those policies are: the carbon tax, at £20 million for Mossmorran alone; the cost of UK energy, which Labour cannot fix; the supply of ethane feedstock from the North sea; the energy profits levy, which this Government backs; the Government signalling an artificially accelerated decline in the North sea; and, of course, the national insurance raid on employers, taxing every job across the United Kingdom. This is industrial illiteracy and regulatory incompetence writ large. What does the Minister say to that?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but it is a shame that he did not attend Energy questions this morning. If he had, he would have heard the Minister for Energy express those exact concerns for the community around Mossmorran. I also think it is slightly bizarre that the hon. Member would say that this closure is a result of Labour Government policy. The plant has been loss-making for five years, so unless he thinks that the Labour Government have invented a time machine, then clearly it is not our responsibility. What I was most startled at was the implication that it is now SNP policy to abolish the emissions trading scheme—is that the case?
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Does this decision not just underline the urgent need for a robust industrial strategy in Scotland that protects jobs, strengthens the supply chain and ensures a manufacturing basis that is fit for the future?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our industrial strategy we point to the eight core sectors, including clean energy and defence—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong, and that are underpinned by our foundational industries. Our industry is a great strength of the UK—in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—and one that for the first time in a generation is receiving a significant amount of attention from Government.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The company has been absolutely clear that this is the result of the economic and policy environment that it found itself in—it is as plain as a pikestaff. The Minister said that he has been in discussion with Exxon, including today, when presumably he discussed what it meant by “policy”. Will he please say clearly what policy issues Exxon has had that has led to this decision?
Chris McDonald
The company was quite clear that this is a commercial decision, based on investment and a lack of performance of the plant. If the company had wished the plant to compete, it would have made the decision that was made at Grangemouth and created a port for the importation of raw material. It did not do that, and it judges that that is an investment from which it will not generate a sufficient return.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I grew up just four or five miles from the plant, and I have to say that it is an area still recovering from Thatcher’s economic vandalism. I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work he has done over many months, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her work. She stands in solidarity with these workers, and we should stand in solidarity with her, no matter which party we are from.
On 1 September we learned that it had been almost a year since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the management team at Mossmorran—almost a year. It had been four years since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Health and Safety Executive about the management of the site. On 29 July, the Scottish Government were asked when they last proactively contacted the UK Government about the operation of the Mossmorran site, but they could not name a date, and going back to 2020 there was no evidence of any proactive engagement. We have heard bluster from the SNP this evening. Have the Scottish Government approached a Minister with any kind of coherent plan to support these workers or save the plant?
Chris McDonald
What my hon. Friend identifies is the different approach under this Government—a Government who have an active industrial policy and work in partnership with industry, in the same way that I saw other European Governments did when I worked in industry. He tells a sorry tale about the lack of involvement and engagement of the previous Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government regarding the ownership of the plant. That is in stark contrast with my predecessor in this role and the previous Secretary of State, as was also highlighted today by the Energy Minister with regard to the refining sector—another sector about which we are desperately concerned. Until this Government took action to meet the management, there had not been a meeting with a Westminster Government Minister for 13 years.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Lady has given me to clarify some words I said earlier. I did talk about 60,000 jobs by 2030, but it is actually 23,000 jobs in the industry by 2023, and new jobs are being created every day as a result of our investments in renewable clean energy. Beyond 2030 we can see that the clean energy industry is motoring ahead, but these few years are a really difficult transition and we need to work together. Jobs in the clean energy industry are being created every day, but a situation like Mossmorran obviously involves a significant number of jobs all at once. As I said earlier, we can see a way forward for 60% of the direct jobs at the site, and it is important to me that we also work with the other 40% to ensure that they are placed to get good jobs in the local economy.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
This is devastating news for the Kingdom of Fife. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her diligent work today and over a period of time on this issue?
Does the Minister share my frustration that despite attempts to fully engage with ExxonMobil over recent months, including through multiple ministerial engagement sessions, the Government were presented with no viable plan to save the plant by the company—despite, as has been highlighted, a £25 billion profit having been made by ExxonMobil last year? Will he outline what steps he will take, working with colleagues both in Scotland and other Government Departments, to ensure that the workforce receives all necessary support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and Partnership Action for Continuing Employment?
Chris McDonald
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues for how they have engaged so carefully on this issue for such a long period of time. I look forward to working with them in supporting the workforce. He makes an important point that alludes to the strategy of the company. The company did not present the Government with a viable investable proposition. It has also closed a chemicals plant in France and has confirmed that it is reviewing its European assets. I think we have reached a point where we have to accept that the company has made its decision. However, even though the company could not find a buyer, as I have said, I understand that some expressions of interest have been made and we would be happy to work with anyone who is interested in the plant. We have vehicles such as the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund that stand by to support any viable business proposition in our industrial strategy areas.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures?
Chris McDonald
As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I think any of us who represent an industrial constituency cannot help but feel a tinge of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) this evening. We have all seen factories and manufacturing businesses in our constituencies close. While I accept what the Minister says about the fact that we are competitive on gas price with Europe today, the reality is that the gas price today is significantly higher than it was three, four or five years ago. Often the products that are being made in these places cannot absorb those overheads, which makes us uncompetitive on the world market. We have to look at how we can subsidise those costs here.
On industrial electricity, we are out of step with the rest of the world and we need those prices to come down. The Minister mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but that will not come online until 2027. He mentioned the energy supercharger scheme, but that does not include whole swathes of industry, including ceramics. Is there anything that the Minister can do in the short term to ensure that we end up with help today for those sectors that need it, so we can prevent future closures of big manufacturing sites?
Chris McDonald
I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the ceramics sector, but his comments could read across to other energy-intensive sectors. I said that once quality costs have been taken into account, UK gas prices are competitive with the rest of Europe, but in the sector that he mentions, many of those imports come from Turkey. In some other sectors in the chemicals industry, the issue is about over-capacity, over-supply and the dumping of products in the UK that have been produced in the far east—there are quite a number of issues, and I continue to work on all of them across the heavy industry sector to ensure that we can improve the business environment as a whole.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Another week, hundreds more jobs slaughtered on the altar of net stupid zero. It is leading to high energy costs, high policy costs and high taxes, and making this business—along with so many others—completely unviable. How many hundreds of thousands of other industrial workers are terrified that they are next? Can the Minister confirm to this House whether any discussions have been had with ExxonMobil, or whether any indications or concerns have raised by that company, about any other plants, businesses or refineries in the United Kingdom?
Chris McDonald
I know that the hon. Member takes a keen interest in the carbon prices for industry, and it is worth looking at the particular situation of this plant, as it exports all of its products to the EU. It receives a carbon allowance for its emissions that is slightly higher than 50%, and the reason why it does not receive a higher level of allowance is that it reflects the inefficiency of the plant. Fundamentally, the free allowances are set against a benchmark—a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient.
As I know the hon. Member will appreciate, given his business background, the intention behind that policy is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then they would be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate further profit for the plant. That has worked very effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector. For whatever reason, the owner of this plant chose not to invest, and it has suffered the carbon penalty as a result. The community of Fife has suffered as a result of its decision as well, and we are now in a position where a $1 billion investment cannot be sustained.
As I mentioned earlier, this company is exporting its products. It would be very difficult for it to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because of course the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that is the market into which it sells. Fundamentally, that carbon cost has to be paid, either here in the UK or to the EU. I am sure that as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain, as opposed to the EU, the hon. Member would prefer that His Majesty’s Treasury receive any taxation income, rather than sending that money to the EU.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Could my hon. Friend set out what more the Government can do to engage with multinational investors and demonstrate that, from Rugby to Fife, the UK is an attractive environment for investment under this Labour Government?
Chris McDonald
As I set out in my statement, we have managed to attract £250 billion of investment. That investment is coming to the UK because we have policy certainty around industry through our industrial strategy, and it is delivering jobs across the whole of the country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister referred earlier to the jobs that are coming in the renewables industry. That will be no consolation tonight to the 400 families who do not have that future within their sight. He also rhymed off the Government’s policies for supporting energy-intensive industries, but those policies did not help Mossmorran—the company has cited the policy environment as a cause of its decision. Can the Minister please reassure the House that, before the Budget, the Energy Minister and his colleagues will impress upon the Chancellor the idea that perhaps new and more effective policies are needed to support energy-intensive businesses?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, and particularly for reminding us all about those families. She is right that they are in an extremely difficult position, and while it is incumbent on me to point out some of the opportunities, I do not want to in any way diminish the real pain and distress that I know—I know personally—those families will be going through. I have strived to strike a balance on that, and I hope the hon. Member feels that I have managed to do so this evening.
The hon. Member mentioned, in particular, some of the policy situation relating to Mossmorran, and I refer her to the answer I gave a short while ago when talking about the impact of carbon taxes on Mossmorran arising directly as a result of the inefficiency of the plant. That is a consequence of previous decisions and a failure to invest in that plant. It ultimately means that the plant appears to be, in and of itself, not commercially viable. If companies that think they could make the plant commercially viable come forward, clearly we would want to work with such organisations.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I share his concerns about the loss of jobs and the impact on the families affected and the community in Fife. Does he also share my concern that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland refused to take a call, I understand, from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight? If that is true, will the Minister please let us know what actions could be taken to remedy that situation for the families involved?
Chris McDonald
All I will say is that in a situation like this, I would expect every part of the governance system in the UK, whether that is the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government or local authorities, to act with a single-minded interest in the workforce and the communities affected.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants?
Chris McDonald
I point the hon. Member in the direction of our clean energy jobs plan, where we set out how that transition can be effected. There is also the £5.8 billion that we have committed to the National Wealth Fund to support investment in new projects. The transition of workforce and communities is very important to me and to this Government. Not all companies are the same; many different companies operate in different ways. This Government are absolutely committed to working with the private sector to achieve this transition, but in a way that is a partnership between Government, industry and trade unions. We are committed to that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are talking about 400 direct jobs at Mossmorran, more in the supply chain, hundreds more at Grangemouth and a thousand a month out of Aberdeen. Those are independently assessed figures and figures that we know from the statement today. As somebody whose father worked at Ravenscraig in the 1980s, I know very well the impact such things have on families. The Minister has talked a lot about commercial decision making, but it does not happen in a vacuum; it is done on the basis of the policy environment and legislative environment in which companies are operating. He is not addressing that key issue, which is making a just transition unviable as it stands. Will he address those points?
Chris McDonald
I am pleased to meet another Member from a steelworker family. In fact, Ravenscraig is a plant that I never had the opportunity to work on, but I worked with many people who did, and they always spoke of the great sense of camaraderie among the workforce there. I absolutely refute the suggestion that this Government are not attracting investment. In fact, for Scotland alone, we have seen £800 million of investment in battery storage projects by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and £55 million has been awarded to the port of Cromarty Firth for small floating offshore wind. These are the industries of the future and the industries in which people in Scotland will be able to work in—in fact, they already are. The real responsibility of Government is to ensure that we help people to transition across into these industries. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this Government and every previous Conservative Government—and certainly the one in office over the past 14 years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister says that he and the Government have no bias against the people of Scotland, but they certainly have not done very well out of this Government—1,000 jobs being lost a month in the North sea, and now today’s announcement. He attributes it all to a commercial decision. That commercial decision was made in a hostile economic environment. He has told us some of the factors there: carbon taxes imposed by this Government, lack of supply as a result of the reduction in North sea production, and the energy prices as a result of the increasing reliance on wind energy. The common thread through it all is the Government’s net zero policies. Why can they not be honest with us and just tell us that these net zero policies are robbing the United Kingdom of all its energy-intensive industries and that this will not be the last job loss announcement that we will hear in this House?
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Member speaks of 1,000 jobs a month being lost in the North sea oil and gas industry. That is not a figure I recognise, so I would be happy if he would share the source of that figure with me. However, I have some figures of my own to trade, if he wishes to know them. We are expecting 800,000 jobs to be created in the clean energy industries. We have attracted £52 billion of private sector investment since July 2024, and £5 billion per year of gross value added to the UK economy from carbon capture and storage alone by 2050.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and wish him well in his endeavours. Anybody in this place would be churlish not to wish him well in his endeavours to try to do better—
Jim Shannon
Expect there might be one or two to my left-hand side, but that is by the way.
It is sad to hear of yet another large UK company closure next year, this time in Mossmorran. I have seen and experienced similar stories in Northern Ireland, and what springs to mind is always the impact that this will have on the workers. Alongside the Scottish Government, can the Minister provide an assurance that this Government will do all they can to protect the livelihoods of those workers and, indeed, all workers who face redundancy as a result of not being able to find solutions to keep such plants open? We all recognise that these workers need help, and they need it today. What can be done to assure them of a future for their families, their mortgages and the debts they owe?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which is always sincerely and kindly made. I agree that what will be precisely on the minds of the workforce at Mossmorran right now will be how they will manage in the run-up to Christmas. They will be thinking about whether they will be able to pay an instalment on their holiday in January. The plant is set for closure on 16 February, so there is a bit of time in terms of, as I mentioned, the 40% of the workforce for whom who we will need to find alternative employment.
I mentioned in my statement that the DWP is ready to stand by to help—I appreciate that could sound quite cold, but it does stand ready. Combined with the Scottish Government, the local authority and the support from the UK Government, including the taskforce, that is the support that we will give directly to the employees and their families.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I will not make a habit of this. I am a bit worried that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said that in his earlier conversation with the chairman of ExxonMobil, Paul Greenwood, he had pointed to no policy decisions by this Government as reasons for closing the plant. I and other Members also had the opportunity to speak to Paul Greenwood today, and he did give four reasons for the closure. The first two—the market and the cost of running an old plant—were, he said, not policy decisions, but the third and fourth certainly were. The third was the carbon tax, which is costing that plant £20 million, and the fourth is the sharp decline in ethanol production in the North sea due to the accelerated downturn directly due to Government policy. Will you give me some advice on how the Minister might go about correcting the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is responsible for neither the content of Ministers’ answers, nor the quality—if only the Chair had such power—but the hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record.
Petitions
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about the Vale View day centre in Lancaster, which Lancashire county council is consulting on closing. I have met clients and their families, who all tell me what a fantastic job the manager, Emma, and her amazing team do. They offer clients an amazing experience, wholesome activities and exciting days out.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.”
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I present a petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked so hard to protect care facilities in our area. My constituents really value the services provided by Vale View day centre, which provides a safe and caring space for adults who live at home but have care and support needs. Constituents have told me about their spouses, siblings and elderly parents who find joy and friendship at Vale View.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that Vale View Day Centre provides care and activities for older adults and supports their carers and families by giving carers time for themselves; further notes Lancashire County Council is running a consultation on the future of this service; further declares that this service is deeply valued by local residents across North Lancashire as reflected by comments in local media.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003132]
Warm Homes Plan
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask.
The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year.
I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury.
We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In Northern Ireland we have a slightly different scheme called the affordable warmth scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have is that only a certain amount of money is set aside, and it is first come, first served, so some people in poverty do not receive the benefit, whereas others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that such schemes, whether here in England or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, must always make funding available to those who meet the criteria?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre.
I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm.
In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, the charity Act On Energy gives advice and support on energy efficiency to residents, many of whom are in fuel poverty. Its work is particularly relevant in rural communities where properties are older and harder to insulate and, in many instances, rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Does my hon. Friend agree that more must be done to help off-grid households to insulate their homes properly?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree that rural households such as those in my part of Cornwall desperately need the warm homes plan. Does the hon. Member agree that other sources of energy provision—for instance, ground source heat pumps and liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil—could also be included, and would be a good addition to the plan when it arrives, which we hope will be soon?
Dr Chowns
I am not an engineer, and I must confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO, so I would need to engage in a bit more conversation on that subject. As for ground source heat pumps—yes, absolutely, although I understand that air source is normally more efficient. In my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well, so all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well-funded and long-term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. We have had problems, such as those highlighted by the National Audit Office recently, that are related to short-termism and profiteering by some rogue contractors.
Retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty. Insulation and proper energy efficiency measures reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from an energy performance certificate rating of D to EPC C— I recognise that EPCs are not perfect, but I will leave that aside for the moment—would save households around £210 a year. That is a significant amount of real money for families who need it, and it is also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency pay back in lower bills, reduced pressure on the NHS, health savings, which are related to better health outcomes, and, of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. We want to be investing in these new green industries.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector; we have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. That was in significant part due to the short-termism of those programmes, which limped from year to year with single-year funding allocations. It was utterly counterproductive, and I saw that myself as I wrestled with such programmes when I was working as a councillor and as a cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long-term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training, the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on, and the companies wanting to join the supply chain need that long-term policy certainty, which is in the gift of the Government.
The National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households. The Government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the warm homes plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but to ensuring that no one ends up in a worse financial situation through having used a Government retrofit scheme. That is why the warm homes plan must promise homes that are not only warmer, but retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification, and must be subject to independent checks.
The Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the Government reduce or eliminate the ECO scheme and use the warm homes plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a greater long-term cost to the public purse and to our national health.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because the two things are intrinsically linked. It is absolutely vital that we have a strategic plan that brings together the issues that cause fuel poverty, including poorly insulated homes. Does she agree that the Government need to have a strategic plan that looks at geography as well as degree of poverty, in order to ensure that people’s homes and their finances are insulated?
Dr Chowns
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who is a fantastic champion for health. She pays attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and ensures that policy really addresses the root issues that people face. I agree, and that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government are flying this kite, and suggesting that they will start plugging gaps in the cost of their energy bills policy by using the warm homes plan money. Instead, they should introduce a wealth tax; that could be another source of funding for this endeavour.
In plain language, taking money out of the warm homes plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing ECO is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is completely short-sighted. We absolutely need to cut energy bills, and we need as much investment as possible—as much as is needed—in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long-term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. This is not an either/or choice. We can and must make bills more affordable, and must at the same time invest in home upgrades to create future savings. We do not need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax; a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million, and a 2% tax on wealth above £1 billion, would raise at least £14.8 billion. That is way more than enough to pay for the cost of electricity bills policy, and to scale up, not down, the warm homes plan.
I want to set out briefly what a responsible warm homes plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first, as hon. Members from across the House have said. It must prioritise low-income and vulnerable households and the coldest and least energy efficient homes, and treat warmth as a basic human right.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that a well-funded warm homes plan is essential to insulating draughty homes and cutting bills. I wonder if she aware of the situation faced by my constituents in Letchworth Garden City. They have a separate scheme of management, so people applying for insulation have to go through two layers of regulation. That creates a real block to getting insulation for people who desperately need it. Would she join me in urging the Minister to bring together MPs who represent areas with such schemes of management, so that we can address that hurdle and ensure that those most in need, in all parts of the country, get the support that they need from the warm homes plan?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member is a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice. He raises the important point that in these schemes, far too often, people have to jump through umpteen hoops. We are talking about supporting the most vulnerable households; the last thing they need to do is jump through multiple administrative hoops, go through all the levels of a scheme, and then find that the deadline for the programme has been reached. We need to simplify and clarify, to provide long-term certainty to everybody working in the sector, and ensure that all households that need to access the warm homes plan can do so as easily and simply as possible.
I was talking about treating the worst-affected homes first; that was my first point. Secondly, a good warm homes plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4. When public money pays for home improvements, the public must demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to co-ordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce, and to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard. It must be able to withhold payment until independent sign-off is achieved, and have a compulsory remedial fund that fixes, at no cost to households, any poor workmanship that somehow gets through. If we are to prevent a repetition of past problems, this body must create a publicly accessible register of any firms that fail to meet high standards.
Thirdly, a decent warm homes plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it cannot be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement, and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard-to-treat homes.
Fourthly, the plan must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for “retroviction”, in which landlords evict tenants to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result. The warm homes plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works, and for a certain period after they have been completed. That would ensure that tenants felt the benefits of these improvements, and that costs were not passed on to them.
Fifthly, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations. The victims of past Governments’ poor-quality schemes deserve an apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated. The Government have to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform regulatory responsibilities, so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses.
Sixthly, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills mean reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets, decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits.
It is unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers last year in the UK. That scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth, while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs?
The warm homes plan is a chance to change lives, lower bills, create good, skilled jobs and cut emissions. It is also, frankly, a test of this Government’s political will and our moral compass.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this really important subject to the House. Does she acknowledge that the Government have invested £13.2 billion, which is a long-term investment? Further, does she acknowledge that in my constituency, that has meant £11 million for the warm homes plan, which was match-funded by the council? The council tells me that this enables it to get on with delivering efficiency improvements to about 1,000 council homes over the next three years. That sounds pretty long-term and substantial to me.
Dr Chowns
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier part of my speech, in which I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to £13.2 billion, but I am deeply worried that the Government appear to be backsliding from that commitment; they are promising to use part of that in other policy areas, as a sticking plaster. That could significantly reduce the overall package of funding available for this vital work, when the Government should be increasing it. If the Government do good things, I will say, “Well done.” If they threaten to do bad things, I will be really rather cross, and will try to put as much pressure as possible on the Minister.
This House, the Minister and the Government can choose to protect that full £13.2 billion, make it additional to the other schemes to tackle fuel poverty, and make this work for the poorest and most vulnerable, or we can stand by and watch the plan be hollowed out for short-term convenience. We can measure the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poorer education outcomes, and long-term added pressure on our NHS and social services. The choice is clear: the Government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please, do not let the lessons of the past be the mistakes of our future.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The hon. Lady rightly points out the importance of health in this debate. We face a crisis of warmth, but also a crisis of damp in our housing stock. In a building, ventilation and heating can often sit in tension with one another, yet it is vital that we think about the two together, and about how people dry in their homes, for example. Does she agree that we should look at fabrics, which I am very pleased she mentioned, as well as technology for heating, and should look to address in a conscious and positive way the ventilation of homes?
Dr Chowns
Absolutely, I completely agree. We need a long-term strategic approach that takes into account all the issues in houses, so that we do not repeat the problems of ECO4. That is part of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
I am literally on my final sentence. Let us make the warm homes plan the bold, high-quality, fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing this debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with everything that the Department has been doing since the election last year. In the seven minutes available to me, I will try to address the points she has raised, but I am more than happy to discuss them with her further afterwards.
Everything we do in life starts at home, and the state of our housing stock, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members, is a national issue. It is therefore only right that the warm homes plan should receive proper scrutiny. We invite that scrutiny. We encourage people with a range of views to make their voices heard. Today, I reaffirm our commitment to the warm homes plan, restate our ambition, and remind hon. Members of what we will deliver in the years ahead, because this is one of the most urgent challenges the Government face in our mission to improve the lives of working people.
When I was given this role 10 weeks ago, the clearest of the instructions I was given was to reduce energy bills by making millions more homes warm, safe and fit for the 21st century. That is the challenge. Our housing stock is among the oldest in Europe. Over a third of it was built before the second world war, and that has a cost: high bills, damp and mould, miserable winters, risks to health, families wasting their hard-earned money on heating leaky, poorly insulated homes, and persistent, debilitating fuel poverty. This is an obstacle that we must overcome in our mission for national renewal. It is not just an economic imperative, but a moral and social one. This is how we rebuild people’s trust that the Government still have the power to intervene and improve their lives. It is why upgrading our homes is at the heart of our clean energy mission and our national mission.
We have been working hard to get our warm homes plan right and will publish our full plan soon. It has been a priority for me since I took on this brief two months ago, and it will be published soon. We have been clear from the moment we came into government about the scale of our ambition, and we are planning to upgrade up to 5 million homes by the end of this Parliament; that is entire streets and whole neighbourhoods benefiting from solar panels, heat pumps, home batteries and better insulation. To ensure that we deliver on that, we have matched every penny that we promised for this in opposition, investing £13.2 billion to improve homes up and down the country, slashing both bills and emissions—and, importantly, reducing fuel poverty.
To achieve our goals, people need to have full confidence in the system. We are aware of the recent National Audit Office report into non-compliance in two Government schemes delivering solid wall insulation, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Let me be clear: we will never let that happen again. More than that, we are taking this chance to completely overhaul the consumer protection landscape for retrofit measures so that work is done right the first time, guaranteeing customers the level of service that they deserve and swift redress on the occasions when those levels are not met. The warm homes plan will work only if we take people with us and deliver change at pace and at scale to the highest standards.
We are not waiting for the warm homes plan to start this work. We have already kick-started delivery, making it cheaper and easier for families to get heat pumps installed, almost doubling the funding for the boiler upgrade scheme to £295 million for this financial year, with a commitment to increase that funding year on year up to 2030, and removing the 1-metre rule for air source heat pumps in England, giving people more flexibility to install them without applying for planning permission. Today I was pleased to say that we have published our response to the boiler upgrade scheme consultation, extending the eligibility for that scheme. We have also published a consultation on alternative heating solutions today, including—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) will be interested in this—on renewable liquid heating fuels, which I know is of interest to many Members in rural constituencies.
Martin McCluskey
I am going to make progress because we are so tight on time.
Crucially, it is not just homeowners who will benefit from our plan. Back in March, we allocated around £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to deliver home upgrades through the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund, which will support around 200 projects over the next three years, with work already under way. To achieve our goals, we are also backing improved standards in the private and social rented sector, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. We know that far too many tenants are faced with the daily reality of living in damp, draughty homes that they cannot afford to heat, which is why we have set out proposals to increase minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales to an EPC rating of C or equivalent by 2030 and to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Combined, these measures will lift hundreds of thousands of households out of fuel poverty, giving renters the warmer homes and cheaper bills that they deserve.
Our plan is not just about retrofitting the older homes, but building the homes of the future. We have also set the target of building 1.5 million new future-proofed homes by the end of the decade, and our future homes standard will ensure that for the residents of those new homes, heat pumps, heat networks and solar panels on rooftops will become the norm, saving the typical household £500 on their bills each year.
While we deliver our plan, we are giving families the short-term support they need this winter. Earlier this year, we expanded the £150 warm home discount to every household where the bill payer is on means-tested benefits, meaning that this winter around 6 million families —one in five across Britain—will get this crucial benefit.
As for the long term, it is really very simple: home-grown clean power is the way through. It means that we can control our energy prices—the end of rollercoaster energy bills, price spikes, and an uncertain future decided by dictators and upheavals beyond our borders. By upgrading homes with energy efficient technologies, we can ensure that people feel the direct benefits of that clean, secure and affordable energy. That is how we will bring clean power home.
The Labour Government have a plan: to make millions more homes fit for the 21st century, to finally and properly tackle fuel poverty, and to protect working people and ensure that they will not have to worry about every degree turned up on the thermostat, every light switched on and every penny spent. We welcome constructive views on our approach, but we will not entertain those who would abandon our mission to decarbonise our homes and buildings or the wider transformative architecture of clean power and, with that, abandon a hopeful, forward-thinking vision for this country. The British people want change and that is what we have set out to deliver with the warm homes plan.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 21 October 2025, set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems, including drones and model aircraft. The regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UASs remain subject to appropriate penalties when they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.
I will start by providing some background information about the regulations. The Department for Transport commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UASs. The CAA carried out a public consultation for this purpose on proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for the users of UASs, improve safety and security, and provide options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with Government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations. Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 21 October 2025, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations and support a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the UK.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.
The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of uncrewed aircraft, as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft. That implementing regulation was directly applicable in the UK prior to EU exit. Following EU exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and was subsequently amended further. It now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.
The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UASs, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UASs to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. This framework includes three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations, “specific”, which carry a greater level of risk than the open category, and “certified”, which are the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation includes requirements for registration and competency testing; it also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.
The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the 2016 order. Owing to the amendments made by the 2025 regulations, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the 2016 order and remaking them in this instrument.
The regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircraft are safer and clearer for current and future use, and for that reason I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As the Minister acknowledges, the regulations are contingent on the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which have been laid before Parliament under the negative procedure. I can offer His Majesty’s Opposition’s broad support for the instrument before us today.
If we are to implement changes to regulations on unmanned aircraft use, we must ensure that there are appropriate penalties for their misuse. The fact that the penalties outlined here are largely comparable to those already established under the Air Navigation Order 2016 highlights the fact that they are in line with the modern, proportionate enforcement regime that already governs this sector. More broadly, we must acknowledge that the principle of altering our regulation to ensure that hobbyists can go about their business while maintaining the safety of others is important. As the CAA recognised in its consultation, finding the balance between cutting red tape and implementing key safety measures is essential.
Recent European discussions on the risks that unmanned aircraft pose to the aviation sector remind us that those dangers are significant. It is in the direct interests of public protection and national security to ensure that they are properly mitigated. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, innovation in this sector is not theoretical; it is happening now. Companies such as Flare Bright and Skyports at Westcott Venture Park are at the forefront of cutting-edge unmanned systems, developing technologies that support our industrial strategy, national security posture and wider aerospace capabilities. That is why clarity, stability and practicality in the regulatory regime, such as the instrument before us today, matter. Real jobs, real investment and real technological leadership depend on it.
Regarding some of the specific changes that underpin the draft regulations, it appears sensible to improve the protection of restricted airspace using new technologies available to us. My understanding is that the proposals put the UK ahead of the European Union in areas such as geofencing—an example of where safety is being prioritised while enabling innovation. The Government’s analysis, including their de minimis assessments of geo-protections and remote ID, makes it clear that these steps can be taken in a proportionate manner that minimises unnecessary burdens.
I recognise the strong feelings about the shift from defining aircraft on the basis of weight to the new approach around toys, for example, about limits on legacy UASs and about the shortened transition period for remote ID. I appreciate that the Government have extended the transition period to mitigate the costs that could otherwise have fallen on low-risk users, in particular model aircraft flyers. The British Model Flying Association acknowledged recently that none of the new requirements will take effect for model aircraft until 2028 and that it is optimistic about a minimal impact on its members. That is an important reassurance, but does the Minister think the problem will persist after the transition period? Does he feel comfortable that the period provided is sufficient to address these concerns, and that we will not simply return to the same issue once the period expires?
I would like to raise the ongoing question of divergence from and conformity with European Union regulations. I understand that the new UK class marks will use different prefixes to ensure clear differentiation as standards evolve while maintaining broad alignment with the existing European class marking structure. Has the Minister engaged with the CAA on ensuring that lessons from other jurisdictions, particularly the United States of America, which has taken a markedly different regulatory path in several areas, are being fully considered? Alignment for its own sake cannot be the goal. Rather, we must ensure that our regulatory framework is the most effective for the United Kingdom’s safety, security and technological leadership.
I appreciate that this instrument is, by its nature, focused on offences and enforcement, and that the underpinning policy is found in the parallel amendment regulations. However, we must consider the whole framework together. Ultimately, enforcement must be effective and proportionate, but the regulations that sit beneath it must also be practical and allow the full spectrum of legitimate users, from companies pioneering advanced autonomous systems to long-standing model aircraft clubs, to continue benefiting from the extraordinary advances that we have seen in unmanned aircraft technology.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer broad support for the draft regulations. It is welcome that the CAA has lengthened the transition period in response to the consultation—the consultation seems to have been fairly well responded to. This is an example of the positive impact that hobbyists and private users can make on Government regulation. I encourage the Government to maintain that approach.
I echo the concerns about convergence or divergence with European regulations, but I sound a note of caution: there should not be divergence for divergence’s sake. Let us look at where there are advantages, compatibility or competitiveness with what is likely to be a larger market for products close by, and make sure that we approach that in a reasonable manner.
Can the Minister give some detail on how the CAA will engage with operating companies, particularly software manufacturers, to ensure that users are aware of the regulations? That is often done via apps and subscriptions. We must make sure that compliance is built in, especially with the geofencing altitude regulations and the night light operating rules. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations and wish him the best of luck in boosting our competitiveness and the quality of the products we produce in the United Kingdom.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their comments. I also commend the work of businesses in Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the draft regulations.
I have taken into account both the points raised on regulatory equivalence, and we have heard a diverse range of ideological perspectives on alignment with the European Union. In most cases, the draft regulations offer alignment with the European Union; that is incredibly important for regulatory alignment that facilitates international trade and the export of drones produced in the United Kingdom, which is an important piece of the puzzle. That being said, there are areas where we may want to carve out a competitive advantage for the United Kingdom by going further, faster—particularly with hybrid remote IDs. It is important to learn lessons from the aviation regulations of others across the world, and we intend to do that. We will go further, faster if we can, but it is good to have regulatory alignment where possible to facilitate trade where it is needed.
On the transition period and people being adequately trained, the CAA is taking on a lot of work to make sure that people are in the right place. It has emailed all registered drone users—some 500,000 operators—and promoted the changes via Google Ads and promotional messages on social media to reach specific audiences. The CAA also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September, ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test.
The CAA is well resourced to engage with operating companies and has done so through the consultation. It will very much continue to do that, as we make sure that these regulations suit and reflect the lived experience of drone users, while avoiding some of the inadvertent slip-ups that occur when they use regulated airspace and so on. This is an iterative process in which the CAA will have to work hard to make sure that it is answering the concerns of drone users, but I have every confidence that it has the resources and capability to do so. I finish by thanking both Opposition spokesmen for their considered contributions to this debate, and I hope the Committee will support the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 October. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that was issued for the regulations in October. It relates to minor drafting changes in respect of the date of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the explanatory memorandum and the order of the words in the title of the offence inserted by paragraph (2) of regulation 2.
The Government have committed to taking decisive action against the most severe and damaging online harms. Through this statutory instrument, we are strengthening the Online Safety Act 2023 by creating new priority offences to tackle cyber-flashing and self-harm. This will ensure that platforms take stronger, more proactive steps to protect users from these harms.
There is compelling evidence that cyber-flashing and content encouraging self-harm are widespread and cause serious harm to individuals. The frequency of these harms is significantly higher among young age groups: of those aged 18 to 24, 9% had experienced cyber-flashing and 7% had experienced content encouraging self-harm. That means that across the country around 530,000 people in that age group have seen cyber-flashing and around 450,000 have seen self-harm content. That is clearly unacceptable.
Some 27% of UK users who were exposed to cyber-flashing reported significant emotional discomfort, and exposure to self-harm content has been shown to worsen mental health. A 2019 study found that 64% of Instagram users in the US who were exposed to self-harm content were deeply emotionally disturbed by it, and a 2018 study found that 8% of adults and 26% of children aged eight to 18 who were hospitalised after self-harming had encountered self-harm or suicide-related content online. Those figures demonstrate that the content is not isolated but widespread. It affects a significant portion of the online population.
As Members will know, the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, places strong duties on platforms and services to protect users. Providers must assess how likely their services are to expose users to illegal content or to be used to commit or facilitate priority offences. Providers then need to take steps to mitigate the identified risks, including by implementing safety-by-design measures to reduce risks and content moderation systems to remove illegal content when it appears. The Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of providers’ illegal content duties. Those relate primarily to the most serious and prevalent online illegal content and activity. Platforms need to take additional steps to tackle such illegal activity under their illegal content duties.
The draft regulations will add cyber-flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences under the Act. The offences are currently covered under the Act’s general illegal content duties, but without priority status. Without that status, platforms are not obliged to carry out specific risk assessments for harm to users that derives from this kind of harmful content or to put in place measures to prevent users from seeing such content in the first place. Stakeholders have welcomed the additions. Charities such as the Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have long campaigned for strengthened protections for vulnerable users.
The changes to the Act will take effect 21 days after the regulations are made, which can be done after the regulations are approved by both Houses. Ofcom, as the online safety regulator, sets out in codes of practice the measures that providers can take to fulfil their statutory illegal-content duties. The safety duties on providers to prioritise tackling self-harm and cyber-flashing will fully take effect when Ofcom makes the relevant updates to its codes on the measures that can be taken to fulfil the duties.
We anticipate that Ofcom will recommend that providers should take action in a number of areas. It could include content moderation, reporting and complaints procedures, and safety-by-design steps, such as providers testing algorithm systems to see whether illegal content is being recommended to users. Where providers fail to meet the duties, such as by not having proportionate measures to remove and proactively prevent this vile material from appearing on their platforms, Ofcom has robust powers to take enforcement action against them, including a power to impose fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is the higher.
The statutory instrument upgrades cyber-flashing and self-harm content to priority status, thereby strengthening the impact of the Online Safety Act and protecting users from such content. Service providers will be required to take more proactive and robust action to protect, remove and limit exposure to this kind of illegal content. That will ensure that platforms take stronger steps to protect users, reduce the prevalence of these behaviours online and help to make the internet a safer place for everyone.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
This statutory instrument represents an important development in the obligations on platforms regulated under the Online Safety Act to protect people from encountering illegal content online. The OSA was enacted by the last Government with the primary aim of safeguarding children and removing serious illegal material from the internet. Tackling the most harmful content, such as that which is the subject of today’s discussion, goes to the heart of the Online Safety Act’s aims. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore welcome and support the draft regulations.
The experiences and opportunities offered by the online world change rapidly. It is right that legislators are responsive when new risks emerge or when certain types of unlawful content proliferate on the internet. Under the last Government, the OSA amended the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise several forms of sexual misconduct and abusive behaviour online. The new offences included cyber-flashing and the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images without consent. The amendments were made to keep pace with novel threats and forms of abuse, the victims of which are too often women and girls.
Baroness Bertin’s independent review of pornography, which was published in February this year, highlighted the damaging impact on victims of intimate image abuse, ranging from physical illness to mental health effects such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. The effects of cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse on victims is severe. It is therefore right that this statutory instrument brings cyber-flashing within the scope of the priority offences in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act, while retaining as a priority offence the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images.
We also strongly support the addition as a priority offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, which is the other important component of this statutory instrument. Desperate people who contemplate self-harm need early intervention and support, not encouragement to self-harm. Under this SI, regulated services will be obliged to proactively remove the material when they become aware of it on their platforms and take measures to prevent it from appearing in the first place. One can only wonder why it has taken so long to get to this position. I am sure we will have a unanimous view not only in the House but in society of the importance of removing such material.
The regulations will work only if they are adopted by the industry and subject to rigorous oversight, coupled with enforcement when platforms fail in their obligations. That is a necessity, and why we had to introduce the Online Safety Act in the first place. It is right that Government regulators should look to identify obstacles to the implementation of the OSA and take action where necessary. Since the introduction of Ofcom’s protection of children codes in the summer, important questions have arisen around the use of virtual private networks to circumvent age verification, as well as data security and privacy in the age-verification process.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
On that point, does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that we need to give some thought to the rise of chatbots and their nefarious activity, especially where they encourage self-harm or encourage children to do worse?
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question on a very important point, which was raised just last week in Department for Science, Innovation and Technology questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, also raised questions about the importance of the scope of regulations for chatbots.
The Government seem all over the place as to whether the large language models, as we understand them, regulate the content that comes into scope. Given the response we received last week, it would be helpful to have some clarity from the Minister. Does he believe that LLMs are covered by the OSA when it comes to encouraging self-harm material? If there is a gap, what is he going to do about it? I recognise that he is commissioning Ofcom to look at the issue, but in his view, right now, is there a gap that will need someone to fix it? What are his reflections on that? This is increasingly becoming a priority area that we need to resolve. If there is a gap in legislation, we need to get on and sort it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument, which updates the Online Safety Act’s priority offences to reflect changes in intimate image abuse law. It is absolutely right to tackle the non-consensual sharing of intimate photographs and films, and to tackle self-harm.
However, this is also an important opportunity to say that the Act must go further still. The Internet Watch Foundation reminds us that it is not currently illegal to retain, re-upload or trade abusive intimate image material long after initial distribution. The Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have raised the issue of self-harm, and I am pleased to hear that being addressed today, but the point about AI chatbots is really important. As I mentioned in DSIT questions, the legislation on user to user and search seems pretty clear, but what about one-to-one chatbots when there is a single user? It is not clear who is accountable when self-harm content comes through chatbots that are not user to user. I appreciate that the Minister said the Department is looking into that issue with Ofcom.
The Act must also go further to address emerging online threats. The Internet Watch Foundation also reports that intimate images online are increasingly generated by deepfake AI, and that expert analysis now struggles to distinguish AI-generated content from real images or videos. At the beginning of this year alone, the IWF found 1,200 photorealistic videos of child sexual abuse material online. The Online Safety Act must do more to hold big tech companies to account, and to protect users from intimate image abuse at source, both real and AI-generated. Importantly, it must also tackle self-harm that is linked to AI chatbots, which are increasingly used by people of all ages.
Although this statutory instrument is a step forward, we need regulation that keeps pace with the rapidly evolving technology, not just changes in statute. We must ensure that Ofcom is sufficiently equipped and resourced to deal with emerging technologies. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been done of the adequacy of Ofcom’s resourcing to ensure that this statutory instrument and the Online Safety Act can be applied and enforced in this fast-moving environment? When can we expect updates on AI chatbots and the scope of regulation? Will the Minister also confirm what the Government are doing to effectively regulate deepfake intimate content? What steps are being taken to hold tech companies to account for the continued harm facing children, vulnerable people and, given that experts can no longer differentiate between deepfake and real images, all internet users?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The update in the regulations will bring us closer to achieving the Government’s commitments to improve online safety and strengthen protection for women and girls online. We believe that updating the priority offences list with the new cyber-flashing and self-harm content offences is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackling this type of content, and it will provide stronger protections for online users.
I will now respond to the questions asked in the debate; I thank Members for the tone and substance of their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raised the use of VPNs. As I mentioned previously in the House, apart from an initial spike we have seen a significant levelling-off in the usage of VPNs, which points to the likely effectiveness of the age-assurance measures. We have commissioned further evidence on that front, and I hope to bring that to the House’s attention at the earliest opportunity.
The question of chatbots was raised by the shadow Minister, by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Let me first clarify what I previously mentioned in the House: the legislation covers not only chatbots that allow user-to-user engagement but those that involve one-to-AI engagement and live search. That is extensive coverage of chatbots—both those types are within scope of the Online Safety Act.
There may be further gaps in the Act that pertain to aspects of the risks that Members have raised, and the Secretary of State has commissioned further work to ensure that we keep up with fast-changing technology. A number of the LLMs in question are covered by the Act, given the parameters that I have just defined. Of course, we will continue to review the situation, as both scope and risk need to evolve together.
Dr Spencer
I hope the Minister takes this in a constructive spirit. Concerns have been raised across the House as to the scope of the OSA when it comes to LLMs and the different types and variations of chatbots, which are being used by many people right now. Is he not concerned that he as the Minister, and his Department, are not able to say at the Dispatch Box whether they believe LLMs are completely covered in the scope of the OSA? Has he received legal advice or other advice? How quickly will he be able to give a definitive response? Clearly, if there is a gap, we need to know about it and we need to take action. It surely puts the regulator and the people who are generating this technology in an invidious position if even Her Majesty’s Government think there is a lack of clarity, as he put it, on the scope of the applicability of the OSA to new technologies.
Kanishka Narayan
Let me be clear: there is no lack of clarity in the scope of the Bill. It is extremely clear to a provider whether they are in scope or not. If they have user-to-user engagement on the platform, they are in scope. If they have live search, which is the primary basis in respect of many LLMs at the moment, they are in scope. There is no lack of clarity from a provider point of view. The question at stake is whether the further aspects of LLMs, which do not involve any of those areas of scope, pose a particular risk.
A number of incidents have been reported publicly, and I will obviously not comment on individual instances. The Online Safety Act does not focus on individual content-takedown instances and instead looks at a system. Ofcom has engaged firms that are very much in scope of the Act already. If there are further instances of new risks posed by platforms that are not currently within the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will of course review its scope and make sure we are moving fast in the light of that information.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked about child sexual abuse material. I was very proud that we introduced amendments last week to the Crime and Policing Bill to make sure that organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation are engaged, alongside targeted experts, particularly the police, in spotting CSAM content and risk way before AI models are released. In that context, we are ensuring that the particular risks posed by AI to children’s safety are countered before they escalate.
On the question about Ofcom’s spending and capacity more generally to counter the nature of the risk, the spending cap at Ofcom allows it to enforce against the offences that we deem to be priority offences. In part, when we make the judgment about designating offences as a priority, we make a proportionate assessment about whether we believe there is both severity and the capacity context for robust enforcement. I will continue to review that situation as the nature of the offences changes.
Finally, I am glad that the Government have committed throughout to ensure that sexually explicit non-consensual images, particularly deepfakes, are robustly enforced against. That remains the position. I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act as swiftly as possible. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UNESCO: 80th Anniversary
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. It is a great joy to see so many colleagues from across the House here with us today.
I want to begin by touching on UNESCO’s founding vision and the achievements that followed, which show why it is uniquely placed to help drive the national renewal the Labour Government rightly seek and to restore Britain’s leadership role on the world stage. Sunday marked 80 years since UNESCO was founded here in London. Considering the age of some UNESCO sites and the artefacts it seeks to be a custodian of, those 80 years are a mere speck in time, yet, emerging as it did out of the ashes of the darkest and most destructive chapter of human history—world war two—it is nothing short of remarkable that UNESCO’s mission has endured for those 80 years.
Rab Butler and Ellen Wilkinson, for whom I know the Minister has a great deal of admiration, were Tory and Labour Ministers respectively, and they played a crucial role in UNESCO’s establishment. They worked alongside Governments in exile from across the globe. All had witnessed the bombing of medieval cathedrals, such as in Coventry, the burning of national libraries, such as in Serbia, and the destruction of ancient temples in Asia, and much worse atrocities still in the domain of fascist policies dressed up as education and science—education that was mobilised to teach hatred, and science corrupted in the service of the most depraved and evil ends.
If culture, science and education had been abused in the service of hatred and conflict, they now had to be mobilised in the cause of peace. That is part of UNESCO’s founding principle—to build peace through international co-operation in science, education, communication and culture. In the words of Clement Attlee,
“since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.
Britain and its territories have been a proud supporter of UNESCO, although there was a 12-year separation between 1985 and 1997, when the UK left the organisation. Perhaps sometimes it takes a little bit of time apart to appreciate what you have.
My energy for UNESCO comes through the Derwent Valley Mills UNESCO world heritage site, which runs through my Mid Derbyshire constituency. It is a great joy to see here some of the other MPs who have part of the site in their constituencies—my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby).
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Neighbouring Derbyshire, in Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent has a proud heritage of craftmanship thanks to our famous ceramics industry, including Duchess China and Wedgwood. We are recognised globally for pottery, shipping products all over the world. I would be delighted if Stoke-on-Trent were recognised as a UNESCO creative city. Would my hon. Friend join me in recognising the historical contribution of Stoke-on-Trent and the boost in tourism that our bid to make Stoke-on-Trent a UNESCO creative city would bring?
Jonathan Davies
I know the intangible heritage there is in Stoke-on-Trent and I encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites, of which I am the chair, because that might be a vehicle to progress the bid. She is very welcome to speak to me about that.
The Derwent valley in my constituency is the home of the industrial revolution, where planners such as Jedediah Strutt and Richard Arkwright harnessed the power of the River Derwent and built the mills that set Britain on a path to economic growth and prosperity. Their groundbreaking approach was copied throughout the world.
At the heart of the Derwent valley are the Belper mills, which have tragically been allowed to fall into a poor state of repair. I am working to change that, but, for the time being, they remain a painful and unsightly reminder that the Government’s commitment to national renewal is sorely needed.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It was a delight to welcome my hon. Friend to Saltaire recently as part of the World Heritage UK conference, where he saw the regeneration of Salts Mill at the heart of our world heritage site and the amazing regeneration that it has brought to the whole village. Is that an example that he thinks his own world heritage site could learn from?
Jonathan Davies
Salts Mill is the gold standard of conservation and heritage restoration and the David Hockney paintings that can be seen there are truly remarkable—I encourage all colleagues to go to Saltaire and visit Salts Mill. My hon. Friend does a great job promoting what that wonderful community has to offer. There is a high bar to reach with the repair of the Belper mills; I hope we can achieve a similar calibre to that of Salts Mill.
I was motivated to re-establish the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites this summer by a desire to raise the profile of these vital places. My aspiration is to use the group to build the components of a national strategy that can share best practice across the UK and raise the profile of places such as the Belper mills and the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I have the slate landscape of north-west Wales world heritage site in my constituency, and I am glad to be a member of the APPG. With these large industrial sites, we need to discuss how to maintain the designation safely while also finding a working use for them. I think of a large hydroelectric scheme in my constituency, which would be an immense benefit to local people, but we need to balance that with what we want to maintain and make safe for future generations.
Jonathan Davies
The right hon. Lady makes a good point. There are challenges associated with cultural landscapes and living sites, but there are many examples of where we can make that work. Having a national strategy would provide a shared view across Government Departments to best support the sites. I will say something later about the specific site she mentioned.
I was pleased to re-establish the APPG, which we can use to help build the components for a national strategy, share good practice for sites across the UK, and track and influence Government legislation, so that we can harness all the benefits those sites offer. Having a national strategy would also foster a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by the range of sites across the UK, allowing a joined-up approach to dealing with them. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the merits of a national strategy for the UNESCO world heritage sites in the UK, and whether the Government might consider following the Republic of Ireland, which has adopted one with a degree of success.
I was pleased to see in the recently published curriculum review an aspiration for all young people to engage with local history as part of their education. UNESCO’s world heritage sites in the UK are a great asset to help deliver that. UNESCO is so much more than world heritage sites; it deals with the foundations of our knowledge of the world and each other. UNESCO’s designations, which include biosphere reserves, global geoparks, creative cities, learning cities and intangible cultural heritage, reflect that breadth. Every UNESCO designation is part of a global network spanning more than 190 countries. That network connects communities, scientists, cultural organisations and educators with their counterparts across the world. Despite that extraordinary breadth, UNESCO remains united by a single purpose: an ambitious, internationalist commitment to freedom, peace and equality, with education at its heart.
When war tore across Ukraine, UNESCO trained 50,000 Ukrainian teachers in online methods, ensuring that a generation of children did not lose their education, despite Russia’s brutal invasion. UNESCO’s Global Education Coalition has championed girls’ education, literacy for women and the principle that talent, not geography or sex, should determine a child’s future. UNESCO’s scientific achievements are truly inspiring. In 1951, it brought together Governments in Paris to develop the first resolution that led directly to the creation of CERN, helping to transform the same scientific disciplines once used for destruction into one of the world’s greatest symbols of international collaboration. More recently, through its Nippon Foundation partnership, nearly 30% of the ocean floor has now been mapped, revealing insights into our climate and marine life.
In the realm of culture, UNESCO’s mission has surpassed preservation and now involves conservation and even reconstruction. The Revive the Spirit of Mosul initiative secured more than $117 million to restore mosques and heritage lost to war, rebuilding not just structures but the collective memory and sense of belonging that they embody. This is UNESCO at its strongest—not lofty ideals, but tangible actions that promote peace. It represents the very best of our collective endeavours as one human race.
Britain’s UNESCO sites also bring money into our communities at a time when it is hard to come by, through tourism and footfall, new business opportunities and local economic growth, and direct funding, both public and private. One of the most significant sources of funding is the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has been supporting British heritage since 1994. Today I am delighted to report that, for the first time, National Lottery heritage funding into British UNESCO sites has surpassed £1 billion. I know the Minister will want to join me in celebrating that amazing milestone. I want to cite just a few examples of where that money has contributed in every nation of the United Kingdom.
Over £22 million has come into the Derwent valley, including £9.5 million for Derby’s Museum of Making, which was opened in 2020 and co-designed with local people. It reconnects communities across Derbyshire and further afield with our industrial heritage—something we have only come to appreciate more in recent years.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund has provided £12 million to the National Slate Museum in Llanberis. The slate landscape of north Wales, where quarries, mines and communities evolved together, remains a stronghold of the Welsh language and identity. That funding has created a learning centre, play area, shop, café and improved accessibility, ensuring everyone can share in that wonderful heritage.
In the Wester Ross Biosphere in the north-west highlands, £750,000 of funding supported the Inverbroom estate’s transformation from a traditional highland estate into a beacon of nature and recovery. That created jobs and opened a path to a sustainable future where Scotland’s natural heritage thrives alongside its communities. And in Northern Ireland, £3 million helped the Giant’s Causeway community build a world-class visitor centre.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Giant’s Causeway UNESCO world heritage site. Does he agree that that is one of the nation’s tremendous tourism facilities, but we have to be very careful with it, because there have been attempts by developers in recent years to put offshore wind farms in immediate proximity to it? We must be extremely cautious about proceeding with developments of that nature in such close proximity to a national heritage site.
Jonathan Davies
That is a challenge. A few sites, including the one in my constituency, have a buffer zone in which development must be tightly controlled. We need to get more energy from renewables, but there is a balance to be struck at valuable sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, which welcomes hundreds of thousands of people each year and shows how funding heritage can protect natural wonders while opening them up for all to enjoy.
Across every nation and region, in so many different ways, UNESCO sites are a locus for communities to celebrate their culture, understand their history and prepare for the future. Aside from the numerous benefits they provide, our UNESCO sites have the potential to help us tackle two key challenges.
First, too many people feel disconnected and alienated. That is expressed through frustration, but also a turn to extremes. UNESCO sites do not provide quick fixes and nor are they the sole solution, but by investing in what is unique, sustainable and culturally valuable in our towns, cities and landscapes we restore a sense of connection, allow a palpable sense of local identity to return, and give communities a real stake in their future. That must be recognised as part of the national renewal that the Government rightly seek. It goes beyond our pride in place programme and engages with what our places mean to us, as well as how they look.
The second challenge is our role on the world stage. I am delighted that we have a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister responding to the debate. Although trade deals have boosted UK business and our defence investment is helping build a more secure world, cuts to international aid have raised concerns about our global standing. UNESCO offers a powerful vehicle for leading on the international stage, fostering progress and promoting peace. Its work can prevent conflict from erupting, help adversaries to see one another’s humanity, and encourage reconciliation after war. That is not to mention the work needed to tackle climate change, which is an ever growing cause of conflict across the world. We are leading on climate change through robust action in the UK, but our collective efforts can succeed only if they are fully international. Domestic alienation and international conflict are two sides of the same coin; UNESCO’s mission helps us to address both.
The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected minds in science, culture and education. Their expertise enriches UNESCO through research, conservation, diplomacy and teaching. The UK is home to 29 UNESCO chairs—world-leading experts advancing research on climate change, cultural heritage, artificial intelligence ethics, ocean science and education. Their work directly shapes global policy and drives innovation. Greater engagement with UNESCO, nationally and internationally, is a low-cost, high-impact way to tackle two defining challenges of our age. Done well, it can restore pride in place at home and pride in the UK’s role abroad.
I very much look forward to hearing from colleagues about the fantastic contributions that UNESCO sites make across the country. We have the resources to contribute through UNESCO to peace, equality and a better future for humankind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister not only a celebration of this important organisation, but a recommitment to our place within it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. If colleagues can keep their speeches to five minutes, I will not need to impose a formal time limit at this stage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject in which we should all be interested. It is wonderful to be here to celebrate UNESCO’s 80th anniversary—I am just 10 years behind it. It is the specialised agency dedicated to strengthening our shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture and communication. I and others believe that we must continue to protect UNESCO and advance education, so it is great to be here for that purpose.
I love history; indeed, it is probably the only subject I excelled at in school, or did well at in school—that may be a better way of putting it. I also love the idea of UNESCO’s 80th anniversary, and—without being morbid—I love going round graveyards, looking at the old headstones and getting a bit of the history of the area. I love going round churches as well, where we have the same experience, and going round UNESCO sites. Their designation can go back 80 years, but churches may go back 300 years or more, and graveyards go back to whenever people were first buried, which is the beginning of time.
For Northern Ireland, there are a few important UNESCO-related milestones to note, so I am pleased to be here to give the local perspective. The first relates to the Giant’s Causeway. It is said that that is where the giants walked and lived—I am sure it is quite true. It is one of Northern Ireland’s UNESCO heritage sites and was designated as such in 1986, meaning that its 40th anniversary will be celebrated next year. Hundreds of thousands of people visit each year; it is a much-loved attraction.
In July 2024, only very recently, Gracehill in County Antrim was added to the UNESCO world heritage list as part of the Moravian Church Settlements. Northern Ireland is famed for its religious settlements—for its religious beliefs—and it is only right that we should have something like that. If we look abroad through UNESCO’s website, there are 1,248 properties on the world heritage list, so that gives people an idea; it is quite selective. They are properties that the world heritage list considers as having outstanding universal value.
UNESCO has revealed that climate change is one of the biggest threats to world heritage properties. The issues range from coral bleaching to severe forest fires and droughts. We are increasingly seeing the devastating impacts that climate change has on all aspects of our world and especially on world heritage sites, which we must endeavour to protect.
The UK National Commission for UNESCO launched a report to coincide with the opening of COP30 in Brazil, alongside 2025 being the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation. The findings were shocking, to say the least. Since 2000, glaciers have lost some 6,500 billion tonnes of ice, which threatens the water supply of more than 1 billion people. I hope that someday, perhaps, my constituency of Strangford will become a UNESCO site, because it goes back to when time began. When the Vikings came to Strangford, it was called the strong fjord. That is where the name Strangford came from. We have a history that I believe someday we may even realise to our advantage.
Those things all matter and it is crucial that we look to the future, and at how our current actions are impacting the future of our globe and our listed properties. As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, we are reminded of the power of education, science, culture and communication, and that much more must be done to preserve it.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing the debate.
We will hear a lot today about UNESCO world heritage sites across the UK, from the Giant’s Causeway to Saltaire and the Palace of Westminster itself. Magnificent as those examples are, I stand here today with the honour of representing the only part of the country with double UNESCO world heritage status for both cultural heritage and the surrounding natural environment. St Kilda, or Hiort, the remote archipelago, some 40 miles west of my own archipelago into the Atlantic, are the most westernmost islands of the UK apart from Rockall—perhaps its most taciturn Atlantic outcrop. It is not easy to get there—it takes a stern four-hour crossing on a high-powered boat into an Atlantic swell—but the reward is magnificent.
Torcuil Crichton
Even in the summer.
The sea cliffs of St Kilda are among the highest in the UK. When you crane your neck up from the deck of what feels like a very small boat below those cliffs, it feels as if someone has dragged New York’s skyscrapers midway across the Atlantic. The sea stacks teem with bird life, giving an otherworldly atmosphere, and the power of that ocean, in summer and winter, below your feet—that relentless swell—makes you feel as if these islands are on the edge of the world. It is the surrounding ocean environment that gives it its UNESCO natural heritage status, but it is the human footprint—the two millennia of human inhabitation of the main island of Hirta, along with Boreray, Soay and Dùn, where people grazed sheep and hunted seabirds—that exert such a pull and give it its heritage status.
People lived there for two millennia, eking out a very tough life harvesting seabirds and breeding sheep, but modernity, contact with the outside world, depopulation, emigration and illness brought that chapter of human habitation to a close. The final 36 St Kildans requested assistance from the British Government and were evacuated on 29 August 1930, bringing that chapter of inhabitation to a sudden and sad end. Although the community dispersed and the voices faded, you still get an echo of the human habitation and the people when you go there. I last visited with the late Norman John Gillies, the last of the male St Kildans. He left when he was five years old, but he still had an umbilical link to the island. To stand with him outside his family home in Village Bay, and to hear him switch from his English Norwich accent into what that place evoked in him—his native Gaelic voice—was to walk across the bridge of time. It was quite a privilege.
The remarkable story of St Kilda has been told and retold, from Tom Steel’s “Life and Death” to Roger Hutchinson’s “A People’s History”. There are about 700 books on St Kilda. We know more about the St Kildans than we know about the kings of Scotland. That is why we go back time and again: because when we walk in their footsteps, we feel for ourselves what it was like to live in a pre-industrial, communal, remote and co-dependent community as our ancestors must all have done.
While St Kilda remains attractive, tourist traffic is increasing vastly. Cruise ships now go there and the light-touch tourism that is essential for UNESCO world heritage sites is hard to achieve. Ionad Hiort, the St Kilda Centre project, aspires to construct a world-class visitor centre in Ùig, on the west coast of Lewis. It would offer visitors an opportunity to encounter St Kilda from afar. UNESCO has adopted the project as an exemplar of remote access to world heritage sites, many of which are already physically inaccessible or fragile.
Funding is formidable, and a £7 million package has been put in place, but prices are increasing as time is flowing, and there is a considerable funding gap. I appeal to the Minister and the UK Government to deploy the muscle of Government to fulfil their obligations not just as a custodian of this double world heritage site, but by using projects such as Ionad Hiort to show the potential of remote viewing, contain untrammelled tourism and breathe new economic life into remote communities like mine. I urge the Department, the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take the proposal seriously, to show how the UK can inform and lead the rest of the world—from the edge of the world—when it comes to world heritage sites.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My speech, borrowing the term from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), is more about lofty ideals than the more detailed presentations that have been given by other hon. Members. As UNESCO’s founding fathers said:
“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.
That was a noble ambition at a time when the world, following world war two, was in a state of devastation. Although we are commemorating 80 years since UNESCO made its declaration, it is disheartening to note that since then we have never seen a single day without conflict somewhere in the world. We can have no “Sliding Doors” moment because we cannot say for sure what the world would have looked like without ambitious endeavours like UNESCO and its call for common humanity.
The pursuit of peace is incumbent upon us now more than ever, with the devastating capacity of modern warfare to cause such death and destruction at the touch of a button. With our collective threshold for witnessing devastation and evil so elevated—partly due to social media, where we can see entire villages, hospitals, aid workers, men, women and children eviscerated in front of our eyes on our phone screens and continue to do what we were doing before—I suggest that we redouble our efforts, resources and ambitions for global peace by spotlighting, amplifying and celebrating the common cause of shared humanity.
The sheer scope of projects undertaken by UNESCO is vast and varied, and it has been really interesting to hear hon. Members speak about them. I am from Leicester, where we do not have a world heritage site, but I think Charnwood forest would make a good bid for it. Today, I will speak about three projects that protect world culture and natural heritage, starting with Mount Mulanje. This mountain stands in Malawi, the country of my birth. Mount Mulanje is the latest UNESCO heritage site there. The mountain is not only a resource for nearly a million people, providing clean water, firewood, edible products and protection from the elements, including storms; it is also a place of great spiritual significance for the local population.
What does recognition by UNESCO mean? It means that when mining companies come to drill extracts such as bauxite and other minerals, the listing preserves not only the beauty but the natural resources for its people, as well as the unique spiritual ties between the people and their land.
Secondly, we are now living in a post-truth world, and the issue is about to enter another dimension with the advent of artificial intelligence. UNESCO has pre-empted some of the challenges the globe will face, including the dangers of embedded biases, threats to human rights and climate degradation, through its recommendation on the ethics of AI, which was adopted by the acclamation of 193 member states. In this journey to the unknown, humanity will need all the assistance it can get to navigate the complexities, challenges and dilemmas mankind will face. That resource could become a standard of reference, as it provides information on the gold standard of practice for legislators, educators and commercial entities, among others.
Finally, we have witnessed carnage in the war in Gaza. We are hopefully now coming out on the other side, but a source of constant tension—often the flashpoint—is Jerusalem, the epicentre of the three Abrahamic faiths and a UNESCO world heritage site. The Dome of the Rock is sacred for Muslims as the site where the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven to meet his Lord. The Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall, is a remnant of the Second Temple, signifying a place of not only spirituality but identity for the Jewish people. Additionally, we have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which houses the tomb of Jesus Christ. This small area of 0.9 km is potentially the area where we need to implement the spirit of the first UNESCO contribution more than anywhere else, embodying the spirit of peace through mutual respect.
Yes, UNESCO, like other organisations, must evolve in its efficiency and proficiency in these challenging times, but organisations like it are too important and vital to abandon. If we pursue a similar policy to that of our international aid and start cutting funding, as we did when we removed ourselves in 1985 for 12 years, it will leave a vacuum that will be filled by others who will shape the world in their image. The cost of that is potentially incalculable, and the result unimaginable.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate, and colleagues on the excellent contributions we have enjoyed so far.
We are very fortunate in Shropshire to be home to the Ironbridge Gorge, with 10 heritage sites forming the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. Forty years ago, in 1986—when I was just starting secondary school—it became one of the first locations in the UK to be designated a UNESCO world heritage site. That recognised its unique and unrivalled contribution to the birth of the industrial revolution in the 18th century.
However, flooding is a persistent threat to Ironbridge and all along the River Severn, as we were unfortunately reminded this weekend. We recently had severe flood events, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, with storms such as Dudley, Eunice and Franklin. In each flood, at least two of the museums were breached, and water was waist high, leading to land slips and road closures, which of course deter visitors to the sites, and causing lasting damage to historic structures and the Wharfage area.
To combat flooding, Government funding has supported local authorities to implement stabilisation and flood defence measures, including piling, improved drainage and river bank protection, to mitigate the risk of more landslides and damage from heavy rain, high groundwater levels and recurring river floods. As chair of the River Severn Partnership caucus and lead on the Environmental Audit Committee flood resilience report, I have worked consistently with stakeholders to approach this issue holistically. That means shifting the mindset, and Government resources, away from reaction and more into prevention, preparedness and co-ordination. I hope the Minister will work collaboratively with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that heritage sites, and particularly UNESCO sites such as Ironbridge Gorge, are prioritised in the consideration of flooding resilience. I will ensure she receives her own copy of the flood resilience report to help in that endeavour.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for so ably introducing the debate. The old and new towns of Edinburgh are designated a UNESCO world heritage site. My constituency includes just a small corner of the UNESCO designated area, but the beauty of the city centre’s historical legacy is appreciated by all in my constituency.
UNESCO’s 80 years of work to preserve the world’s heritage involves global art, monuments and even our oceans. I want to take this opportunity to talk about its work on literature preservation—something my English teacher might be surprised to hear. UNESCO’s founding aim was to preserve
“the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”
As we have heard, its founders recognised that ignorance of the positive differences between us can lead to conflict. Engaging with literature can help us celebrate those differences.
In 2004, Edinburgh became the world’s first UNESCO city of literature. Since then, 52 other cities have followed and earned the same title, but I am proud that Edinburgh led the way. Our city has a rich literary history of great fiction writers, including Arthur Conan Doyle, Muriel Spark, whose statute will be the first of a woman in Princes Street Gardens—there are more statues of animals in Edinburgh than there are of women, which is quite a bizarre situation—and Kenneth Grahame. All those people called my city their home.
In my constituency, the legacy of Robert Louis Stevenson, the writer of “Treasure Island”, also lives on. One of his poems is preserved on the walls of Colinton tunnel in a fantastic mural. He travelled through that tunnel each summer to visit his grandfather, who was a minister at Colinton parish church. Every year, thousands come to the city to take part in the Edinburgh international book festival and to enjoy the city’s rich literary history.
We also have the Pentlands book festival, which runs each year in my constituency. One of the books recently featured is by author Nicholas Kinloch. It is a non-fiction book and tells the story of how his grandfather travelled from Poland to the UK in the second world war and eventually fought in Arnhem. The book is called “From the Soviet Gulag to Arnhem”, and it is a fantastic story; it reminds us that some immigrants came to our country to save it. I know that Nicholas’s parents, Isobel and Henry Kinloch, are very proud of him.
With the knowledge of this fantastic literary legacy—both Nicholas’s and others—we must continue to push forward with literacy across the country. I recently met the Edinburgh City of Literature Trust, which works across Edinburgh to engage people with our literary history and has reached an audience of at least 235,000 people since 2004. It emphasised the importance of literature in our civic life as not just a luxury but an essential public good. For the trust, UNESCO status is not an award but an obligation to further the aims of UNESCO.
Central to the public good in my city are libraries. In my constituency, I have Oxgangs, Wester Hailes, Fountainbridge, Balerno, Colinton, Currie, Sighthill and even the mobile library system. The reason we have such great libraries in Edinburgh is partly down to the work of my good friend Val Walker, both before she became a councillor and after she was elected. Sadly, she died a few months ago, but the libraries in our city are a fantastic legacy to her.
I am proud that the Government have committed to delivering a library in every primary school in England, giving children the best start to life and enriching their learning. I hope to see a similar commitment in Scotland, where around a quarter of schools have no designated library space. That is absolutely shameful. Giving children access to a variety of books and stories from a young age helps to create a cohesive and integrated community. From a library in Edinburgh, a child can read stories about any country around the world, by authors from any country around the world. Nurturing children’s understanding of their global role as citizens is central to UNESCO’s aims. Literature fosters a child’s pride in their home, and understanding and compassion for those who come from elsewhere.
Finally, I want to talk about another UNESCO site, which is right at the edge of Edinburgh—the Forth bridge, or the Forth railway bridge to some. It stands in such splendour today only because of the work of Tam Dalyell in this place and of my former colleague Professor Roland Paxton, who both fought to make sure it was preserved in excellent condition. Sadly, Roland passed away just a few days ago, but the condition of that bridge today is a fantastic legacy to him.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this debate on such an important topic. He is an excellent chair of the APPG, to which he brings passion and knowledge, and I am a proud member of it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for mentioning Ironbridge Gorge in my constituency, ensuring that that special place has a double hit in this debate.
The founding of UNESCO out of the ruins of the second world war brought together the nations of the world to develop a shared understanding of our collective history and culture. Through the designation of world heritage sites, many areas of cultural and natural heritage have been conserved and protected. As the Member of Parliament for Telford, I am proud to represent one of the first six UK sites to be inscribed as a world heritage site: the Ironbridge Gorge, which is the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It is a fantastic example of the importance of world heritage site status, with hundreds of thousands of visitors every year learning about the ingenuity and hard work of ordinary men, women and, in some cases, children who went before us.
Ironbridge Gorge is key to Telford’s identity and is a major contributor to the local economy. The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust alone attracts 400,000 visitors, employs more than 200 staff and brings in £6 million every year to our local economy. That is even before we get into the other amazing businesses throughout the Ironbridge Gorge, such as the world-famous Eley’s pork pie shop, Merrythought teddy bear shop and some very fine cafés and restaurants, not to mention a few pubs I may have frequented over the years. The local council, Telford and Wrekin council, works with a range of partners to manage the world heritage site and preserve the many monuments of the industrial revolution, including Europe’s first coke-fired blast furnace and the world’s first single-span iron bridge—part of a landscape that has inspired artists from Turner to John Nash.
There is much to celebrate about UNESCO’s 80th year. Next year will be 40 years since Ironbridge Gorge’s designation—a significant birthday it shares with me. However, I also want to look to the future and at how we can make our world heritage sites more sustainable. The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust recently set out plans to merge with the National Trust, thanks in part to a £9 million grant from the Government. I can say with certainty that the world heritage site was incredibly valuable in securing that support from the Government. As well as the legal protections the world heritage site provides, there is the more informal protection afforded to world heritage sites by the sheer value of that status.
The UNESCO world heritage site has played a big role in making the Ironbridge visitor economy sustainable for years, and it will continue to do so. However, many of the world’s natural and cultural treasures face significant challenges, and the Ironbridge Gorge is no exception. It suffers from ground instability, and more frequent and severe flooding linked to climate change. The council and the Government have made significant investments in stabilisation works over many years, and are working together against the risks of flooding. That includes a recent £700,000 grant from the Government to support the walls of the river, and a £1.2 million grant to protect individual properties.
To conclude, it is ever more important, in a turbulent global environment, to ensure that these crucial sites are protected for years to come, so that those who come after us never forget the stories of the ordinary men and women who contributed to our great country. I put on record my formal thanks to the Ironbridge Gorge world heritage site steering group, chaired by Professor Ken Sloan, to Ironbridge councillor Carolyn Healy, and to both Telford and Wrekin council and the Gorge parish council for their work. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the businesses, residents and organisations who make this such a special, wonderful place to live, work, visit and enjoy.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Alas, I am going to have to drop the time limit for speeches to four minutes.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd—there is always a sense of history when you are in it.
I want to speak about the contribution of Hexham and the broader north-east to UNESCO. We have a proud industrial heritage in the north-east, and I am proud to have the birthplace of George Stephenson in my constituency. At a recent panel event in Wylam, I was asked whether George Stephenson was to blame for the climate catastrophe, which was a challenging question to be asked at a community event, and slightly deeper than I had planned on going.
We also have one of the most iconic UNESCO heritages sites, Hadrian’s wall, which symbolises the fantastic history of our nation and islands. Whether walking through Sycamore gap—which was a tragic loss—or more far-flung areas of Hadrian’s wall, we can get a sense of the scale of an incredible engineering achievement that left such a mark on the landscape.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), I recently attended a parish council meeting in Gilsland, a village we both represent. I bumped into my year 3 teacher and we discussed the urgent need for investment in transport infrastructure in rural Northumberland. That includes the long-term goal of getting rail services into the village to open a key element of Hadrian’s wall back up to the public, allowing them to experience the world heritage site.
I have a few points for the Minister to take away and share with colleagues, particularly the funding for national parks. Northumberland national park covers one of the largest geographic areas of any such park, but it is slightly disadvantaged by the current funding formula, which favours larger parks in the south and allows them to invest more, even though Northumberland national park does incredible work at facilities such as the Sill. However, Hadrian’s wall does not bring just a tourism offer; it gives a deep sense of pride and, crucially, jobs and employment opportunities. Those opportunities are also not just in Haltwhistle and not just in the tourism sector, so it underpins whole sections of the regional economy and our transport infrastructure.
One point needs to be borne in mind: we are not simply a region defined by Hadrian’s wall or opportunities of the past. We have a rich cultural offer. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my support for the ongoing petition for the redevelopment of Hexham’s old fire station by Sir Antony Gormley. I also ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), to pass on my distaste for how the Conservative cabinet of Northumberland county council has rammed through the rejection of that proposal. The Conservatives have a duty to enhance the lives of everyone in Northumberland, not merely those in their favoured areas. Unfortunately, the council cabinet in Northumberland is a specialist in failure when it comes to my constituency.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I share not only Gilsland but Hadrian’s wall. Members may not be aware that it is only in the last eight years that Hadrian’s wall has yielded its long-kept secret that the largest structure is to be found at Carlisle cricket club, thanks to a fantastic dig that is going on there. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we mark 80 years of UNESCO, we definitely need a further 80 years to understand what we can learn from our shared heritage?
Joe Morris
We need significantly more than 80 years to unearth all the secrets that Hadrian’s wall yet has. I have been deeply concerned to read about some of the damage that climate change is doing to potential unfound objects at Vindolanda, where certain changes in the soil acidity may be wreaking havoc on things that we do not yet understand. Although its largest structure might be in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I think that mine contains the largest contiguous body of Hadrian’s wall—just to do a little bit of neighbourly point scoring.
As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, I note that Hadrian’s wall is not just an incredibly large structure that binds together the west coast and east coast of England; it is a really powerful message about the importance of our shared history and culture. Borders really can define large elements of where we see ourselves—there are large parts of my constituency that are built with stones from Hadrian’s wall. As history evolves, we must look at how we can preserve and celebrate it for the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for securing this debate, and for the manner in which he spoke about the achievements of UNESCO and the importance of marking and remembering our shared history.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that I did exhort them to stick to four minutes.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate; he takes a keen interest in arts and culture, as the chair of the APPG on UNESCO world heritage sites, and I understand that the group aims to grow support and recognition of British world heritage sites and the grassroots organisations that support them.
Given the limited time that I have, I want to acknowledge that UNESCO’s stated mission 80 years ago was to strengthen
“shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture, and communication.”
There is no doubt that it has made immeasurable contributions and achievements in that regard. However, in the modern age, some UNESCO world heritage sites could be put at risk by the impact of the climate emergency and its consequences, which can literally include the erosion of some sites. These are issues that we must consider. As chair of the APPG on Bangladesh, I am aware of the ongoing challenges in preserving sites, such as the Sundarbans, which is home to the richest mangrove forest in the world, and is the single largest home of the Bengal tiger.
In the global context, it is regrettable that the US has once again pulled funding for UNESCO. I hope that will never be the case in the UK, and I will use my contribution to explain why. Three years ago, I was honoured to lead a debate in this House to commemorate UNESCO International Mother Language Day. It was one of the friendliest debates I have had the immense pleasure of leading in this House, with many hon. Members contributing phrases and sentences in their mother language. The idea to celebrate International Mother Language Day was the initiative of Bangladesh, the country of my parents’ birth, and it emerged from a history of jostling powers and political struggles. It was approved at the 1999 UNESCO general conference and has been observed throughout the world since 21 February 2000. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that important commemoration.
International Mother Language Day serves as an opportunity to see the rich tapestry of our linguistic diversity as something to be cherished; a joyful kaleidoscope of possibilities and potential to be revelled in. UNESCO believes in the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity for sustainable societies. That is important because multilingual and multicultural societies exist through their languages, which transmit and preserve traditional knowledge and cultures in a sustainable way, and because linguistic diversity is increasingly threatened as more languages disappear. Globally, we know that 40% of the population do not have access to an education in a language they can speak or understand. None the less, progress is being made in multilingual education, with growing understanding of its importance, particularly in early schooling, and with more commitment to its development in public life.
Within its mandate for peace, UNESCO works to preserve the differences in cultures and languages that foster tolerance and respect for others. As the daughter of migrants, representing a constituency in a borough where over 90 different languages have been identified as spoken, I believe there is a need, more than ever, for the histories, cultures and languages of diverse communities to feature more across the educational curriculum, local services and the cultural sector. The rise of anti-migrant rhetoric and racism in the UK, and around the world, highlights the importance of the inclusion of diverse cultural storytelling, with the demand to ensure that school curriculums include educating young people about racism and imperialism. There is a need to rebalance historical and social narratives that currently exclude certain experiences and perspectives, because we all have a duty to ensure that the next generation has a better understanding of the historical injustices contributing to the institutional racism that persists in the UK and elsewhere today.
My constituency in east London is home to the historic UNESCO world heritage site, the Tower of London—the iconic castle that we find decorating souvenirs all over London and the globe. It is a magnet for tourism, as many hon. Members will be aware. Shortly after my election six years ago, I became aware that a small community serving the Tower actually live on the site. However, I am aware that it is left vulnerable to the encroaching City of London to the west. The City of London looks to stimulate economic growth by creating more office space and, as such, more tall buildings. I understand that conversations between the Tower and the City about the City of London’s 2040 plan continue, but it seems more likely than ever that over time it will become more difficult to preserve the Tower’s setting. I understand that the International Council on Monuments and Sites has asked the Government for an update on the state of conservation report, and I hope that those discussions will continue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I exhort Members to stick to time. Some Members have left before the end of the debate, having spoken. With the greatest respect, I am afraid that gets reported to the Speaker’s Office. Will Members please respect the protocols and the time limit? Otherwise, it impacts colleagues right across the piece.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing the debate. The power of culture to maintain peace and promote diversity over the last 80 years demonstrates the opportunity to use soft power to transform the world. In the midst of a debate about borders and identity, UNESCO is the antithesis, showing the opportunity for education, science and culture to reach beyond, to stir interest and to provide us with a framework that enables us to be proud of our heritage and embrace our own culture and that of others.
It may come as a surprise that York is yet to be granted world heritage site status. We are on the tentative list—a significant achievement in itself—but our ambition is recognition. I have worked with the York world heritage steering group since I was elected in 2015, and at this point I pay tribute to Janet Hopton and John Oxley for their fantastic and committed work. Their big question is how we ensure we get proper financial backing for UNESCO world heritage sites, beyond local sources.
To submit a bid can cost up to half a million pounds, with staffing and associated project costs. The nomination dossier itself could cost £180,000, with drafting, formatting and Government liaison needed. Once a site receives its status, there are, of course, ongoing conservation, management and monitoring obligations to be met, and a member of staff to oversee that. The big question is: will the Government work with the National Heritage Lottery Fund to introduce a dedicated funding strand that will support UK world heritage sites developing their bids and assist in the ongoing work? That could be a game changer and address the inequity that exists.
The proposed world heritage site in York has 993 listed historical buildings, six scheduled monuments, one of the UK’s earliest designated conservation areas and one of only five areas of archaeological importance in England. York’s bid is an outstanding example of urbanisation through the ages. In the next few years I want to see York on that permanent list, but we need financial support.
I briefly draw attention to York itself as a UNESCO city of media arts. It has the festival of early music, the BAFTA-accredited Aesthetica short film festival, the Jorvik Viking festival and the festival of ideas. We have embedded the Guild of Media Arts in our city over the last decade, which is now an important centre of leading media arts in our country. As a result, we are seeing global film productions in the city, the gaming industry, phone and TV apps, new technology bringing cutting-edge immersive experiences into the digital creative space and artists finding their form. It is therefore fitting to mark the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and I trust we will also celebrate the power of all its listed locations and cultures in maintaining peace and security.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate.
UNESCO was founded from the ashes of the second world war out of a recognition that we must protect our unique cultural heritage for generations to come. The Derbyshire dales are filled with unique landscapes, heritage and history, and at the heart of this is Cromford Mills, which was built in 1771 and was the world’s first water-powered cotton spinning mill. Alongside other sites in Derbyshire, it ushered in the birth of the factory system and the industrial revolution, helping pioneer changes that would leave our nation and the world irrevocably changed.
To visit Arkwright’s mill in Cromford is to visit the very birthplace of mass production. It would be remiss of me not to mention Masson Mills just half a mile away, another of Arkwright’s mills, built in 1783. A commercial spinning mill until 1991, it is now home to a textile museum and, incidentally, powered by hydro-electric energy generated on site. However, Arkwright’s mill at Cromford was his first, unique in having survived as a cohesive group of buildings, and therefore is a key destination within the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site, which is a designated UNESCO world heritage site and the only UNESCO site in the east midlands.
The designation of the site helps to ensure that future generations can continue to visit and learn from this historic location, with more than 200,000 visitors each year. It is hard to believe that before the Arkwright Society purchased the site in 1979, the site appeared to be heading for demolition. By that time, many of the buildings had fallen into disrepair, much of it had been contaminated with lead chromate and many of the historic features had been obscured by modern buildings. However, the hard work and vision of the Arkwright Society saved this site of international significance and turned it into the tourist attraction that it is today. The designation of Cromford Mills as a UNESCO world heritage site also aided that process, as it helped secure funding, boost visitor numbers and gave it legal protection.
Unfortunately, the hard work of preserving and restoring the site is not yet complete. It costs over £4,000 each day to maintain the site. Although the Arkwright Society generates income through catering, retail, heritage tours and tenancies, and receives additional income from donations and grants, this income remains less than it costs to maintain Cromford Mills.
Fortunately, the Arkwright Society has managed to secure £1.3 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to transform the four-storey mill building located at the heart of the site. None the less, although this funding is welcome, Cromford Mills needs further support to ensure that the site can remain financially viable for future generations. In particular, the Arkwright Society needs £150,000 a year to stabilise core operations and around £1.2 million in match funding to enable the full delivery of the renewal project.
I urge the Government and donors to do whatever they can to ensure that the Arkwright Society can access the funding it needs. I also encourage the Minister to instruct officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to speak with the Arkwright Society and Cromford Mills to see what support they might be able to provide through these challenging times.
Cromford Mills demonstrates that our industrial legacy is not just a story about our past. Instead, with the right investment, such sites can continue to educate, teach and inspire for generations to come. UNESCO’s founders believed that we could create peace and prosperity by preserving our cultural history and heritage, so I urge the Government to keep investing in our history. After all, a country that preserves its past is better placed to shape its future.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Dowd, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate.
In an increasingly divided world, it is essential that we use UNESCO’s 80th anniversary to promote its mission of contributing to peace and security by fostering collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. In a fractured and fracturing world, education, science and culture can be important tools for building knowledge, understanding and peace.
Glasgow continues to promote UNESCO’s mission through its designation, back in 2008, as the UK’s first UNESCO city of music. Glasgow is recognised as Scotland’s music capital, with over half a million people a year enjoying gigs in world-renowned venues such as King Tut’s, the OVO Hydro, the Berkeley Suite and Sub Club. The city hosts around 130 events a week, making it Scotland’s most popular location for gigs. Outside of the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe, many of Scotland’s largest cultural festivals take place in Glasgow, such as Celtic Connections and Transmit. My constituency of Glasgow North is home to institutions that contribute to Glasgow’s city of music title, such as Scottish Opera, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland.
Glasgow’s UNESCO title not only recognises the musical talent of the city, but helps to support it. Research by the UK National Commission for UNESCO shows that such a designation helps to attract extra funding, tourism and partnerships, as well as generating local pride. Such a sector helps the local economy to grow, boosts employment and complements other parts of the economy, such as local businesses and Glasgow’s flourishing food and drink sector. I hope that the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council will do more to support Glasgow’s city of music status.
The UK Government’s Brand Scotland initiative aims to complement such titles by promoting Scotland and its cities to the world. Glasgow’s UNESCO city of music status is certainly one such selling point for the city. More recently, in December 2024, Glasgow was awarded the title of UNESCO learning city in recognition of its outstanding achievements in lifelong learning. This is a testament to the many initiatives, organisations and educational institutions in Glasgow that work to widen access to education and to create opportunities for individuals and communities.
However, titles such as city of music are not the only reason that UNESCO is important to Glasgow. On the edge of my constituency of Glasgow North, there is a UNESCO world heritage site, the Antonine wall. Although it is sometimes overshadowed by its more famous contemporary, Hadrian’s wall, the Antonine wall was one of the sites furthest from Rome on which the Roman empire ever built, and it is a testament to Scotland’s rich history. The universal value of the Antonine wall—built nearly 2,000 years ago and stretching 37 miles, with approximately 36 forts—was recognised by UNESCO because it is an impressive example of Roman military architecture and because of its symbolism as the maximum extension of the Roman empire’s power in northern Europe.
The site of the Antonine wall now hosts a range of different visitor attractions to teach people about its history, as well as routes for walkers and cyclists to follow the route of the wall across the central belt of Scotland. It is a testament to UNESCO’s work in helping to preserve and promote important historical sites for future generations to enjoy.
I am proud that Glasgow continues to contribute to UNESCO’s global mission 80 years after the organisation’s creation. I hope that this debate helps to highlight the importance of funding the preservation and promotion of culture, education and historic sites that generations in the present and the future can benefit from. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government can continue to develop their support for UNESCO.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and to be here celebrating the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the fantastic work it does.
We Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists; we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking, and building strong international partnerships with organisations such as UNESCO is a big part of that. We are proud of the UK’s central role in founding UNESCO, and remain steadfast in supporting its mission to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) reminded us of that history.
The Liberal Democrats believe that education is the best investment we can make in our children’s potential and our planet’s future. Education opens the mind, fosters understanding and tolerance, and empowers our children and our communities to be the best they can be. In that vein, the Liberal Democrats also want to restore the UK’s reputation as an international development superpower by returning official development assistance spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establishing an independent Department for international development. We understand the need to step up defence spending, but feel that cutting ODA is short-sighted. We believe in the role of education as a force for good, and if we were in charge, we would commit to spending 15% of ODA on education in the world’s most vulnerable areas, especially focusing on girls and young women.
I have been lucky enough to see for myself the impact of such spending, both as a former trustee of a small charity focusing on education in Latin America and as the former chief executive of a charity set up in the areas where my firm at the time was actively investing. I remember fondly a visit to Senanga in Zambia with CAMFED—the Campaign for Female Education—to see a project we were supporting that was providing life skills and business skills to girls and young women. I remember clearly a session in which girls and young women told me of the transformative impact that their education was having.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure. In this country at least, it is through UNESCO’s world heritage sites list that the organisation is best known, although the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire rightly talked of biosphere reserves and global geoparks. Although there are many outstanding examples across our nation—to date, there are 35 UNESCO sites in the UK and overseas territories, from neolithic Orkney to the wonderful city of Bath, via Durham’s castle and cathedral, which I spent three years getting to know during my time there at university—I will shamelessly take this opportunity to plug a cause close to my heart by talking about a site in my Hazel Grove constituency that I believe should be added to the list.
I strongly believe that our canals and waterways are a large part of our fantastic cultural and industrial heritage. That is why I launched the campaign for Marple locks, at the junction of the Peak forest and Macclesfield canals, to be designated as a world heritage site. Marple’s canal heritage makes it one of a kind, unique in England, and one of the best examples of industrial waterways in the UK. It is our own local slice of Great British history, and I believe we should be doing everything we can to protect it and preserve it for future generations.
I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for disabled people and their carers; I refer all colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For me, and for the residents of my Hazel Grove constituency, the canals and waterways are assets to be cherished, not liabilities to be maintained. I believe that granting Marple locks world heritage status will go a long way in showing our appreciation and support for this beautiful site.
Beyond their cultural and historical significance, the waterways are also crucial for nature, wellbeing and combatting climate change. They provide a vital habitat for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor, connecting diverse ecosystems that are bursting with biodiversity. Canals also play a hugely important role in water management, reducing flood risk and increasing climate resilience. Problems with reservoirs are problems for all of us.
It is the job of us all, across Government Departments and more widely, to protect our heritage and cultural landscapes. It cannot be right that we celebrate the Lake district on the one hand—it is described as a place of “exceptional beauty” on its page on the UNESCO website—and on the other hand allow water companies to pump sewage into those lakes. We should very much learn the right lessons from Liverpool’s experience, where the council allowed development that was described by UNESCO as
“detrimental to the site’s authenticity and integrity”,
leading to the
“irreversible loss of attributes conveying the outstanding universal value”,
and therefore the loss of its world heritage site status. We need to take the protection and celebration of our heritage seriously. I will close with a quote from the UNESCO world heritage convention:
“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.”
I am sure we can all agree with that.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate.
I am pleased to salute the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, an organisation born from a world in ruins after the second world war, yet built on the very best intentions of peace, co-operation and shared progress. The founding of UNESCO was a cross-party British achievement in London in 1945, led by Conservative Minister Rab Butler. The second world war had left its impact. As well as the horrific human sacrifices and loss of life, there had been the destruction of books, cultural heritage and education systems. This led to endeavours to foster a hopeful and forward-looking spirit of international co-operation. Eighty years later, that founding spirit still runs through UNESCO’s mission. It owes its durability to its ambition—196 nations united around a common purpose.
As a country, the UK is rooted in cultural and artistic traditions. For centuries, we have led the world in creativity, scholarship and heritage protection. Today, the UK’s 60 UNESCO designations form a national network that covers more than 15% of our landmass, spans over 170 parliamentary constituencies and is home to roughly 9 million people. They are invaluable cultural, economic and diplomatic assets. Across that network, we have 35 world heritage sites, from Stonehenge to the Tower of London, 10 global geoparks, seven biospheres, from the Isle of Wight to the Isle of Man, 14 creative cities, and 10 learning cities. These designations are not ornaments; they are engines of local pride, international co-operation and economic activity. They showcase British leadership, soft power and the value of working together. It is important, therefore, that the Government play an active role in supporting state parties and encouraging international collaboration to safeguard our shared heritage.
Economically, heritage has an enormous value. The annual visitor attraction survey showed that in 2023, seven of the 10 most visited paid attractions in England were heritage sites. A study by the UK National Commission for UNESCO found that UNESCO designations generate more than £151 million in additional revenue each year across 76 sites. They attract investment, boost tourism, support apprenticeships, strengthen volunteering and foster global partnerships. Yet the tourism sector remains fragile. Rural and independent operators in particular are already managing tight margins and cannot simply absorb additional costs.
I am proud that the previous Government secured the UK’s ratification of the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. On the Isle of Wight, we have pottery craft traditions, and across the UK we have stonemasonry, blacksmithing and thatching—skills that are cultural treasures, but that are also essential for repairing historic buildings. The Government must do more to support them and to leverage philanthropy effectively for cultural institutions.
On the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, we are home to one of the oldest carnivals, the Ryde carnival, and to a UNESCO biosphere reserve that extends across the Solent into Hampshire. Our biosphere is a model of how to address ecological decline, productivity stagnation and demographic inversions. Two opportunities sit within our biosphere: strong creative and cultural production through the Arts Council, and expertise in environmental science and emerging strengths in green finance. This combination offers opportunities for new economic activity, regeneration on our island and deeper collaboration with other biospheres across the world.
However, there is currently a lack of meaningful Government engagement with UNESCO policy. Despite a UNESCO presence in more than 170 constituencies, these sites are not integrated into levelling-up missions or used as anchors for regional development. They are not part of any cross-departmental co-ordination and the Government have no strategy for utilising UNESCO designations as innovation infrastructure. These assets remain underused. Will the Government commit to taking a cross-departmental approach to UNESCO sites and recognise these designations as core national assets for innovation, regeneration and economic growth?
The UK is also a signatory to UNESCO conventions on behalf of our overseas territories, yet it is unclear how the Government are supporting those territories in applying for intangible cultural heritage recognition, or navigating the process of achieving world heritage status. Several territories have no designations at all. In the spirit of co-operation, how are the Government sharing their expertise to assist countries and territories with no UNESCO sites? We have five UK assets on the tentative list for future UNESCO designation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure those applications remain active and properly supported?
On the topic of UK expertise, three of Iraq’s four UNESCO world heritage sites are currently on the list of world heritage in danger. I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the Government are supporting the stewardship of endangered world heritage sites worldwide and how British expertise is being deployed, again in the spirit of co-operation. On a broader point, I would appreciate clarification on whether reductions in the development budget will affect UNESCO programmes. With public finances under pressure, how are Government ensuring that UK contributions to UNESCO deliver maximum value for taxpayers?
Of course, UNESCO is not entirely without controversy. The UK and the United States have both withdrawn from it in the past and concerns have been raised about political manoeuvring within the organisation, including disproportionate attention on certain countries while overlooking others with significant human rights or cultural heritage issues. Between 2009 and 2017, UNESCO adopted 60 resolutions concerning Israel, but none concerning several states with far more severe cultural violations. In this respect, UNESCO occasionally mirrors the trajectory of the European Court of Human Rights, another institution in the creation of which a Conservative Government played a central role, but the remit of which has sometimes stretched beyond what its founders intended.
As UNESCO enters its ninth decade, we must monitor its focus, ensure UK funding is used effectively and guard against the organisation unduly creeping into politics. If we do so, the UK can continue to lead by example, honouring our heritage, strengthening global co-operation and investing in the next generation’s cultural, ecological and educational future.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I think we will have time for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate, but first to the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to have the opportunity to respond to this interesting debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing the debate and opening it with such a rich introduction to the topic. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UNESCO world heritage sites. In his opening remarks he made a powerful case, as did the other speakers, for education and culture as a force for peace and progress.
I welcome the £1 billion that has been spent by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. My hon. Friend explained some examples of that and the impact that funding has had. I also acknowledge the work of my the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who would ordinarily have taken this debate but is unable to be here today.
Eighty years ago, the world gathered in London to found UNESCO, committing to peace through education, science, culture and communication. I was really privileged to visit one of the sites mentioned several times in this debate, Giant’s Causeway, earlier this summer. It is an incredible site that highlights the importance of recognising the connection with place in our history and heritage and our role in protecting that.
The mission set out at the founding of UNESCO 80 years ago remains as vital as ever. The UK maintains a permanent delegation to UNESCO and funds the UK National Commission for UNESCO, ensuring the UK is an active and influential member state. Membership allows the UK to project its strengths in education, science and cultural heritage globally and reinforced its reputation as a thought leader and trusted partner, which is important for this work across the world in multilateral forums.
I pay tribute to one of Britain’s outstanding parliamentarians and a founding force of UNESCO, Ellen Wilkinson, who has been mentioned. She was a Fabian, a co-operator and Education Secretary, who championed the idea that education and culture could be powerful agents of peace and reconciliation in the period just after the war. Contributions today paint a picture of the choices that the Labour Government made in the immediate aftermath of the war, which set the foundations for long-term institutions that still form part of the way in which we build connection and peace across the world.
I congratulate Professor El-Enany on becoming UNESCO’s director general this week and wish him well in the role. Today, the spirit of peace and co-operation that was the hallmark of the founding of UNESCO is carried forward by communities across all our four nations, our Crown dependencies, our overseas territories and many examples illustrated in the debate today. I am proud of the 35 UNESCO world heritage sites that preserve our shared history. That includes the seven biosphere reserves, 10 global geoparks, and the United Kingdom’s 13 creative cities, with 10 cities of lifelong learning and schools that embed UNESCO’s values of peace, respect and understanding.
Seema Malhotra
I am conscious of time, so I will not give way. My constituency includes schools that embed UNESCO’s values. These UNESCO designations, as we have heard, cover 170 of our constituencies and are a testament to the UK’s rich heritage and global outlook.
I could not be more delighted that Aberystwyth has joined the UNESCO creative cities network as a city of literature, becoming the first ever Welsh creative city. This celebrates its centuries-old literary tradition and vibrant bilingual cultural scene, so we congratulate the people of Aberystwyth. I also congratulate the Isle of Arran on its recent designation as a UNESCO global geopark. Often referred to as Scotland in miniature, this recognition celebrates Arran’s outstanding geological heritage. Alongside these UNESCO designations, our scientists, experts, institutions and universities are working with UNESCO to build the UK’s trust, attractiveness and reputation on the world stage.
A national strategy for UNESCO was discussed today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire on his work on the APPG and his continuing work as he listens further to Members about the need for sites in their areas. Heritage is a devolved policy area, and a number of strategy documents cover world heritage. At the UK level, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport takes a strategic approach to a range of world heritage policies, including the development of sites and engagement with UNESCO. The UK sites range considerably in size and type, and the challenges they face are often unique. The DCMS works closely with the world heritage site co-ordinators and agencies across the UK to monitor the condition of sites and update UNESCO as and when required, to ensure that a site’s outstanding value and world heritage status are maintained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested that Stoke-on-Trent might become a creative city. I encourage her to speak to the UK national commission, which manages the process. Applications open every two years with the next one at the end of 2026.
On soft power, I agree that UNESCO membership allows the UK to project its strengths in education, science and culture across the world. That is an extremely important part of reinforcing our reputation as a trusted thought leader. I am pleased we participate in programmes and committees, including the intergovernmental oceanographic commission and the international hydro- logical programme, as well as networks such as UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN.
Climate threats were mentioned a couple of times. DCMS and the UK national commission for UNESCO recently finished a pilot project to look at data and decision making in relation to climate change at UNESCO heritage sites. The learnings, the tools and the templates will be made available free of charge later this year.
Finally, I will make a small point about education. It is important to share local history. This is already a compulsory part of the national curriculum. In reforming the curriculum, we are clear that all pupils should have a robust understanding of our nation’s history. We will continue to include it and strengthen it in the national curriculum and the subject content of qualifications.
As UNESCO marks 80 years since its founding in London, its mission to build peace through education, science, culture and communication is as vital as ever. The UK remains committed to that mission and will work with partners to ensure that UNESCO reforms and delivers for today’s world.
Jonathan Davies
It is the greatest pleasure of my professional life to be the MP for Mid Derbyshire. That is particularly true today, when we have been taken on a magical mystery tour of the best places across the UK and further afield. I thank colleagues for bringing their insight, knowledge, experience and passion for their communities to the debate. It is through those sites and the values of UNESCO that we understand what it means to be a human being. That has sat very much front and centre of the debate today.
I am sure the Minister has heard that passion and I hope she has seen that the opportunities that these sites offer and UNESCO’s values cut across the Government’s five missions. By joining up our understanding of what these sites offer across Government Departments gives an opportunity to maximise their role in driving the national renewal that our country desperately needs.
I thank World Heritage UK, which represents all the sites in the UK, for its services, and particularly its president Chris Blandford OBE, who is in the Public Gallery today. My final comment is that we have a very active all-party parliamentary group for UNESCO world heritage sites in the UK, and I hope to see colleagues at one of its meetings in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and then the Minister to respond.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am probably not the only Member who has noticed that this Chamber seems as cold as a butcher’s fridge. It was the same yesterday. Have you had any indication when the heating might be turned on?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you very much for that point. I am sure we will be able to take it up with the House authorities.
I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of infrastructure on development in Cramlington and Killingworth constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My constituency was newly formed at the last general election and is made up of parts of south-east Northumberland, north and north-west North Tyneside and villages to the north of Newcastle. The area has seen significant housing growth in the last 10 to 15 years, providing much-needed homes and opportunities for the area, with further development in current local plans. While that housing growth brings opportunities for growth and jobs, it also brings challenges. One such challenge is the sustainability of existing infrastructure and the urgent need for investment in it.
I will set out how one piece of infrastructure at the heart of my constituency is holding back my area and the entire region. It is stifling growth and development and directly impacting the ability of a number of local councils to deliver on two key Government priorities: delivering growth and delivering the homes that we need.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend recognises that the situation on the Moor Farm roundabout has an impact on North Tyneside and south-east Northumberland, and right up to the Scottish Borders. We are all very much concerned about what is happening in that area because it is of the utmost importance for economic regeneration.
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend has been working closely with me on seeking the upgrades that I will be talking about, so I appreciate his intervention.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady and understand exactly her frustration in relation to having infrastructure in place. In my constituency we have been pursuing the Ballynahinch bypass for over 35 years—15 of which I have been pursuing it as an MP. We now finally have a date, but such situations hold back development and housing potential, and affect businesses in the short term. Does the hon. Lady agree that such things need to move much more quickly, otherwise they will be the death knell for the towns that we all represent?
Emma Foody
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The infrastructure in my constituency that I am talking about—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) highlighted—is the Moor Farm roundabout; hon. Members will be aware that barely a day goes by when I do not talk about it. I have also met Transport Ministers and I continue to lobby for the much-needed upgrades to be progressed through the road investment strategy.
As has been mentioned already, however, this issue goes far beyond the road network and beyond my area; it affects the entire north-east region. That is why I have called for this debate with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as the answering Department, because it is about housing, local plans and devolution. It is also critical to several councils in the north-east.
I will set out the context of the existing infrastructure at Moor Farm. This roundabout is a major strategic six-armed roundabout. It links the A19, A1 and A189. Sitting at the south of Northumberland on the border with North Tyneside, it is heavily congested and well used. It is a key gateway for the region and the link between Newcastle International airport and the ports of Blyth and Tyne. It is the key growth corridor for south-east Northumberland.
There is significant congestion at Moor Farm roundabout, which causes misery to local residents. We frequently see substantial delays, especially as a result of accidents on or near it. In recent weeks, we have seen delays of hours due to incidents that are far too frequent. The Department for Transport’s own statistics show that between 2021 and 2024, there was an 85% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm and 36% increase in delays southwards. The north-east local transport plan states that Moor Farm generates congestion, worsens air quality and results in unreliable journey times. However, this is not a debate on the transport elements of Moor Farm—hon. Members can go back to my previous Westminster Hall debate for that.
In this debate, I want to talk about how the situation at Moor Farm is impacting growth and development across the region in the short and long term. Moor Farm is a blocker to growth and a blocker to opportunity. It is preventing business expansion, causing investment to be delayed or withdrawn, costing jobs and hampering growth. It is putting at risk not only existing development sites for employment and housing in Northumberland and North Tyneside, but the ability for those councils to update their local plans and meet the housing need.
Since being elected, I have met National Highways on several occasions. In the last few weeks, I have written again to the chief executive. Last week, I met regional representatives in Parliament, and I have met the North East Mayor and the roads Minister. The aim of this debate is to discuss the impact that National Highways and the situation at Moor Farm are now having on the ability to determine planning applications—whether for businesses to grow or for housing—across my constituency and beyond.
The Minister will know that as a statutory consultee, National Highways can issue holding recommendations on planning applications, in effect preventing them from moving forward. In response to my written question, it has been confirmed that there are at least four holding objections on applications for housing and business development as a direct result of the Moor Farm roundabout. Not only that, but applicants are delaying or redirecting their investment because they have been told that National Highways would apply a holding objection, so there is a far greater lost opportunity cost. I know from speaking to developers, businesses and the community that investment has not been brought forward because of concerns that planning will be refused or held back as a result of holding objections or unrealistic mitigations.
I will give some examples. The Port of Blyth sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington. He and I recently met representatives of the port who informed us that their key near-port site for inward investment is at West Hartford in my constituency, the largest remaining strategic employment site in the whole of Northumberland. It is 10 minutes from the Port of Blyth’s main terminals and there is a firm interest in developing the site.
This is a key regional stakeholder seeking to invest nearly 2,000 jobs and £400 million in my community, but National Highways has indicated that it would object because of Moor Farm, despite traffic impact assessment modelling indicating that the proposal would add one queuing vehicle during the morning peak rush hour and three in the afternoon. National Highways’ objection is simply not reasonable or proportionate, but should it apply a holding objection, there is little that could be done locally due to its role. The Port of Blyth has rightly called for a more pragmatic cost-benefit approach.
That is just one example. The North East combined authority estimates that within a 5-mile radius of Moor Farm there is commercial development with the potential to support more than 11,000 jobs at risk of being held back due the constraints of the roundabout. Another local developer has spoken of sites—one of £500 million in gross development value and one of £1 billion in gross development value—that are in current adopted local plans but are being held up because of the roundabout. I have been told that this has meant 18 months to two and a half years of additional modelling and surveys, but still they have not been able to proceed. One developer described this as a
“near endless loop of present information, National Highways’ consultants review, then respond, rinse and repeat”.
That has real-world impacts. A separate developer on an existing site warned that they may have to remove apprentice roles and other jobs if the issue is not resolved, depriving the community of local opportunities and impacting the local supply chain. That development is already baked into the housing delivery numbers but cannot move forward. Another developer explained that they might not suggest future viable sites as a direct result of expected objections from National Highways, reducing their work and footprint in the area.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution regarding our area. One of the main issues for Blyth and Ashington is the £10 billion investment in a new data centre that will be just along the road from Moor Farm roundabout. The idea is to create tens of thousands of jobs in a cluster in and around that data centre. If we cannot resolve this problem at Moor Farm roundabout, areas such as mine in Blyth and Ashington are going to suffer greatly economically, regardless of whether the Government say, “Okay, you can have the finances in 2030 or 2031.” How much could we lose between now and then if we cannot overcome this ridiculous impasse?
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the risk to opportunity and the future of our region if we cannot resolve this matter. Another developer warned that
“We are very reluctant to commit to the significant expenditure to bring schemes forward until we have more certainty regarding Moor Farm and whether it will hold up delivery”.
This risks a nightmare situation where no business or housing development can move forward, potentially for years to come. Those missed opportunities are jobs and homes for local people that may be invested in elsewhere, or indeed not at all. Local people across my constituency will pay the price in missed opportunities for jobs and homes.
The Minister does not need to take my word for it; Northumberland county council informed me:
“A number of major planning applications across South East Northumberland cannot be determined due to National Highways’ concerns on the impact at Moor Farm”.
North Tyneside council stated:
“Without investment in this critical infrastructure, there is a risk that no land can be brought forward for housing or employment purposes without having a significant and unacceptable detrimental impact”.
The council added:
“Future growth will most likely be stymied”.
The elected Mayor of North Tyneside, Karen Clark, stated:
“There is a very real risk that we see only limited growth and will not…be able to meet our future housing requirements or secure inward investment.”
The North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, said:
“If we don’t see the upgrade, economic growth in the North East, at a time when there is great momentum in the region, could be held back”.
The North East combined authority has warned:
“Lack of investment at this junction is holding back growth and our ambitions for the North East, as well as making it more difficult to meet the challenging housing targets set by the government”.
This is a crucial issue for local authorities when they are updating their local plans. If we see sites that are allocated in current local plans being held up or withdrawn due to the situation at Moor Farm—large sections of the region that cannot be developed in any way—how can councils meet the Government’s requirements to update their local plans? I know that the Minister will see the significance of this issue for delivering on two of the Government’s pillars of the plan for change: sustained growth and homes, both of which are at risk as a result of the situation at Moor Farm roundabout.
It is not just local authorities and public bodies that have raised their concerns. The North East chamber of commerce informed me:
“Moor Farm roundabout is not just an inconvenience—it is a brake on sustainable growth, investment and opportunity. For our region to fulfil its potential, we must act now to deliver the infrastructure enabling—not hindering—opportunity.”
Newcastle International airport, a key regional stakeholder, added:
“The upgrades are vital to ensure the free flow of freight vehicles along a key artery for the region which connects the major ports”.
I am also concerned that the extent of the issue is expanding down the A19 into North Tyneside, with National Highways again issuing holding directions further down the network. Those are being applied against sites in North Tyneside council’s existing local plan: approved sites are being held up.
Frankly, the situation in Moor Farm should have been addressed many years ago, long before it got to this point. We now see the result of that lack of investment, and we cannot simply allow the situation to continue. It is as much an issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as it is for the Department for Transport. We need a cross-Government approach to unblock this blocker to growth, development and investment.
I have spoken about the challenges due to existing infrastructure, but I hope that the Minister might indulge me. Last year I held a debate, to which he kindly responded, on the adoption of new estates and the importance of infrastructure in those developments. As I have mentioned, I have a significant number of new and unadopted estates across my constituency, and the Minister will be aware that I have surveyed people who live on those estates about their experiences. I have shared with him previously their frustrations about the lack of delivery and accountability for infrastructure on unadopted estates. Residents should not be left for year after year paying estate management fees on unfinished estates, without any certainty from developers and councils about the adoption of those estates. I know that the Minister continues to work on that. If he is unable to speak about it today, perhaps he could write to me with an update on action on the issue.
I will return to the main thrust of my speech. The Government have ambitious missions to deliver growth and build the houses that our country needs. Right now, the situation at Moor Farm is a blocker, causing misery and holding back investment. I recognise, of course, that the decision on the upgrade to the roundabout will be taken by the Department for Transport. I assure the Minister—as will the DFT—that I am very much on the case with that. The issue not only impacts the road network; while the congestion causes misery for people across my constituency, the infrastructure is critical to a number of councils in the north-east, and to the ability to meet the Government’s ambitions for growth and housing.
How can the Minister’s Department work with National Highways, in its role as a statutory consultee, to facilitate and support investment, rather than using holding directions, especially when they put at risk the Department’s priorities? If National Highways continues to apply holding objections, and two local plans are potentially unsustainable, how can local authorities deliver on housing targets? Where critical pieces of infrastructure are on the strategic road network and therefore not under local authority control, how is the Ministry engaging to resolve issues?
The Government are rightly focused on devolution. The north-east growth plan and devolution deal both reference Moor Farm and upgrades, and the local transport plan sets out how crucial it is to the region. In supporting devolution, how can the Minister’s Department empower this agenda in my region? Will the Minister meet me, the Department for Transport and National Highways to see how we can work together on this vital issue?
I know that the Minister is committed to delivering the housing that our country needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington and I are here today to help secure growth, jobs and investment, not only in my constituency but across the north-east. As we have heard, Moor Farm roundabout is a key blocker to growth and development. Addressing it requires a joined-up approach across Government to remove the barrier and unleash the potential in my community and across the region. If we are to deliver the change that we were elected to deliver, turbocharge growth in the north-east and empower the region, delivering the upgrade and removing that barrier is essential. I hope that the Minister can join me in the mission to deliver this crucial change.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I remind hon. Members, as I always do at the outset of my remarks, that due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I am unable to comment on individual local plans, planning applications or, for that matter, how individual local planning authorities—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth—may interpret national planning policy.
As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, it is also the case that a number of the specific issues she raised are the sole responsibility of the Department for Transport. I understand from DFT officials that proposals in respect of Moor Farm roundabout are being considered by National Highways as part of the road investment strategy pipeline. While my Department and the DFT obviously work closely together on all aspects of legislation, policy and guidance concerning shared priorities, my hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way on those specific proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, my ministerial colleagues in the DFT are aware of her strongly held views on the matter, not least as a result of the June Westminster Hall debate that she secured on it, but I will ensure that the points that she has made today are drawn to their attention. I will seek to respond as best I can in the time available to the various matters and questions that she raised, in so far as they fall within my responsibilities.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of local development plans. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. Importantly, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure and identify what infrastructure is required and how it might be funded and brought forward. This aspect of a plan, including its relationship with housing, is publicly examined by an independent inspector to determine whether a local plan is sound and can be adopted. Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. It is precisely because up-to-date local plans are integral to the functioning of our planning system that we are determined to drive local plans to adoption, and progress towards our ambition of achieving universal plan coverage, as quickly as possible.
Although I appreciate that all that does not offer any immediate solution to the transport infrastructure challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend, increased local plan coverage will support better land use and transport planning. I understand that North Tyneside council is progressing a plan in the existing plan-making system and intends to submit by December 2026, and that Northumberland county council intends to prepare a new plan once the new plan-making system commences. I know that my hon. Friend will do whatever she can to support both authorities with progressing their plan-making efforts, and officials from my Department would be happy to meet officers at Northumberland and North Tyneside councils to discuss any specific issues of concern they have in respect of their plan-making activities.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. She drew particular attention to the use of holding directions. The Government recognise that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided are not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. That said, the role of statutory consultees in the planning system is important. When they engage and are engaged effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, safety, heritage and transport issues.
The Government are determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system, to facilitate confident and timely decision making. To that end, we have this very day published a consultation document on reforms to the system. The objective of the proposals outlined in that document is to ensure that statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so. If taken forward, the reforms would mean that bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England would need to consider up to 40% fewer applications. That would mean the saving of time and effort for both house builders and councils. This is an important step towards a faster, more efficient planning system that supports housing delivery.
My hon. Friend asked what my Department is doing to boost growth and advance devolution in the north-east. She will know that local leadership and local growth plans, such as the north-east growth plan, are the cornerstone of this Government’s place-based approach to unlocking economic growth. The interventions and investments identified through those plans are focused on addressing key barriers to growth and building on existing strengths and local assets, such as those she mentioned.
Our shared transport priority recognises the need to improve transport connectivity and unlock housing development and commercial activity by ensuring that new development is supported by the public transport network and that pinch points on the road network are addressed.
Ian Lavery
The reality here is quite simple. It is about transport infrastructure versus economic growth. If we cannot get the transport infrastructure right, there is an impact on the potential for economic growth and tens of thousands of jobs in North Tyneside and Northumberland; we will not see any growth in our local economies. Frankly, we cannot afford to allow that to happen. We ask you, Minister—I beg you—to have a look at the impasse. Why is it happening at Moor Farm roundabout when those such as Testo’s roundabout and the Silverlink roundabout, and the roundabouts down the A19 and the Spine Road, have all been given the right investment? We are waiting on something to allow us to develop our areas for our people.
Matthew Pennycook
I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not for me, as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, to make determinations on individual transport projects that are being considered through the road investment strategy pipeline. My Department has additional capital funds of its own to deploy for land and infrastructure in respect of the new national housing delivery fund. That will be part of the integrated settlement for the Mayor of the North East to consider but, in this instance, consideration is being taken forward by the DFT as part of the road investment strategy pipeline, as I said. I am giving my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington and for Cramlington and Killingworth my perspective as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as to how the planning system in the round considers such matters.
The frameworks I was referring to will help to attract public and private investment, unlocking opportunities for people and business across the region. As the North East takes its plan forward, it should feel empowered to use the plan and our shared priorities as the basis for engaging with the Government, the DFT in particular, and other key partners in the region. The plans are backed by £1.79 billion for the North East combined authority from the transport for city regions funding for 2027-28 through to 2031-32, on top of the wider funding from the city region sustainable transport settlements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth reiterated her long-standing concerns about the various problems associated with freehold estates. She and I have discussed the matter numerous times. We have had debates on the subject and the House considered the issue in some detail recently, on 30 October, so I do not intend to restate the Government’s position in its entirety. Suffice it to say that we remain fully committed to protecting residential freeholders on such estates from unfair charges and to ending the injustice of fleecehold entirely by reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. As we have promised, we will consult on these matters before the end of the year, and my hon. Friend and her constituents can feed into our proposals at that point. We remain on track to bring those consultations forward.
I commend my hon. Friend again for securing the debate. I thank her, as ever, for the clarity with which she made her arguments and in particular demonstrated the link, which we absolutely acknowledge, between strategic infrastructure and housing delivery, and for the passion with which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington spoke in favour of the specific project that they want to see come forward. I emphasise once again that the Government are seeking to drive improvements across the whole system to prevent similar issues in future and to unlock development.
I note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on the specific infrastructure projects that she referenced. As I made clear at the start, I have already had a conversation with the relevant Ministers in the DFT, but I will draw their attention to the remarks made today and our Department will continue to engage with the DFT on these and other projects where housing considerations are pertinent.
I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend to ensure that the changes that the Government have made already, along with those still to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington—and I thank her for bringing these matters to the House’s attention today.
Question put and agreed to.
Land Use Change: Food Security
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue, which goes to the heart of our national interest. When I submitted my bid for the debate, little did I know that it would take place on a day on which there were members of the farming community out on Parliament Square with their tractors, with what we called a muck spreader where I was brought up, on a farm, but others might call a slurry tanker, and even with livestock. That is testament to the determination of the farming community to make sure their voice continues to be heard in this place.
In simple terms, this debate is about what we choose to do with the land beneath our feet. If we keep tarmacking and concreting over our fields, we should not be surprised if one day we find ourselves asking a basic question: “Where is our food going to come from?” We must not become a country that produces some of the finest produce in the world, to the highest standard, and yet becomes dependent on imports of lower grade, substandard produce. Domestic food security is national security, and it must be protected.
It is one of the principal duties of any Government to ensure that their people have access to sufficient safe, affordable and nutritious food. As Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said, food security is national security. If we cannot feed ourselves, we are vulnerable—economically, strategically and in the choices available to us as a country.
I sought this debate because of what is happening in my constituency, which I believe is a small version of what is happening right across the country. We face proposals for major development on open green spaces and on our farms—land that local people quite reasonably understand to be green belt, farmland and open countryside. These are not blank spaces on a map; they are working fields, grazing land and green buffers between communities. They prevent urban sprawl and prevent areas such as mine from simply being swallowed up into a suburb of a greater Birmingham. I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive.
In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods. Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade.
At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already.
While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices.
Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural. More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. The issue about the number of farms above the £1.5 million mark is that 30% of British farms made no money last year. West Dorset farmers are responsible for maintaining 70% of the land. That number will only decrease as they are forced to carve up their assets to pay these bills.
Wendy Morton
That is exactly the point. Many farming families—often the hill farmers, in particular, but the arable farmers too—struggle. The last couple of years have been really difficult for many farmers. If they have one bad year, it is very hard for them to recover the next year. They are working against so many factors over which they have no control, weather being one of them. It is really important that, in all our deliberations, we recognise that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. The value of a farm depends on where it is are based, but farmers do not see that money, because they are—I know this phrase is often used—asset rich and cash poor, so families are put in the awful situation of potentially having to sell off parts of their family farm to pay these taxes. However, they need economies of scale to make farming work, so quite often they are looking after their farm and also renting areas from other farms to make sure that the books balance.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a really important point, setting out yet again the challenges that farmers face. I am a farmer’s daughter; my dad was a farm worker for many years. We lived on a farm; we grew up in a tied cottage. That sort of farm is often very different from the massive farms in parts of the country where there is more arable land rather than land for hill farmers. Every farm is unique—every farm is different—but many of the challenges that farms face are very similar.
All of this comes at a time when family farm businesses are under unprecedented pressure. We have talked about the costs, but input costs have risen by more than 40% since 2015. Fertiliser is up by nearly 40%, feed by over a quarter and energy by more than a third. National Farmers’ Union surveys show confidence among farmers at its lowest recorded level. Two thirds expect profits to fall, and nearly half plan to reduce investment.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that that depleted confidence comes against the backdrop of all the pressures that she has discussed, including the pressures from the Government to increase house building, and the opportunity that farmers see to replace arable or pastoral farming with a new cash crop in the form of solar, and that ultimately, depletion of morale is probably the worst affliction on the farming community, because, regardless of other considerations, there is a risk that there comes a point when most farmers say, “We just can’t do this any more”?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Sadly, suicide is very high among the farming community, which is another indicator of the many pressures that our farms are facing. I return to the point that I do not think that we appreciate our farms, farmers or farming communities enough in this place. That is the backdrop that some of us are fighting against. To introduce a new tax burden at this moment risks accelerating the loss of domestic production. If we are serious about food security, it is exactly the wrong time to treat a farm as if it were simply an asset to be broken up.
I will return to what is happening locally. At Stonnall Road in Aldridge, there is an outline planning application for around 355 houses on a site that we have always understood to be green belt—a vital green buffer for the village. Hundreds of residents have already backed my petition against the development. They are not opposed to housing, but they struggle to see why that productive land—well-used green space—has suddenly become the soft target, when brownfield sites exist in Walsall and, indeed, Birmingham city centre. Surely that is where we should be doing much more regeneration work.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is making an important speech, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. She will understand, as we all do, that the current planning system does not resolve these issues very effectively. She will also know that the previous Government had plans to develop a land use framework, and that was announced three or four years ago. Why does she think that the previous Government did not bring that framework forward?
Wendy Morton
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are some things that we agree on and others that we do not. However, I have long campaigned against building on the green belt—on our green fields. Even during our time in government, there were certain aspects of planning that I spoke out about—those who were here at the time of the last Government will probably remember that—and, believe me, I will continue to do so, because I feel so passionately about it.
Over on Chester Road in Streetly, another eight or nine hectares in my constituency—again, green belt and on the edge of the built-up area—are now being described as grey belt and suggested for the local plan. It raises the same concerns: what happens to our fields? What happens to local food production? What happens to roads, GP access and school places? What does it mean when this pattern is repeated across the country? Chipping away at the edges of green space means altering the balance between built land and productive land, and once that balance tips, it is very difficult to recover.
The green belt is not perfect, but it has achieved two essential things: it constrains sprawl around major urban areas, and it provides a degree of protection for farmland and green spaces. To many communities, the introduction of grey belt feels like an attempt to weaken those protections by stealth, because once land is marked as “grey” rather than “green”, the presumption shifts, and with it, the likelihood of development.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In relation to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the fundamental problem is that although successive Governments have said, “We favour brownfield,” there is not sufficient push behind it. In my constituency, we are legally driven to accept every application on its own merits. Applications are made almost exclusively for greenfield sites, rather than brownfield ones. We have to approve them, because we have no legal means by which to turn them down. That is the essential problem, and I do not think that it has been addressed in the new legislation. There is not enough push for local authorities to promote brownfield sites over greenfield ones.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We talk about a brownfield-first approach, and it can work. We saw examples of it in the west midlands under the leadership of the former mayor, Andy Street. Developments such as those on the Caparo and Harvestime sites show that it can be done, but it needs funding to help level the playing field, so that brownfield is as attractive to developers as greenfield sites. It can be done, but it requires the Government to put money into brownfield remediation and to properly focus it.
Local authorities feel huge pressure at the moment, but brownfield sites, some of them derelict for decades, remain untouched. It is crazy. No one is arguing that the green belt can never change, but there must be a high bar, genuine scrutiny and clear honesty about what is being sacrificed. Above all, we should start with a genuine, not rhetorical, commitment to brownfield first. Farmers also tell me that they face conflicting pressures from all sides. Tree-planting targets, rewetting proposals, biodiversity applications—none of those aims is wrong, but when piled on top of housing allocations and complicated tax changes, they steadily squeeze the land available for food production.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The right hon. Lady has talked a lot about housing and development infringement upon the green belt. An issue in my area, around the village of Scotton, is the proposal for a huge solar farm. While I completely agree and want to see that the targets and net zero are reached, does the right hon. Lady agree that rather than using prime agricultural land, we should be looking at the roofs of distribution warehousing and other alternatives first?
Wendy Morton
I do. The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. There are so many areas where we should be putting solar panels. I despair when I drive down the M40 around the west midlands and see field after field full of solar panels. I can understand why a farmer may want to go down the diversification route—because it helps to balance the books—but there are surely better sites such as rooftops and garage tops. Why are we not being a little more creative in what we are doing?
Edward Morello
I will happily answer the question, drawing on my experience in solar: it is because the amount of money for the export does not make rooftop solar viable on a commercial scale. To provide the simplest numbers: it costs 50p per unit to put it on ground mount, about £1 per unit to put it on rooftop and £1.50 to put it on carports. Unless we increase the export value to 12p to 15p per unit, it will never stack up. That is why.
Wendy Morton
I appreciate a bit of knowledge in Westminster Hall, but the point remains that we still need to be more creative in where we put our solar panels. Maybe they could be put on larger rooftop spaces, and we often talk about brownfield and urban sites; to go straight for productive green fields is just total madness. There are real concerns about proposals that would give Natural England sweeping compulsory purchase powers that could see productive farmland acquired for environmental offsetting. If that goes ahead, the loss of farmland could become permanent and unchallengeable. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at those proposals.
Flooding is another consequence that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot and must not ignore. Fields at Stonnall Road in my constituency and elsewhere do not only grow crops or support livestock; they also absorb water. They drain slowly and hold back surface run-off. If we replace them with bricks, concrete, tarmac and driveways there will be nowhere for the water to go. We saw this recently with the heavy rain this weekend causing flooding more quickly because the natural buffers have been reduced. Every time it happens, local people ask the same question: why were those fields built on?
Natural flood management relies on soil, hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands, yet that is rarely at the forefront of planning decisions. If we are serious about preventing flooding, we must consider the cumulative impact of losing those natural soakaways. How is DEFRA working with the Environment Agency and local planning authorities to ensure that the flood risk from losing open land is properly accounted for before permissions are given?
I do not wish to challenge your timings, Dr Murrison, so I will start to draw this all together. First, food production must be treated as a strategic priority. Departments should not be signing off major land use decisions without asking the basic question: what does this mean for our ability to grow food and feed our nation? The NFU is absolutely right to call for food security impact assessments on all relevant policies. We have impact tests for almost everything else, and it is extraordinary that food security is not one of them.
Secondly, we need a firm and practical brownfield first approach. That may require investment to remediate sites, improve infrastructure or bring land back into productive use, but the alternative is the steady, irreversible erosion of farmland. Thirdly, the Government should revisit the family farm tax that introduces a new burden and risks forcing families to break up their farms and sell them to developers, which is surely directly at odds with any credible food security strategy.
Fourthly, Ministers must halt the weakening of green-belt protections, including through the grey belt. Our communities need confidence that national policy is not quietly tilting the scales against them. In view of today’s ministerial written statement, my communities want to feel they and our councils still have a voice in planning decisions.
Finally, we need a coherent national land use framework that recognises how housing, farming, environment, energy and flood management overlap. We cannot allow one Department to encourage woodland creation on productive fields, while another encourages development on the next field. Joined-up thinking is not a slogan; it is a necessity.
To return to where I began, land use is about choices. In Aldridge-Brownhills, those choices can be seen from our front doors. We know that when farmland disappears, it does not return. We know that if we keep building over productive land, we will become more reliant on food imports and more exposed to global shocks. Food security is not an abstract concept; it is about whether this country can feed itself at a price that people can afford. If we care about that—and we should—we must take seriously the land that makes that possible.
I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in my constituency and many others. Protecting farmland, resisting unnecessary encroachment on the green belt and supporting farming families are not about nostalgia—far from it; they are practical steps towards a secure and resilient food system. If we get those choices and decisions right, we can deliver the homes we need and safeguard our ability to produce food. If we get them wrong, the consequences will be felt for generations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.
My constituency consists of many acres of high-quality farmland. I am proud to be a Labour MP representing such a vibrant rural community with farming at its core. I hope the Minister is aware of some of the specific challenges in my county. It is no surprise that it easy to get solar panels into the ground in Norfolk, which is very flat and sandy; we are likely to be near good grid connections as well. We are seeing more than our fair share of solar farm applications. Solar farms are eyeing up our prime farmland. For example, the High Grove application in my constituency, if approved, would see a third of that site on best and most versatile land and 20% on grade 2 and above. At 4,000 acres, it would be one of the largest solar farms in the UK. Anyone can do the maths about the amount of grade 2 agricultural land that would be lost.
John Milne
In my constituency of Horsham, the peaceful rural village of Cowfold has experienced a bewildering surge of applications for green energy projects. Locals could be forgiven for thinking that the industrial revolution has arrived a couple of hundred years late. Why is that happening? I think the point the hon. Member is making is that it is all about the scarcity of connections to the national grid. Does he agree that we need a coherent national strategy for land use that, crucially, carries weight in planning applications? Right now, we are victims in a wild west of market-driven developments.
Terry Jermy
I agree. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made earlier. That is a long overdue measure on a long list forgotten under the previous Government, but it is essential.
I am sure we will be reminded that, overall, only a very small proportion of solar is to take up agricultural land. I understand that and I fully accept it. What I am particularly concerned about is the use of grade 2 and above agricultural land. The official statistics will inevitably include the lowest quality agricultural land—we have plenty of that in Norfolk as well—but grade 2 and above is precious, and we need to do far more to protect it. We simply cannot improve energy security but accept worsening food security. There cannot be a trade-off: we need both.
There is three times more grade 5 agricultural land in the UK than grade 1 land, yet solar installations occupy a staggering 22 times more grade 1 than grade 5. That is of huge concern. We are already seeing longer and hotter summers, particularly in Norfolk, and there are challenges for farmers; irrigation is needed more frequently, adding to costs, and more land is becoming unviable for food production as a result of climate change.
Let me be clear: I am not against the use of solar panels, and I back the Government’s ambitious goals to achieve net zero by 2050. Absolutely nobody would thank the Government for not doing everything they can to ensure the power is there to keep the lights on. The complete lack of action by the last Conservative Government on energy security has left us dangerously exposed—but food security is also important. The UK already imports a staggering 46% of its food. We grow only 15% of our own fruit and 53% of our own vegetables, making us one of the world’s largest food importers. A recent Government Food Security report found that we are 63% self-sufficient, down from 95% just 50 years ago. I appreciate that there are certain types of food we cannot grow and we need to look abroad for them, but why are we importing 2 million metric tonnes of potatoes annually?
A recent report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, found that DEFRA has no effective system of oversight for border checks, with inadequate and sometimes even banned products passing into the UK. The president of the NFU also believes the UK is not prepared to feed itself in a crisis, with specific reference to the consequences of the current climate crisis.
I am always in danger, when talking about food security, of channelling my predecessor and saying, “That is a disgrace!” but we are importing so much food, I dare say she might have had a point. I hope the Minister appreciates the concerns in places such as Norfolk about too much high-quality farmland being used, and agrees that we cannot trade energy security for worsening food security.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.
British farmers are the best in the world. They are the bastions of the countryside and our rural way of life, and the backbone of our food system. If we lose our farms, we lose our food security, and if we lose our food security, we lose our national security and become vulnerable to volatile global markets and reliant on more foreign inputs.
Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, mainly productive small family farms, and I want to keep it that way, but many farmers I have spoken to feel under assault, as they face increasing and competing demands for their land. Some are likely to give up farming altogether. It is therefore not surprising, but nevertheless worrying, that DEFRA’s land use framework consultation stated that 14% of England’s agricultural land could be reduced or totally lost to food production by 2050. As UK food security falls and global instability increases, the land use framework must ensure future food resilience.
Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy called for a focus on food production and nature recovery. Those demands can work side by side. Many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton already champion ecology and nature-friendly methods. To give a few examples, the Lang Partnership in Curry Rivel has done that for more than 30 years, Upton Bridge farm near Long Sutton farms regeneratively, and Higher farm near Castle Cary has planted more than 3,000 trees, sequestering 400 tonnes of carbon and increasing biodiversity by 25% since 2023. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must financially support farmers to use sustainable, environmentally friendly methods and encourage others to do so. That is why we will properly fund the farming budget, with an additional £1 billion a year.
Meanwhile, half of UK farmers do not understand DEFRA’s vision for farming, and it is easy to see why. With the new sustainable farming incentive not yet available and higher-tier schemes open to only a handful, many farmers have been left in limbo. Over 5,800 countryside stewardship agreements were due to end in December, and although they have been given a short 12-month reprieve, that is far too late for many farmers who were forced to make the decision to destroy years of environmental investment because they did not know what was going to happen.
Those projects have delivered biodiversity, flood resilience and nature restoration for decades. If they are not available, farmers will be denied the opportunity to fulfil their crucial role of achieving a more sustainable and resilient food system. The spring spending review cut DEFRA’s budget by 2.3% annually in real terms, including a £100 million cut to the farming budget. The Liberal Democrats believe that such cuts risk doing serious harm to the environment, rural economies, farming communities and food security.
We have already seen a long-term contraction in the UK dairy industry. The number of UK dairy farms has fallen by more than 30% since 2015, while the national herd has dropped by nearly 90,000 dairy cows. The recent drop in farm-gate milk prices is yet another example of the mounting pressure threatening dairy farmers’ ability to make a living at all.
In response, I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill to urge the Government to back and protect our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers deserve fairness in the supply chain, so the Government must regulate it properly. In the Bill, I have called for the Secretary of State to ensure that detrimental trade deals do not cause harm to our farmers, and to enforce point-of-origin labelling on dairy products. The public must know the provenance of their food so that they can make the right choice and are not duped into buying products purporting to be British. I have also called for the Secretary of State to give the Groceries Code Adjudicator teeth and to combine it with a dairy supply chain adjudicator so there are proper enforcement powers.
Our agricultural sector needs fairness, not financial whiplash, and a Government who back it. Instead, it is now facing the impact of the family farm tax and the risks that poses to national food security. The Government have claimed that the policy will impact “only” 27% of farms, but NFU research has shown that 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million threshold. Analysis shows that an inheritance tax bill based on a £1 million threshold, even spread over 10 years, would far exceed the average return of a medium-sized farm and absorb most earnings from larger farms.
An example of that is Paul and Ruth Kimber, who farm near Charlton Musgrove. They told me that their family have farmed there for 350 years, but they could be the ones who close their farm gates for the very last time. If the policy does not change, many farms will be forced to sell land and other assets to pay the tax. A recent Liberal Democrat freedom of information request uncovered the fact that the Government looked at changing course on this earlier this year. On behalf of farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country, I strongly urge the Government to look at it once more. Otherwise, they will put our food security at risk.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so hon. Members need to be aware of time. I am sure that Chris Hinchliff will be an exemplar.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my employment by CPRE before my election to Parliament. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.
There are fair questions to answer about the effectiveness of planning policies that are supposed to protect our best farmland. They are currently failing far too often, but this is not a new problem, and the Tory record of preserving agricultural land for our food security is, I am afraid, rather shaky. In the 12 years from 2010, we lost more than 14,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to development.
Having listened to Conservative Members speak on this issue many times, I suspect that the debate today is really something of a proxy war. They use the issue of food security as a smokescreen for the fact that they oppose the aesthetic impacts of turning large swathes of our countryside into industrialised landscapes under steel and glass, surrounded by wire fencing and surveillance cameras. I would encourage them to be brave and defend beauty on its own terms.
Wendy Morton
I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman about the rationale for this debate. I spoke about food security in the last Parliament, and I gently say that his interpretation of this debate does not resonate with mine.
Chris Hinchliff
That is a very fair intervention—I take the point. Indeed, the right hon. Member made some powerful arguments about the beauty of our countryside, and we should be up front about the fact that those aesthetic values are worth fighting for—perhaps I should have put it like that. I do not think my hon. Friends on the Government Benches should scorn that argument either, as protecting the beauty of Britain’s countryside for all our citizens is a proud part of Labour’s heritage. From creating national parks that steward our best landscapes for future generations to launching national trails that are enjoyed by millions and, yes, even establishing the green belt, the Labour movement has always yearned for bread and roses too.
Returning to food security, it has been far too long since we have taken the issue seriously. We have grown complacent in the surety that, as a rich nation, we can import all we want and need. With the worsening climate emergency, however, it would now be entirely unwise to assume that we can continue to rely on those supply chains—when Valencia next floods, we will remember that to our cost—or to step back from trying to achieve net zero. The threat of flooding from climate change to so much of our best agricultural land is too great for that to make any sense, with 95% of grade 1 land in the east of England already at risk of flooding.
We must urgently update our agricultural land classification. The system we use to determine potential farmland productivity is desperately out of date. It uses rainfall data from 1941 to 1970 and temperature measurements from 1961 to 1980. The impacts of climate change are already being severely felt on our farmland and intensive farming is degrading soils, with 5.3 million tonnes of organic carbon lost from our soils every year, so the likelihood is that the current agricultural land classification system substantially overestimates land productivity. We must update it.
Food security is about not just the amount of land under agricultural use, but what we are producing. Food security must mean nutritional security. To take this seriously, the Government must set a clear and measurable target for a higher proportion of our nation’s nutritional needs, according to a recognised diet such as the NHS “Eatwell Guide”, to be met reliably by domestic production to high environmental standards. Achieving that will require national policy to guide substantial changes in the amount and types of food that we produce domestically. The essential element of genuine food security is establishing a national policy framework that provides certainty and incentives for farmers to invest in practices that prioritise nutritional needs and environmental outcomes, but that will likely see their yields fluctuate in the short term.
When we consider energy security, Government contracts for difference ensure a minimum price that gives suppliers the confidence to invest in the production needed to secure national policy objectives. Food security is no less essential than energy security, and farming practices that restore nature are as important as the transition to renewable energy. A Government serious about making genuine food security profitable to produce should establish new contracts for food security based on the contracts for difference mechanism in the energy sector, providing certainty through price floors for the key produce necessary to meet the nation’s nutritional needs. That is how we can achieve genuine food security.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. The number of competing demands on Britain’s land is growing rapidly. To put that into context, Britain has about the same population as France, but the area of England, Scotland and Wales combined is only about one third of the area of France, and most of us live squished into the bottom half of it. Of course, land is the one resource that we cannot create more of—as Mark Twain allegedly said, “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.”
I am keenly aware of that situation in my South Cotswolds constituency where a housing development in one place means a risk of flooding in another, and a solar farm or gravel extraction means less grazing land for Wiltshire’s cows—a subject that I am sure is dear to your heart, Dr Murrison. I was therefore delighted earlier this year when the Government launched their national consultation on land use, highlighting the potential to restore nature, support food production, strengthen climate resilience and deliver new housing and infrastructure. I absolutely applaud those ambitions, which matter deeply in an age of current and potential global shocks.
As already mentioned, at the moment the UK imports about 40% of its food, and for fruit and vegetables that proportion is even higher. In 2023, after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, food price inflation reached its highest point in 45 years, adding to the pain of families already struggling to afford the basics. Food and energy sovereignty are not abstract concepts—they are the foundations of a healthy population and a resilient nation—yet sadly, some of the actions taken by the Government since launching the land use framework conversation suggest that they see land as a zero-sum game. House building is pitted against biodiversity, and renewable energy projects come at the expense of food production. That is not going to work.
I will make a couple of points. First, we must recognise the need to move beyond departmental silos and work across Departments in a truly systemic, holistic approach. At the moment, it all feels rather piecemeal, which leaves farmers, councils and communities grappling with apparently contradictory demands. We need a genuinely multi-functional, multi-layered land use framework—one that recognises each piece of land’s ability to meet multiple needs at once. The amazing pilot programmes conducted by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission show what is possible. These pilots in Devon and Cambridgeshire show that co-ordinated planning can support housing, energy, transport, net zero, biodiversity, food production and nature recovery all at the same time.
Planning decisions must reflect the local geography, economies, needs and opportunities, and they must incorporate the detailed local knowledge of residents. If not, their implementation will likely fail and they will not be welcomed by our communities. In my constituency, housing targets have doubled under the Government’s house building plans. The proposed 2,000 acre Lime Down solar farm would remove a huge area of farmland from production, which is causing huge local concern and pushback. Of course it is true that we need to decarbonise and protect our natural environment, but that does not need to come at the expense of local communities and food production capability.
Bradley Thomas
Does the hon. Lady regret that the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that the Liberal Democrats want to build even more houses than the Labour party?
Dr Savage
We are calling for more affordable houses and social housing. I stand by that commitment. What we are seeing at the moment is a free-for-all for developers. Unfortunately, now that we no longer have the five-year housing land supply, we cannot be sure that we are going to build the right kinds of houses in the right places at the right price.
I call on the Government to publish the land use strategy as soon as possible. It must extend far beyond DEFRA. Multi-functional land use is about transport, housing, energy, local government and more, so we need a genuinely joined-up approach.
My second and last point is that our farmers need clarity and support. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy describes the vicious cycle where agriculture both contributes to climate change and is threatened by it. Instead of breaking the cycle, the Government are creating an economic environment that pushes farmers towards damaging practices, such as excessive fertiliser use and intensive animal agriculture, because farmers see no other viable option if they are to stay in business. From speaking with my farmers across South Cotswolds, I know that they are keen to be allies in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, but they are being met with mixed messages and one economic blow after another, such as the family farm tax and the abrupt end of the SFI, as has been mentioned. Those decisions undermine both climate resilience and farmers’ livelihoods.
We need a strategy that aligns the land use framework, the food strategy and a credible farming road map. We need transparency about how the Government intend to deliver the 10 priority outcomes set out in their food strategy. That is eminently possible. With thoughtful, holistic planning, collaborative working and genuine respect for local knowledge, the Government can chart a path that strengthens our food system, restores our natural world and delivers the development our country needs.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for securing this debate on an issue that sits right at the heart of our nation’s resilience. This is a real area of interest for me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security and a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Our land is finite, so every acre has to do as much as possible for the country. The choices we make about it must balance food production, nature recovery, clean energy, and the homes and infrastructure we need. If we get the balance right, we not only protect our landscapes, but strengthen our ability to feed the nation and support rural livelihoods for decades to come.
A lot of good groundwork has already been done, as we have heard. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out a compelling vision for our food system and the need for a land use framework to break down Whitehall silos. The national conversation launched earlier this year, involving voices from farming, conservation and communities, shows that Ministers want to get this right. The evidence base gathered gives us something solid to build on, and the publication of the new food strategy for England, with its 10 high-level recommendations, is another important step towards a resilient, affordable and sustainable food system.
The consultation on the land use framework gave us estimates for the amount of land that may need to shift partly or wholly away from agricultural use—the former representing about 10% of land and the latter 9%. Our commitments to the environment, biodiversity and clean energy production necessitate changes in the way that we use land, but I share the view of many in the farming community and the wider food supply chain that we cannot afford to see food production as a sideshow—a “nice to have”. As the Prime Minister said, food security is national security.
We are acutely aware, of course, of the threats posed by cyber-attacks. In my region we have seen the devastating effects of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and the thousands of jobs that were jeopardised by that prolonged shutdown. In response to that and other high-profile attacks, the public and private sectors alike are rightly investing in cyber-security. Let us place the same emphasis on food security. I am sure we all remember shelves going empty as global supply chains were disrupted during the pandemic, and we have also seen how the price of staples such as wheat has been affected by the invasion of Ukraine. It is not hard to envisage how geopolitical instability or bad actors could destabilise our food supply chains.
By safeguarding agricultural land primarily for food production and by supporting productivity improvements and innovation that help to maintain domestic food production, we can bolster the nation’s resilience in this crucial area. From my work with the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, I know that farmers are ready to embrace new tools and techniques, but they can do so only in an environment of long-term certainty, with clear policies and priorities.
On the contentious issue of our transition to clean energy, the National Energy System Operator’s analysis and the solar road map show that the land required for renewables is comparatively modest, and can in some cases remain compatible with farming, for example sheep and poultry grazing, or with measures under the environmental land management schemes. That is not always possible, of course, and that is why we should prioritise high-grade land for arable farming. That is where a land use framework is so crucial.
I am pleased to see that the Government are treating the framework, the environmental improvement plan and other strategies as interconnected. What the sector now needs is a land use framework that does four things: ensures that all the strategies being worked up dovetail, supports food production as a national priority to enable the delivery of environmental goods, facilitates the clean energy transition while ensuring rural communities benefit, and provides clarity and confidence for the people who steward the land every day. With strong evidence, honest conversations and a shared commitment to national resilience, we can ensure that our land delivers for food, nature recovery, clean energy and thriving communities.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. It is important for the entire country, including my constituents in Chichester, who regularly think about the land and the way it is used. In our area, with the pressures from the South Downs national park at one end and Chichester harbour at the other, we experience coastal squeeze. There has also been a lot of development across a band of our constituency that used to be used for agricultural practices and farming.
I have some very specific points for the Minister. The NFU has raised concerns about the fruit and veg scheme, which ends in December without a replacement. The impact on my soft fruit farmers in Chichester will be significant. The fruit and veg scheme has been a crucial driver of growth despite a budget of only £40 million a year.
Although food security has never been more crucial, the UK is only 15% self-sufficient in fruit and 53% in vegetables. There was previously a commitment to deliver a replacement scheme. This scheme is due to close at the end of the year, so it would be helpful if the Minister could reflect on whether there will be any support coming forward for soft fruit farmers and fruit and vegetable farmers in this country.
The next point is on an important, but slightly niche topic: in recent years, we are just starting to understand the importance of a varied gut microbiome to ensuring health. Less is understood about the soil microbiome, but I had the opportunity to attend the Goodwood health summit a couple of months ago where we explored the soil microbiome. There is a link between the food that is grown in the soil and that soil’s microbiome.
Hydroponics are a source of innovation in the farming industry and food security. It is facilitating the growth of fruit and vegetables on less land in a way that uses less water and has higher yields. I celebrate the companies in my constituency that are championing that way of growing, but that cannot be used to justify the loss of our agricultural land. Just because we can grow up, it does not mean that we should stop growing out. Things that are actually grown in our soil have been proven to carry a far more complex set of nutrients that we need to be able to sustain life on this planet and our own health, including a healthy gut microbiome.
Chichester, as a warm, sunny and low-lying coastal plain with some of the highest levels of grade 2 agricultural land in the country, wants to play its part in the country’s food security, but all of those farmers need to be given the right environment to be able to do that. I would also like to briefly champion the horticultural sector, which is valued at more than £5 billion. It accounts for just 2% of farmed land and the delivery of nearly 20% of the total value from farming.
I have a number of horticultural businesses in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the role they play in our land use, supporting us all to make our own little patches of land in our gardens and patios as beautiful as they can be.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a genuine joy to serve under your guidance, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) not just for her good speech, but for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), as well as the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), all of whom made excellent contributions and made this a really thoughtful, worthwhile debate. I hope I have not missed anybody out. I also welcome the Minister. It is possibly the first time she has addressed Westminster Hall in her current role as the new Minister; I welcome her and look forward to many exchanges.
Britain is not secure unless it is food secure. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made a really important point when she quoted the former MI5 director general Baroness Manningham-Buller. I have an additional quote from her:
“The more self-sufficient we are as a nation, the better our ability to withstand price spikes, geopolitical shocks and instability around the world. The truth is, we are moving in the wrong direction”.
She is sadly right, and that is horrific. Various figures have been bandied around, but DEFRA’s own figures show that in 1984, the UK was 78% self-sufficient, and none of the figures mentioned were better than 65%. The NFU’s figure is more like 60%, and I think that I am more likely to believe it. Either way, there is clearly a massive decline in our self-sufficiency. It is vital that our land use policy ensures that we produce the food that Britain needs.
Leaving the European Union perhaps held one single, solitary silver lining: that we would leave the common agricultural policy and be able to set out on our own with something a lot less counterproductive. Yet even that silver lining turned darker, and the last Conservative Government must take responsibility. They are singularly culpable for ignoring our farming communities, taking their votes for granted, and completely botching the transition to the new environmental land management scheme. Nobody knows—and I could not say—whether they did that harm to our farmers by accident or design, but outrageously, we now have an agricultural policy that actively disincentivises the production of food. That is madness. We must reverse that damage, because that figure for self-sufficiency will only further decrease unless we take radical action.
At the heart of the food security problem is the counterproductive transition from the old payment scheme. Conservative and now Labour Governments have persisted with the same flawed approach—a stop-start payment system that leaves farmers unable to plan even a year ahead, even though farming demands planning cycles over years or even generations. Farmers are being asked to make long-term decisions about land use, stock numbers, crop planting and environmental improvements based on schemes that change suddenly, launch late, or simply close with no warning. The sustainable farming incentive is a prime and awful example. In March this year, farmers were one day being encouraged to apply, then the next day, the door was slammed shut. It is still shut.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for reflecting on the real and dangerous impact that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme had on farmers. One farm in my constituency was left in limbo by the announcement, having spent four months trying to switch to the SFI scheme. However, to do that, it needed to leave the community stewardship facilitation fund scheme—a process that took months, which meant that it could not complete its SFI application. It then found itself without SFI or the community stewardship facilitation fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a totally unacceptable situation for any farmer?
Tim Farron
It is completely unacceptable and the consequences have been huge. I had a public meeting with farmers, on the day after the SFI drawbridge was pulled up, I think, and there is huge anger and disillusionment. There are people who will now not even look at the schemes because they do not trust them anymore. I ask the Minister: when will SFI reopen, and will she ensure that it is accessible to the maximum number of people?
Of course, all that is happening at the same time as the Government’s choice to slash the basic payment scheme—what is left of it—by 76% this year alone. The BPS—the old farm payment scheme—has been phased out at sprint speed while its replacements have barely limped into existence, and with small, family farms at the back of the queue. Basically, if someone is wealthy enough to afford land agents and to have the luxury of being able to spend time off their farm, they can get into a scheme. However, if they are working for 90 hours a week to keep a roof over their head, they are outside it. It has been a redistribution of public money from the poor to the rich and away from food production. Now, for the first time since the 1940s, England has no universal option for farmers.
When farmers cannot rely on payments, access schemes or forecast their income, we run the risk of losing them altogether. That is a crushing blow for farming families—people who farmed their valley for generations and have realised that perhaps on their watch, they will lose that farm. Just imagine what that does to the wellbeing and mental health of the people on whom we depend for our food and for nature.
The impact is particularly acute for hill farmers, such as those around the lakes and dales of Cumbria, who maintain some of the most treasured landscapes that we have, and yet they endure some of the lowest farm incomes. The University of Cumbria’s figures show that by the end of next year, the average income for a hill farmer will be just 55% of the national minimum wage.
Of course, the proposed inheritance tax charges cause further damage. Those same hill farmers—who are earning, let us say, £15,000 to £16,000 a year—will be hit with a typical tax bill of around £20,000 a year over 10 years. Those hill farmers will have to sell, usually to bigger, less productive estates or a big city corporation seeking to use the land for offsetting, often leading to a monoculture, not a restoration of nature, and certainly not for producing food. The family farm tax is not just unfair; it further incentivises a reduction in Britain’s ability to feed itself. It is a strategic disaster as well as being unjust.
Secondly, the Government’s failure to publish the land use framework that they promised is causing huge uncertainty and damaging our ability to feed ourselves. Without a clear national strategy, decisions about land are being made in the dark. Farmers cannot know whether to prioritise food production, long-term environmental projects or diversification. Developers and investors act on speculation rather than strategy. A proper framework would give clarity about where food production must be protected. At present, the delay in publishing the land use framework is actively undermining food security.
Thirdly and finally, on top of all this instability we are still waiting for a national food security strategy from the Government. I always hear that the Government have acknowledged that food security and national security are linked, but they have not acted with seriousness or urgency to get an action plan in place. We cannot hope to secure our food supply without a plan that links food production, affordability, nutrition, public procurement, fairness in the marketplace, farming, nature and trade. For instance, about a quarter of the food grown in the United Kingdom, amounting to up to 5 million tonnes of edible food, is wasted every year. The proportion of the population in households experiencing food poverty is 11%, but for children the figure is 18%. Schools, hospitals and care homes rely too heavily on imported food that could be produced affordably and sustainably here at home. A national food security strategy would bring coherence to these challenges. Instead, we have delay.
Of course, food security is national security, but simply mouthing those words will not help us to rise to the challenge of ensuring that the UK’s vital food supplies are protected against various threats. The Liberal Democrats are determined to offer a plan for food security that encourages and rewards those who labour 365 days a year to feed us, and to whom we are enormously grateful. It is the role of the Government to back them and produce an overarching strategy, across every part of national and local government, to ensure that food security is a practical priority. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that ELM schemes are boosted with an additional £1 billion-worth of investment towards active farmers and would reverse the damaging family farm tax, which is killing investment in farming and will further suppress food production. We will ensure that food security is formally considered a public good through the ELM schemes.
We will also have an overarching food security strategy across every Government Department, because we declare that the fundamental error of this and the previous Government is that they have bought the lie that there is a contest between whether we produce food or whether we restore our natural environment. That is nonsense. Without farmers we will not eat, and the best environmental policies in the world will simply remain useless—bits of paper in a drawer—unless we have farmers putting them into practice. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security and to our natural environment. It is time we listened to them and made Government their help and not a hindrance.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy.
As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency.
The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses.
Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold.
All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.
Chris Hinchliff
My constituents have raised many of the concerns that the hon. Member has just described about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief, which I recognise. However, will he say whether his party recognises any of the points that the Government are making about that? Do they accept that some improvement could be made to the previous agricultural property relief? Or would the hon. Member just return it to how it was and not make any changes whatsoever?
Robbie Moore
Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about.
It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.
Wendy Morton
On the point about the Budget, I hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate. She has made several speculative announcements and some U-turns on various tax and financial policy decisions in the last 16 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that she still has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to change her mind?
Robbie Moore
I do hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate and also that she engages with the farming community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Chancellor has not once met with the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers in the 12 months since the last Budget was announced. It is a disgrace. Therefore, what is the Minister doing to convince the Treasury to axe the family farm tax—the reduction of the 100% relief on agricultural and business properties?
If it was not enough for the Government to go after our elder generation and our family businesses, they are also going after our next generation, with the decision to scrap the £30,000 grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers. It is an absolute disgrace. Then we have the land use framework consultation, which is setting a direction of taking about 18% of land out of food production for other things—whether it is energy security, housing, biodiversity, offsetting or nutrient neutrality—and away from increasing food productivity. All that is on top of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which further empowers Natural England, not to acquire land at market value, but to acquire it at agricultural value, disregarding hope value. That all suggests that this Government are not interested in food security.
We have yet to receive the findings of the road map for farming, and Baroness Batters of the other place has spent a good deal of time—six months—producing a profitability review, which is on the Secretary of State’s desk. That was meant to be published before the Budget, but what has the Secretary of State said? It will not be published before the Budget, but before Christmas. I ask the Minister a second question: where on earth is that profitability review? Why will it not be published before the Budget, so that we can at least use it to urge the Chancellor to do the right thing? I call on the Government to release the profitability review this week, so that the farming community, stakeholders and all Members of Parliament can digest it before the Budget next week.
I cannot stress how urgently we need clarity and certainty from the Government. The implications of the land use framework consultation; the profitability review not being published; the increased taxes on our farming businesses; the decisions to dramatically reduce delinked payments and close the SFI—these are all causing huge uncertainty. What does it say to our many farmers who are outside this building protesting right now when a Chancellor is making those decisions and is not even willing to engage? The emotional toll on our farming community is stark. I therefore urge the Government to have the decency to engage urgently, before the Budget next week, so that our farmers can have clarity on how they use their land.
The Farming Minister will no doubt say that food security is national security, as the Prime Minister has already said. But those are only warm words if they are not backed up with sound policymaking across Departments that brings out a proper food strategy, has all-Government buy-in—including from the Treasury—and does not have a huge, detrimental impact on how our farmers use their land or on their hopes to increase food security for the good and the health of the nation.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I hope you are warmer than I am, having sat in what is quite a cold room for the entire debate. It has been a good debate, so I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her success in securing it. We have had a good and serious debate across all parties about a serious, if somewhat complex and multifaceted, issue.
Food security is about land use, but it is also wider than that, so I will begin my response by explaining how the Government are approaching this issue in the round. I do not think anyone would argue that food security is not an important part of our national security. If they were going to argue that before covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I do not see how they could possibly argue it after living through those occurrences and seeing the effects and implications that those unanticipated events had on our ability to be resilient in future unforeseen circumstances. Being open-minded to learn the lessons, and doing our best to anticipate what the challenges of the future might be, is an important part of how we develop a more resilient stance than we would have if our post-war complacency—if I could put it that way—had carried on without what has happened in the last few years.
Anticipating the challenges of the future requires a close working relationship with the food sector. I chair F4, which brings together the National Farmers’ Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. That group represents the food system from farm to fork, and ensures that we are prepared for disruption to food supply chains and that we can respond quickly to threats as they emerge. We have heard about some of the threats from right hon. and hon. Members today, ranging from cyber-security threats to threats from Ukraine. Nobody has mentioned pests or diseases, but that is another potential threat that farmers know only too well. We have sadly experienced that in this country while I have been a Member of Parliament.
Robust analysis and transparency are critical. That is why we will publish an annual food security digest report, in addition to the UK food security report, which is published every three years. The most recent was published last December. Those reports highlight how diverse international trade routes and resilient domestic production systems ensure that any disruption from risks, such as adverse weather or disease, does not affect the UK’s overall security of supply.
Figures have been bandied around by different people about the percentage of our food we grow ourselves. UK agriculture currently provides 65% of the food we eat—77% of what we can actually grow here. We may not be brilliant at growing bananas, even though people love to eat them. The figure rises from 65% to 77% if we take account of what we can grow in our climate. Those figures have been more or less stable over 20 years.
Recent geopolitical challenges have highlighted increasing risks to food security, but have also demonstrated the resilience of our food system. As we develop implementation plans for the food strategy, we are applying lessons learned from covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine about how to prepare for, respond to and recover from shocks.
For example, one of the lessons from covid-19 was the key role that local communities and food systems played in maintaining access to food, particularly for the most vulnerable. I know from my experience during that strange time that working with the local authority and local kitchens was a far better way of ensuring that those who had to shield had access to useable, nutritious food. That is why the food strategy will focus on strengthening local food systems.
I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to end mass dependence on food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. I raise that point because food security is also about the ability of every citizen to access the nutrition they need. The new crisis and resilience fund will enable local authorities to provide preventive support for communities and assistance to individuals facing a financial shock, improving citizens’ financial resilience and reducing the need for future crisis support.
We also face challenges to the resilience of domestic food production systems from soil degradation, disease and climate change. Those are critical long-term risks, but we should be clear that the impacts are here today. We need only speak to a farmer whose fields were underwater last winter and then parched and drought-ridden this summer. They would say that that is not a theoretical risk, but a threat to food production today. That is a threat we can manage because we need to take climate change seriously and do something about it, as we do with more conventional threats.
Wendy Morton
I am genuinely interested in what the Minister is saying about food and food systems, but how does she see the connection between that and our farmers? We do not want anybody to be reliant on a food parcel, but what is her Department doing to ensure that the food in a kitchen, in a parcel or on our shelves is produced by British farmers? That is at the heart of this debate: British food security.
Dame Angela Eagle
I was coming to that. I am happy to get across my view of what this should be. The food strategy that we published in July makes clear that we will act to ensure that our food system can thrive and grow sustainably and continue to provide a resilient and secure supply of healthy, safe and affordable food. It sets out that that should include investment, innovation and productivity, and a fairer, more transparent supply chain, which is why we are dealing with the supply chain adjudicators and introducing regulation on how to ensure fairness. Dairy and pigs are already in a process, but other work is being done for other sectors to ensure that a fair price is paid for the food that is produced, which is important.
Boosting the resilience of our food system will prepare it better for supply chain shocks and disruption. Some of what we have to do is ensure resilience to climate change, which will make us more resilient in the way in which we produce food. Environmental changes therefore go hand in hand with protecting food production. If we do not make our landscapes more resilient and more sustainable environmentally, it is likely that the productivity of our land will decline and it will be harder as the climate changes for us to guarantee reasonable food production. Some of those things bolster each other and should not be set against one another, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in her opening remarks. They can produce a more effective and more resilient result if we do them effectively and properly.
We already manage the resilience of domestic production through updated environmental land management schemes. The good news is that actions taken today to manage these immediate risks can also reduce the risk from climate change. There is a £7 billion farming budget focused on improving the resilience of our food systems. That maintains the Government’s commitment to farming, food security and nature’s recovery. It includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £385 million for peatland restoration, all of which is vital for sustainability.
The farming budget will pay for land management actions that reduce flood and drought risk for arable systems and manage heat risk for livestock. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it.
The new energy infrastructure and new homes are not a risk to food security. Today, ground-mounted solar covers 13,000 hectares of land, which is 0.1% of England and 0.15% of English agricultural land. Half the agricultural land generating solar power is still producing food because it is dual-use—there are sheep grazing, and so on, on it. By 2035, the plan is for the percentage to rise to 0.4% of England as we increase our solar power generation capacity from 18 GW to 75 GW.
To put that into perspective, golf courses take up 0.7% of UK land and grouse moors take up 4%. At the moment, solar is at 0.1%, with plans to go up to 0.4%. People may not like solar panels appearing in and around the areas they live in, but they are not a threat to food security.
Wendy Morton
I beg your pardon—the hon. Lady. Maybe one day! It is one thing to see a few sheep grazing under a solar panel, but my point is about agricultural arable land that grows crops. I have yet to see a solar panel in an arable field because I do not think that is possible.
Dame Angela Eagle
I was not trying to make out that arable crops could graze around solar panels—
Dame Angela Eagle
The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use.
There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.
Robbie Moore
Cash flow challenges are hitting many of our farming businesses right now. Baroness Batters, of the other place, has produced a profitability review, which seems to be hidden in the depths of the Department at the moment. Will the Minister guarantee that the profitability review will be published this week, before the Budget, so that all our farmers, the stakeholders and us, as Members of Parliament, can scrutinise it and lobby the Chancellor to make the right decisions before the Budget next week?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not think that the lack of appearance of Baroness Batters’s report has stopped anyone lobbying the Chancellor; lobbying is happening outside even as we speak.
Dame Angela Eagle
Of course it will be published, and it will be published this year. I cannot think of any Government who produce large reports on matters of interest in the week before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see it this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the EFRA Committee in evidence, I think last week.
I could understand why the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would be worried if solar farms were planned to take up more than 0.4% of land in England in the next period, up to 2035, but they are not. Also, the 1.5 million homes that this Government have said they will deliver in this Parliament are likely to take up approximately 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land. That is quite a small land take to transform the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in need of homes. The Government are quite right to pursue a target of 1.5 million homes, and clearly one needs to build those homes on land. As I said, 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land, is the approximate amount of land that will be needed to ensure that we can house many people who currently do not have the prospect of having a home of their own.
Bradley Thomas
I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer a question that I have asked several Ministers in the main Chamber. My constituents and I do not dispute the need for more housing in the country, nor do we dispute that it needs to be located in areas where people want to live, but what would she say to my constituents living across Bromsgrove and the villages—an area that is 89% green belt and 79% rural—when I tell her that, as a result of choices made by this Government, our housing target has increased by 85% while the housing target in adjacent Birmingham has decreased by more than 30%? Every area has to take its fair share, but does she agree that that is a grossly unfair imbalance?
Dame Angela Eagle
In the small amount of time left to me before the end of the debate, it is hard for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. It is not up to me to take decisions about local planning issues of that kind. That is what local plans are for.
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate. I know that she wants to say a few words, so I will sit down.
Wendy Morton
We have had a good debate, but I feel that the conversation has only just started. So many questions remain. The key point is that food security needs to be recognised as critical to national security. There is no more time for warm words; we need some action. Our farmers and our farming community need action.
I will try quickly to list all my asks. I would love the Government to take food security seriously, support our farmers and farming, axe the family farm tax, deliver a truly brownfield-first approach to development, and listen and respect the views of our farmers and local communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.
Reconsideration Mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the reconsideration mechanism and the Parole Board Rules 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
In 2018, the Parole Board decided to release John Worboys, the so-called “black cab rapist” who drugged and raped women between the years 2000 and 2008. It is believed that he assaulted more than 100 innocent victims. That was the wrong decision, and the Parole Board clearly made an error in assessing the level of risk that Worboys posed to the community, and particularly to young women. At the time of that decision, the then Secretary of State for Justice had no means to ask for a review, because he would have had to apply for judicial review proceedings against a public body over which he had ministerial responsibility. His hands were therefore tied. He had to wait powerlessly—those of us who were in the House will remember it—for the outcome of a separate third-party judicial review, which thankfully led to the quashing of that irrational Parole Board decision to release John Worboys.
To avoid this happening again, that same Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, rightly considered and introduced the policy that became—I think under Sir Robert Buckland—the reconsideration mechanism in 2019. Those changes created a specific route, the reconsideration mechanism, that allows the Secretary of State to apply for an internal review of a Parole Board decision to release, on the grounds of either an error in law, irrationality or material procedural error—in other words, grounds similar to those for an application for judicial review.
The so-called reconsideration mechanism is effectively a form of internal review, giving the Secretary of State an element of authority over the Parole Board, without in any way compromising its independence, but merely to request that it review a potentially flawed decision. The right to apply for reconsideration was also extended to prisoners.
It is now clear, however, that what was intended as a safeguard to prevent dangerous prisoners such as Worboys from being wrongly released while a Secretary of State watched from the sidelines is now being deployed by such prisoners to mount effectively limitless, cost-free internal appeals against decisions they do not like. One example is the high-profile, nationally renowned case that occurred in my South Leicestershire constituency involving one Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and murdered two young girls, Lynda Mann in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth in 1986.
For those who did not live in South Leicestershire at that time, as I did not, it is impossible to comprehend the anguish and worry felt in the areas of Narborough, Enderby, Blaby and beyond between 1983 and the day when Pitchfork was caught in 1987. Those were four whole years when parents were terrified to let their daughters out of their sight, women were scared to walk home alone and suspicion was rife, while families and friends grieved for the lives of those two young women, who would be around my age today had their lives not been taken so early and so brutally.
Before Colin Pitchfork was caught, he forcibly manipulated one of his colleagues into giving DNA evidence on his behalf, to deceive police into thinking that his DNA did not match that of the killer. Pitchfork was eventually caught and the case was of national significance for English criminal history, because it was the first in which the embryonic DNA fingerprinting technique was used. Pitchfork received life imprisonment for the two offences of murder, with a minimum term of 28 years, and concurrent terms for rapes and perverting the course of justice.
That is just one of the high-profile cases in which a dangerous, violent sexual predator and murderer has served their sentence and the Parole Board has had the unenviable job of deciding whether that prisoner is safe to be released into the public. On its website, the Parole Board explains that its role is
“to determine whether prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, and those serving certain determinate sentences for serious offences, continue to represent a significant risk to the public.”
The Parole Board has an incredibly important role in protecting us all, and our constituents the public, from the most dangerous offenders in the criminal justice system. The public and victims’ families need to know that when the Parole Board makes a judgment, it is definitive. If the Parole Board’s work is disrupted by repeated or opportunistic applications for reconsideration, the public understandably lose trust in its ability to deliver timely and conclusive decisions. Victims, their families and the wider public want clarity and finality. That is all they ask from the reconsideration rule and it is what they deserve.
That is why I have raised concerns over many years about Colin Pitchfork, and over the last few years particularly about the reconsideration mechanism rule, with successive Ministers of different governing parties. Pitchfork has already once successfully used the mechanism to request reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision. After Pitchfork’s successful application for reconsideration last year, I wrote previously to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), then the Minister responsible for justice and sentencing. He confirmed to me:
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”—
I repeat that statement; it is what the Minister said—
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which may be made.”
He went on to state:
“Consequently, there will be a final decision only where a provisional decision is not subject to an application for reconsideration (from either party) or where an application for reconsideration is made but then rejected by the Reconsideration Assessment Panel.”
That is a problem, because there is no finality. Imagine the pain that my constituents and the victims’ family members have to go through when Colin Pitchfork, every couple of years, makes a bid for parole. That is his right, but none of us expected that the reconsideration mechanism rule would be used for never-ending challenges by the prisoner, repeatedly calling for a Parole Board decision to be reconsidered until effectively they get the decision they want.
That potentially never-ending process has created legal uncertainty in the parole system, delaying finality and causing ongoing distress to victims’ families and friends. The public understandably feel that justice is now always hanging in a fragile balance, where a murderous sexual predator can exploit a loophole in a way that was never intended by David Gauke or Sir Robert Buckland when the rules were first introduced.
The Parole Board—rightly, in my opinion—decided recently that Colin Pitchfork is not safe to be released to the public at present, but my South Leicestershire constituents are now in the unpalatable position of waiting to see whether Mr Pitchfork will challenge the board’s latest provisional decision, made only on 27 October. Pitchfork has until this Thursday to do so; if he does, not only will it be one of the first cases in English history where a prisoner who has committed such offences has asked for reconsideration, but it will effectively mean that he is being given the opportunity through these rules to request that a reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision is once again reconsidered. That is a farce.
While I fully accept that there must be a route for prisoners to challenge genuinely flawed decisions, my view is that there must be a right to apply for just one reconsideration, whether by the prisoner or by the Secretary of State. I note that the Parole Board rules were updated last year to strengthen the system, for example by tightening the criteria for claiming a procedural error under rule 39. Those were welcome changes, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on their impact. If he is unable to do so today, I invite him to write to me on that point.
I will raise two related further points. First, those changes, while welcome, do not change the fact that a prisoner can still apply for the reconsideration of an already reconsidered decision, as Mr Pitchfork did in 2024 on the grounds of irrationality.
Secondly, the changes introduced last year were made through secondary legislation, just as the reconsideration mechanism itself was created through secondary legislation in 2019. It follows that, if the Government seriously consider limiting the mechanism to one application per parole decision—and I very much hope the Minister will take it into account, given the high profile nature of this case and the cross-party involvement in my campaign to highlight the issue—that too could be achieved through secondary legislation without the need for primary legislation.
That is why I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the reconsideration mechanism should be limited to one application per parole decision, which would still allow a prisoner to apply to reconsider a decision, and would in no way detract from that prisoner’s having the right to issue an application for judicial review if the decision was generally irrational or unlawful. We must remember that the reconsideration mechanism is relatively new, and making this change would restore it to what it was always intended to be: a targeted safeguard against wrongful release, ensuring that the Secretary of State could respond to significant public pressure, as we witnessed with Worboys. It should not be, and was never intended to be, an open-ended appeal system for dangerous offenders.
I end with the comment made by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston:
“There is no limit to the number of applications for reconsideration which made be made.”
That is the mischief—but, if the Government are serious on this, they can attend to that mischief and rectify it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing this important debate and raising this critical issue on behalf of his constituents and us all. I start, where we all should, by recognising the appalling crimes of double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork. It is important to pay tribute to the victims’ families, who continue to live with his crimes. They must always be at the forefront of our minds whenever we discuss these quite technical issues of criminal law.
The function of the Parole Board is of paramount importance to our criminal justice system: to assess whether very serious offenders who have completed their minimum term in prison could be safely managed in the community if they were to be released. The board takes that responsibility extremely seriously, and rigorously examines all the evidence before reaching a decision. Only about one in four cases the board reviews results in a decision to release, and in the majority of cases, the board concludes that the offender must remain in custody for the protection of the public. Indeed, that was the board’s conclusion in their most recent review in the case of Colin Pitchfork, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred. These decisions are of such importance to victims and the public, and I welcome any opportunity to discuss how they are made and how safeguards such as the reconsideration mechanism are used.
I will begin by setting out the Government’s approach to the Parole Board’s reconsideration mechanism rules, their origins and their purpose. The approach was adopted following the case of John Worboys and the flawed parole decision in 2018, which was met with understandable public outrage. The decision was eventually quashed, but only as a result of third-party application for judicial review. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, ensuring that decisions that may be flawed can now be challenged without resorting to lengthy and costly judicial reviews. Alongside those measures, the Parole Board rules were comprehensively updated to modernise procedures, strengthen victim engagement and improve case management.
To avoid what might be called a Worboys scenario, the then Government introduced changes to permit the Secretary of State to have a direct, quick and effective mechanism to challenge a Parole Board decision, with similar grounds to that of a judicial review: error of law, irrationality or material procedural error. Crucially, the opportunity to challenge the decision was available to both parties of a Parole Board decision—the Secretary of State and the prisoner or offender. That must be right, as it would be offensive to the laws of natural justice to allow one party a route to appeal but not the other.
The Government’s view of the mechanism, as things stand, is that it has been broadly successful. Of more than 17,000 Parole Board decisions last year, there were only 257 applications for reconsideration. The argument—it was not made, but could be—that this mechanism is being abused in some manner on a wide scale is not correct.
The case of Pitchfork, however, has proven deeply problematic. First, there have been unusual and wholly unwelcome delays—unusual in the sense that they do not and have not occurred in other cases. His 2021 application for reconsideration was only heard in 2023, and the 2023 application for reconsideration of that Parole Board decision was only heard in October this year. He has until Thursday to apply for further reconsideration of the latest Parole Board decision.
There were various legal and evidence-gathering explanations for those delays, but I wholly appreciate, considering the decision in 2021 and the controversy at the time, the enormous anxiety that such delays create for families. The Government are always determined to ensure that justice and Parole Board decisions are undertaken as expeditiously as possible. In most cases, however, the rarely used reconsideration mechanism has been quick and efficient.
Further measures are being enacted to empower public protection in Parole Board decisions and appeals. Ministerial oversight of release decisions made by the Parole Board will be strengthened in the Victims and Courts Bill through a fresh determination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are looking to enact that provision quickly. We have also taken measures to improve transparency and victim involvement in the process, including allowing victims to observe and play a greater role in Parole Board hearings, with certain measures having already been rolled out earlier this year.
I also accept that there is a potential mischief for historic offenders sentenced prior to whole life order provisions, whereby a prisoner makes hopeless applications, wasting time and money, and—more importantly—putting families through unnecessary strife. I will look at what can be done to mitigate this risk, but I must stress that this mischief would be incredibly rare, and I repeat the assertion that the previous Government’s changes in this area have been broadly positive.
It is also worth noting that a prisoner would continue to have opportunities to challenge a Parole Board’s decision, or a decision not to hear a prisoner’s case, in our common law. I will write to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on those specific measures over the coming weeks, and I am very happy to meet him, or any other Members who want to discuss this issue, either at the Ministry of Justice or in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I asked for this debate because people in Warrington South are worn down by the constant risk of flooding. It shapes their day-to-day lives far more than most people realise. We need a frank conversation about what is happening and what needs to change. For my constituents in places such as Dallam, Bewsey, Sankey Bridges and Penketh, this is not about distant risks or statistical forecasts. It is about the reality of waking up to flood alerts, checking river levels whenever the rain starts to fall, and wondering whether the water will stop before it breaches the banks of the brook.
I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they cannot sleep when heavy rain is forecast. Parents have told me that their children get anxious when storms are mentioned on the news. Older residents tell me that they keep a torch by the bed, just in case. It is those small details that show just how deeply flooding affects people long after the water has gone. That is no way to live. No family should have to brace themselves over and over again for another clean-up every time the water rises.
In Dallam, we now see a situation where people are effectively marooned. When Longshaw Street floods and the Hawley’s Lane bridge goes under, Dallam becomes an island. People cannot get to work, get their children to school or leave their homes safely. Older residents who rely on adult social care are cut off. Patients at Lea Court are placed at additional risk because the access routes simply disappear under the water. Those are serious safety issues. No community should find itself trapped because the infrastructure around it can no longer cope.
From Merseyside to Greater Manchester, and Warrington in between, communities are facing the same issues: extreme rainfall, overwhelmed watercourses and schemes that take too long to materialise. The north-west is carrying a growing share of the national flood burden. Our region contributes significantly to the national economy. We should not be left fighting year after year for the basic infrastructure needed to keep homes and businesses safe. For too long, flood resilience in the north-west has relied on a patchwork of bids, lobbying rounds and one-off pots of money. That is not a strategy. It leaves communities vulnerable, stuck in a cycle of uncertainty.
On new year’s day, I was out across Warrington South in communities devastated by flooding, down Higham Avenue, Tavlin Avenue, Longshaw Street and Southworth Avenue. Some families were only just returning to normality following the Storm Christoph floods in 2021. Others were already exhausted by the constant cycle of rain, flood alerts, worry and clean-up, and it has not stopped there.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned Storm Christoph. Both Northwich and Winsford in my constituency flooded twice in an 18-month period, most recently during that storm. Our section 19 investigation found that although Northwich’s flood walls held, the ancient Victorian combined sewerage system was not up to scratch. Does she agree that when we talk about investment in flood defences, it is about not just flood walls, but investment in our sewerage infrastructure?
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend makes an important point.
In September, we came within inches of another major event. The emergency services set up a temporary command post, and we were preparing to evacuate homes again. Then, just last Friday, we had another flood alert, with modelling suggesting that we were heading for yet another breach. Residents can see what is happening: these events are coming closer together and they are becoming harder to predict, but none of that should come as a surprise.
I want to be clear that the areas most exposed to flooding in Warrington South are some of the most deprived, with some of the highest levels of disadvantage. They are the least able to shoulder the cost of repairs, the rising insurance premiums or months of disruption. Those communities are hit first and hit hardest, and they deserve the very best protection we can give them, not the uncertainty of waiting year after year for the infrastructure that they should already have had.
When I looked at an old Ordnance Survey map from the 1880s, I saw that the land around Dallam and Bewsey was clearly marked as liable to flooding, with mud flats shown across an area that is now full of homes. Much of the housing built in the pre-war and post-war decades went up before anyone talked about climate resilience or long-term hydrology. Those decisions were not malicious; they were just made in a different era. With the kind of extreme rainfall that we are now seeing, those early planning decisions are showing their limits. That history matters—it helps to explain why that area is so vulnerable and why modern infrastructure simply must catch up.
Nobody back then could have foreseen the level of rainfall now, but we cannot pretend that those planning decisions are not part of why we are here today. We have a responsibility to respond to the risks that are now so clear. This is not bad luck or a one-off winter; it is a pattern. The storms are heavier, the water rises faster and the ground saturates more quickly. Our infrastructure simply was not built for that pace or intensity of change.
People often ask me about dredging, clearing the gullies, reopening canals and maintaining the brooks. Yes, those things matter, and I will always push for better maintenance, but we need to be straight with our residents. Dredging, clearing gullies, reopening canals and cutting back vegetation cannot prevent flooding when we get an entire day’s rain in just a couple of hours. That is the scale of the challenge; no amount of clearing alone can keep the water back.
Flood events that used to be rare are now frequent. What used to be a slow rise in water levels can happen in the blink of an eye. The weather has changed, but the infrastructure has not. That is why the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme is so important. It is why I fought to secure the funding that finally allowed the outline design stage to begin. The contract has now been awarded and engineers are progressing the plans. Without securing that funding, we would still be talking about possibilities, rather than the engineers beginning their work. But I have to be honest: in the past, promises were made without a plan and people were let down. I will not repeat those mistakes. Sadly, even now, there are some making big claims about this scheme without understanding how complex it is. It is easy to say what people want to hear, but much harder to follow through and deliver. This is not a fast process and I will not pretend it is, but it is real progress after years of false starts.
My constituents are desperate, and they ask me the same question time and again: when will this actually be built? The honest answer is not an easy one. At the moment, construction is not due to start until 2029, with an expected completion date in 2032. For communities that have faced repeated flooding, that is a long wait. They understand that the scheme is complex and that it needs to be done properly, so that flooding is not simply pushed on to other neighbourhoods. But they also need reassurance that the project will not stall again because, right now, we still do not have all the funding required. There is an affordability gap that we cannot ignore.
In the north-west, we have already seen schemes fall behind when the funding picture is unclear. We cannot afford for that to happen here. Sadly, we all know that the Sankey brook scheme will not entirely remove the risk of flooding. With more extreme weather and a change in climate, that risk will always be there in some form. What we can do is take every practical step to protect the communities most at risk. We can identify the gaps, strengthen the early-warning systems and put better support in place while the scheme is being designed and built.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend touches on an important point about early warning. My constituency experienced devastating flooding in 2005 and 2015. Last week, despite flood warnings, we mercifully escaped—though parts of the city were affected —when what had been forecast was not what transpired. The Environment Agency appears to lack access to accurate radar forecasting. Does she agree that we must equip the EA with exactly that type of early warning?
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree. We have also experienced that. At the time of the last flooding event, certain levels were predicted that did not come to pass. The accuracy is not there at the moment.
I want to take a moment to thank the EA, Warrington borough council and our emergency services, because they have done everything they can with the limited resources available. Partners I have worked with have been open and honest about the challenges, and they care deeply about getting this right, but they cannot carry the burden without stability and adequate support from central Government on the ground.
I hope that the Minister will consider the following asks. First, schemes such as Sankey brook need funding certainty. Families who have lived with repeated floods should not be waiting each year to see if the next phase can go ahead. Short-term funding creates long-term uncertainty. It slows down planning, delays construction and leaves communities exposed.
Local choice cannot become a replacement for proper, national investment. It was never designed to plug repeated funding shortfalls. We need a mechanism that can close affordability gaps quickly for schemes that are already progressing. It is not good enough for a project to be technically sound, publicly supported and urgently needed, only to sit half-funded for years.
Secondly, we need faster approval and progress for schemes where the risk is clearly rising. Sankey brook is routinely flagged during heavy rainfall. The recent September near miss, new-year floods, Storm Christoph and this past Friday show how urgent that is.
Thirdly, we need better support for interim measures while the long-term scheme is built. That includes making flood alerts more reliable, especially at night and for nearby communities. It means property flood resilience grants, measures to protect people’s homes, and enhanced practical help that is routinely available for councils and landlords dealing with the aftermath of flooding. Our experience in Warrington shows that the current flood recovery framework and Bellwin scheme are not fit for purpose and do not go far enough to support communities or local authorities.
Fourthly, I ask the Minister to look seriously at the growing issue of insurance affordability. Local residents are finding that they either cannot get flood insurance or that the premiums are so high that they cannot afford insurance. I urge her to look for solutions to ensure that families are not left uninsured or financially exposed while they wait for long-term schemes like Sankey brook to be completed.
Fifthly, I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme, give it the priority the project deserves and do everything in her power to ensure that the scheme progresses at pace. My constituents and I are desperate for this scheme. We have lived through years of flooding, near misses, evacuations and constant anxiety. This is not a “nice to have” for my constituents. It is essential infrastructure. We need additional funding, more resources, spades in the ground and defences built. We need certainty and a commitment that only the Minister can provide.
Across the north-west, we are seeing a pattern: more extreme rainfall, more frequent events, and infrastructure that simply was not built for that. Communities cannot tackle this alone. Warrington South is an incredibly strong and resilient place. People look out for one another—they always have—but they should not have to rely on luck every time the rain comes. Good will alone will not keep homes dry. People need proper infrastructure behind them.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I agree with all the things that she has asked for. Perhaps I can add one more ask of both the EA and the Government, which is for more of a focus on the upstream prevention activity, so we can stop the waters coming down on the Mersey—a number of colleagues here are based on the Mersey, and she described the floods coming down so well. Perhaps we could work upstream in the Goyt valley and bring some of the longer-term measures forward to cut the problem off at source. Maybe we can all work together. The MPs who represent constituencies along the Mersey could talk to the EA about how we do that.
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree and would be more than happy to do that.
Residents across Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and Penketh are doing everything asked of them. They sign up for alerts, check river levels, move furniture upstairs and support one another through the worry. But what they cannot do is hold back water that rises faster and more aggressively every year. We finally got the Sankey brook scheme moving. Now we need the reassurance that it will continue at pace with the funding and support required to get it over the line. If schemes like this stall, the ripple effects are felt from family homes to local businesses and transport routes.
The storms will not wait for 2032. The water will not wait for the next funding round. We have been lucky more than once this year, but luck is not a flood defence strategy. It is not good enough for communities who have already suffered through repeated floods. Behind every issue I have raised this afternoon is a principle: people deserve to feel safe where they live, supported when things go wrong and listened to when they speak up. My constituents in Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and beyond have waited long enough. They deserve the right infrastructure to protect them, and I will keep fighting until they get it.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for bringing this issue to the House today.
“Despite three section 19 reports identifying the issue of a blockage…nothing happens despite recommendations to do so.”
Those are the words of Stephen, a constituent of mine in Bramhall who has suffered bad flooding at his home for many years. Just this week, flooding on the A555 relief road under Hall Moss Lane bridge in Bramhall, just down the road from Stephen, led to accidents, a road closure and disruption to many people’s lives, yet the area is being bombarded with planning proposals, encouraged by Government policy that does not in any measure address flooding.
Every year, more and more houses are at risk. That takes a serious toll on people, not just financially but emotionally. Post-traumatic stress disorder, long-term displacement and lifetime debt are only some of the consequences of flooding events in our communities. One resident contacted me to say that every time they get the Environment Agency’s emergency alert on their phone, they break out into pure panic.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Flooding is a huge issue in south Somerset. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Somerset Rivers Authority and me that the Environment Agency’s plan to stop maintaining small rivers and streams due to Government funding cuts will only increase the risk of flooding?
Mr Morrison
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and yes, there is a question of flooding here. According to the EA’s March 2024 report, 3.2 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding. The latest surface water flooding risk assessment carried out by the EA increased the flood risk rating of many of the homes in my Cheadle constituency. Residents need to know that the Government are taking such flooding seriously.
From working with residents, Stockport council and the EA after the awful floods in January, it is clear to me that serious clarification is needed. Stockport council did not receive any funding from the EA or the Government following January’s disastrous flooding, despite its serious and widespread impact and the lives it ruined. What is more, the EA’s long-term flood risk management strategy for the River Mersey has been delayed, which is arguably one of the reasons why Stockport council missed out on the funding.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very good point. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the large drainage basins of rivers such as the Mersey, the Dee, the Kent and the Lune, which have systemic flood risk, there is also the issue of serious localised flooding across the region, which is often not tied to major drainage basins but connected to sewerage or groundwater?
Mr Morrison
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point, and that is the crux of the problem: we concentrate a lot on areas such as the Mersey, but we have a load of waterways and a load of issues around sewerage and drainage that need to be encompassed by our thinking.
Organisations responsible must be not only properly funded in the long term, but able to work constructively and effectively together to protect residents. As the Government force us to “build, baby, build”, new developments will only increase surface water flooding as more green belt gets built on and natural drainage is reduced. In the words of the National Infrastructure Commission itself, the Government’s response to the commission’s report on surface water flooding did
“not meet the scale of the challenge.”
The National Flood Forum receives more than 1,000 calls a year, often from vulnerable residents affected by recent developments causing flooding.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not even refer to flooding or flood risk management, and the Environment Agency’s flood risk guidance is often ignored or legally challenged within the Bill. I was proud to support the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have properly tackled flooding in relation to planning and required the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in any new development.
The EA’s own road map to 2026 suggests that, for every pound spent on protecting communities, we avoid around £5 in property damages. This is incredibly important, so now is the time to commit to long-term funding rather than shy away from it. That is essential to ensuring that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford, Gatley and all the communities that have been impacted by flooding over the last 12 years can be supported in protecting their homes, their businesses and their communities, as well as reducing the impact of increasingly heavy storms, increased surface water and new developments that have not properly been considered.
I will finish with a remark from Karen, who lives near the Micker brook in Cheadle. She said:
“Planners and developers must take into account flooding when building. What happened at the mill in Stockport on New Year’s Day was simply appalling. The developer should be responsible for this.”
The Government must take urgent action that takes flood risk seriously and provides long-term, ringfenced funding for organisations such as the EA and responsible councils, and they must legislate without delay on the close connection between flooding, development and infrastructure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. I shall begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so colleagues might like to titrate their contributions accordingly.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this critical debate, and praise her language, campaigning approach and resilience —that is really the buzzword for this topic.
When we talk about flood risk in the north-west—not just in Burnley but, more obviously, in Padiham and Brierfield—we are not talking about abstract theories or far-off scenarios. We are talking about real people with water in their homes and shops, and about destruction. In Padiham, many families still recall the shock of waking to rising water, the distress of damaged homes and businesses, and the long clean-up that followed the Boxing day floods of 2015. Those experiences stay with our community.
That is why the Padiham flood risk management scheme is so important and such a momentous project for Padiham. It is more than a construction project; it represents security, care and commitment to the people who live and work in our town. Once completed, the scheme will protect around 160 homes, businesses and public buildings in the centre of Padiham, and defend our community from the River Calder, the Green brook and the surface water that has caused so much destruction in the past.
We are now seeing clear progress: the new flood wall and gate at Bendwood Close is already finished, detailed design work for the wider scheme is nearly complete and full construction is planned to begin in spring 2026, with completion expected by winter 2028. The investment gives the town something very valuable: the ability to look to the future with greater confidence.
I put on record my recognition of the team effort that the scheme has been—it has spanned three Members of Parliament and 10 years of lobbying—and of the work of all involved, involving the Environment Agency, Burnley council, Councillor John Harbour, Councillor Barbara Dole, Councillor Alun Lewis and, indeed, the Minister, who I believe signed off the proposals last week, in her first week in office. I am proud that the Government have seen fit to fund the proposals, after the floods in 2015, and that residents and businesses can now have assurance that the scheme will be completed.
I ask that the Environment Agency, which I thank for the work so far, does its best to keep the scheme on track and get it delivered. For residents, the scheme is about not just engineering, but peace of mind. It is about being able to put children to bed on a stormy night without worrying that the streets, shops and homes will be flooded in the morning. On Christmas day last year, I was contacted by businesses on Padiham high street; people were texting me as they watched the water levels in the Calder while enjoying their Christmas day turkey. This is about keeping the heart of Padiham strong, vibrant and protected for years to come. Padiham is a reminder that investment in flood resilience is ultimately an investment in people, their wellbeing, and the secure future that they deserve.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing the debate, which is so important, especially with the winter months approaching.
As we have just heard, in January the north-west faced floods of such ferocity that they took everyone by surprise. Across Manchester, Cheshire and the Wigan borough, homes and livelihoods were devastated. In Leigh and Atherton, the damage was significant. For residents near Lilford Park, it was the second time they had endured a major flood in less than 10 years. To experience such destruction twice in a decade is unacceptable, and it is no wonder that people are asking whether our flood resilience measures are truly fit for purpose.
I witnessed at first hand the disruption and devastation that flooding causes to people’s lives—possessions lost and communities shaken. In the aftermath, the focus has rightly been on recovery. I am grateful to the emergency services, which responded swiftly at the time. I want also to acknowledge the support of local councillors, Wigan council officers and local businesses that gave their time and resources to those impacted. I thank the Minister for visiting the area to meet residents. I know her commitment to this issue; she is steadfast in wanting to support communities in their time of need.
People have gone above and beyond to support our neighbours, and we must never forget that spirit of solidarity. However, we owe it to residents to reduce the risk of this happening again. Since the incident, I have been working with the council, the Environment Agency and United Utilities on flood risk management in our area, particularly in Lilford and Higher Folds. Following our section 19 report, the Environment Agency is undertaking modelling of the Leigh East catchment area, which is expected to be completed in the summer.
Planting trees and promoting biodiversity are absolutely worthwhile, but they cannot replace the urgent need for proper flood storage—that goes back to the comment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made earlier. We need solutions that deliver real protection. Preliminary work has already identified potential water storage areas further upstream, but they need safeguarding from development at least while modelling is completed.
When they are done responsibly, developments can assist with flood prevention, but it is imperative that they are not looked at in isolation. Incorporating sustainable drainage systems, such as attenuation ponds, can drastically reduce downstream flooding. While they may not appear necessary for each development, the benefits downstream must not be underestimated.
Phil Brickell
As my constituency neighbour, does my hon. Friend share the frustration that I and my Bolton West constituents sometimes have about identifying who is responsible for the existing infrastructure and its maintenance? For example, we struggle to understand whether United Utilities or the council is responsible for localised flooding by Old Station Park and on Chorley New Road in Horwich, or on Lostock Junction Lane, and the source of the flooding.
Jo Platt
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As near neighbours, we share the same concerns. I do think that the Greater Manchester combined authority is leading on some really good work, pulling in all the agencies in order to work on the responsibilities of some of those partners, and we need to be part of that too.
We need decisive action now. Every household must be made flood-proof, not through quick fixes but through sustainable solutions that stand the test of time. That means that local and national policies must embed resilience at their core. Local authorities and the Environment Agency should be held accountable and given the resources to deliver.
Finally, I want to raise an issue that residents repeatedly bring to me. Many households find that insurance companies differ widely in the cover they offer for flood risk, leaving families vulnerable. What discussions has the Minister had with insurers and with the Build Back Better scheme to ensure fairness and consistency in cover for those affected?
Our community has shown strength in the face of adversity; now it is time for leadership to match that strength with action. We must build a future where homes are protected, families feel secure and flooding is no longer a recurring nightmare for Leigh and Atherton residents.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate.
In January, there was flooding at Meadow Mill in my constituency, with almost 200 residents impacted. I thank the Meadow Mill residents association for all the work it has done in representing residents but also raising real concerns. I have corresponded with a number of residents, and I met the association just a few weeks ago in my office. One of the main issues they face is that the building’s owner is unable to secure insurance against the flood risk. That is quite concerning for leaseholders, who are liable to pay out of their own pockets for any future flood damage to Meadow Mill, which may run to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more.
Although none of the residential units was impacted by the flooding on new year’s day, the water filtration system, boiler and electricity substation were affected, which meant there was no water supply, heating or electric in the flats, so all residents had to evacuate. That should have been avoided, because the mill was only recently converted into flats. It is a serious issue.
Generally speaking, Stockport does not really suffer from flooding; it is usually the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), that has the most significant issues. However, with climate change and a number of other factors, it is something we are increasingly facing. I do not want to repeat points that others have made, but the issue of funding for the Environment Agency is quite serious. I have met the agency, and I appreciate all the work it does, but it has no earmarked funding for work in my constituency, which is a concern.
We also have an issue in Reddish, where a bridge collapsed in January. It will cost more than £1 million to repair, and Stockport council tells me that it cannot facilitate the work without central Government support. Across the borough, which includes three constituencies, the cost of damage is around £4.3 million—a serious sum.
We need much better drainage systems and much more investment in the Environment Agency, but we also need more protection for residents, whether they are tenants or owner-occupiers, from the risks that come with insurance and the additional costs. On behalf of Meadow Mill residents, I want to raise that issue with the Government.
I thank the firefighters, North West ambulance service and Greater Manchester police, but also Stockport council staff who went above and beyond in supporting residents. I take this opportunity to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular with regard to the Fire Brigades Union, but I am very grateful to them for doing all they can. I will finish by inviting the Minister to come to Stockport to try some of our award-winning beer, but also to meet residents of Meadow Mill.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for this important and timely debate.
For my constituents in Wythenshawe and Sale East, flooding is a growing concern, severely affecting local communities on both sides of the river. On new year’s day, we witnessed one of the most severe flood events in recent memory: the River Mersey reached its highest level in 66 years following an intense downpour—70 mm of rain in just 18 hours. Emergency crews worked tirelessly and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in giving my thanks to them.
At Northenden golf club, helicopters dropped one-tonne bags of rock to plug the breaches in the embankments. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) and I met representatives of our respective golf clubs, Northenden and Withington, a few days after the event. One of the nightmare scenarios now is that golf clubs cannot get insurance, and that is only spreading. That is what climate change is bringing to us. Manchester city council evacuated over 1,000 residents that day and closed footpaths and infrastructure near the river. The exact same thing had happened just a few years earlier; the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, visited a couple of days later—we thought we had averted disaster but clearly we had not.
Thanks to flood defences, nearly 12,000 properties were protected, but tragically 99 homes were still flooded because of the embankment breaches. On 1 January, the river at Northenden peaked at 3.76 metres, well above the property flooding threshold of 3.3 metres. That was not an isolated incident. When I was a young councillor growing up in Northenden that was a one-in-100-year event, but now it is happening annually because of climate change.
That is not all. The relentless discharging of untreated sewage into the River Mersey by United Utilities also points to a system under strain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) mentioned. Storm overflows are designed to prevent sewerage systems from backing up during heavy rain. When they are overwhelmed, the environmental impact is profound. Polluted waters threaten wildlife, biodiversity and public health. The River Mersey becomes a wet wipe and tampon alley for weeks and months on end, making it unusable.
Yet in 2024 alone, United Utilities discharged sewage into the Mersey estuary 1,865 times, lasting for a total of 12,500 hours. That is the equivalent of 1.4 years of continuous sewage, at an average of five spills every single day. That is just the estuary. The combination of damage to homes and businesses and the environmental impact of sewage overflow caused by flooding has created a perfect storm in my constituency and right along the River Mersey estuary. We are paying for it in countless unsustainable ways.
What can we begin to do about the situation? Local action is extraordinarily important to stem the waters entering the Mersey in the first place. The South Manchester urban brooks project, in collaboration with the team at Biora, have come up with a plan to de-culvert Baguley and Fairywell brooks. We have to tackle these issues at the source.
De-culverting and freeing our buried waterways, restoring them to their natural, open-air condition, is transformational: it reduces pollution, improves water health, creates vital habitat for wildlife and lowers water temperatures. Most importantly, it slows the water course down before it ever enters the River Mersey basin at all. That is why that type of infrastructure upstream is critical for helping my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South. It also creates recreation opportunities for residents; Baguley brook in my constituency runs by a cycle path, for example.
When we bring back our rivers and streams, residents gain access to improved green space, which in turn improves their own wellbeing. But more than that, de-culverting reduces the long-term infrastructure costs and acts as a natural form of green infrastructure, which, critically, slows down the flow of water and reduces peak flows during heavy rain, mitigating flooding further downstream.
Bringing back our brooks in a restorative course of action will reduce flooding, but it requires careful hydrological modelling and carries a high up-front cost. It needs funding and commitment from decision-makers to succeed. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans in my constituency, to make sure that we take action on the devastating impact of flooding all along the Mersey valley?
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this important debate.
In recent years, communities across the north-west have repeatedly endured devastating flooding, most recently following Storm Éowyn, which brought with it devastation and a prolonged recovery. We have also seen that severe impact in Somerset, including when Storm Claudia reaped havoc right across the south-west and into Oxfordshire over the weekend. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, which means that it is even more important to ensure that robust flood resilience is in place, through both a national strategy and local community flood resilience strategies. These events underline the fact that we cannot continue building homes without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place to protect communities from flooding.
My constituent Zoe moved into her new home in Martock in 2022 and then discovered that her property had been built without basic flood protection infrastructure. Her garden was built on clay without appropriate drainage and is also on a severe slope. Every time it rains, it floods. That is not an isolated case, more a consequence of a planning system that too often prioritises completion over responsibility. It is also a legacy of the former Conservative Government, who slashed flood protection plans for homes and failed to invest in flood defences, leaving communities to fend for themselves.
If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must also ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including sustainable drainage systems that properly manage excess rainfall. The Liberal Democrats have been clear: the Government must commit to implementing schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to legally require the installation of drainage systems in new builds to strengthen local flood resilience.
Furthermore, the Government have an obligation to ensure that all future housing developments are supported by upgrades to infrastructure to accommodate the expansion. Their current failure to do so is causing my constituents in Mudford, which floods regularly, to face the prospect of another 1,000 homes just outside their village. That is causing great anxiety. The proposals for that development would use the existing fragile sewerage system without any further enhancements, heightening the flood risk as the infrastructure will simply not cope with the increased capacity.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent: the Government must ensure water companies are made statutory consultees during the planning process. That will help prevent future sewage spills and local flooding by ensuring that any increases in capacity are matched by suitable infrastructure upgrades.
The concerns are not limited to planning decisions; in fact, they are being weakened by the agencies tasked with protecting our communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) mentioned, owing to a funding shortfall the Environment Agency recently issued withdrawal notices to ratepayers in Somerset regarding the cessation of maintenance on the designated main rivers. I thank the Minister, who met me last week to discuss the issue, for her commitment to come and meet me and Somerset stakeholders at some point next year.
The Environment Agency’s decision passes the responsibility on to riparian owners, who in many cases lack the financial ability or knowledge to undertake maintenance, and it will only heighten their anxiety around flood risk. Given the Environment Agency’s own modelling, which has shown that an additional 39,000 homes in the south-west could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that action is contrary to the urgent need to strengthen flood resilience in flood-prone areas such as Somerset.
Last autumn, we welcomed the Chancellor’s decision to commit £2.4 billion towards flood defences. However, with increasingly severe and frequent flooding, compounded by the Environment Agency’s budgetary constraints, the Government need to urgently commit to address longer-term flooding. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a further £5.3 billion to ensure that flood defences are built more quickly and provided to all necessary communities, to increase local preparedness and resilience.
As a Liberal Democrat and the daughter of a farmer, I recognise the invaluable role of farmers in flood management: they store flood water on their land to protect rural communities. For example, the Kerton family, based at Higher Farm in Chilton Cantelo, have repeatedly stored water on their farm, including having half of their farmland submerged for much of last winter. The current custodian, Nobby, told me that he is extremely concerned that the Government have no clear plan for supporting farmers who are sacrificing their land and livelihoods to plug the gaps in rural infrastructure. By acting now, we can protect homes, safeguard livelihoods and create greater flood resilience for rural communities.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate and allowing us to address the important issue of flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the north-west. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House today: from the hon. Members for Warrington South, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).
The hon. Member for Warrington South started off by highlighting the key points about the mental health impacts of flooding and the anxiety and trauma that people face. As we face ever more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. The devastation brought in the past two years by Storms Babette, Kieran and Henk is a grim reminder that vigilance and forward planning remain essential. When thinking about the north-west, we remember the catastrophic impacts of Storm Desmond in 2015. Across the north-west and beyond, families, farmers and business owners know all too well the havoc that flooding brings to bricks and mortar but also the livelihoods and mental health of those living in fear of the next storm. Just this weekend we have had another named storm: storm Claudia. My thoughts go out to the people affected by the flooding, especially in Monmouth. As I said in the Chamber in the urgent question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we cannot overstate the mental health impacts of flooding events and on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to our emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers who demonstrate extraordinary dedication time and again.
However, our compassion for those affected must be matched by decisive action. The previous Conservative Government took the responsibility of flood resilience extremely seriously. Between 2010 and 2020, four Conservative-led Governments protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding. Our record includes a £2.6 billion investment in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, followed by a further £5.2 billion commitment in 2020. We introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and set out a comprehensive policy statement containing 40 practical actions and five ambitious policies for a more flood-resilient Britain.
Equally, the establishment of Flood Re created an essential safety net, making insurance viable for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. Today, I urge the Minister to build on that by expanding the eligibility. Many small businesses remain excluded, particularly where people live above their shop, and properties built after 2009 are ineligible. Will the Minister commit to reviewing those restrictions to enable fairer access to affordable flood insurance?
We Conservatives recognise that in our rural communities, flood management and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Through the environmental land management schemes, we rewarded farmers for natural flood management. Farmers across the north-west and across the country have embraced these schemes, restoring wetlands and investing in sustainable land management, which not only reduces flood risk, but improves biodiversity, captures carbon and enhances soil health. Innovative tree-planting programmes, with the right tree in the right place, and river re-wiggling are brilliant examples of natural flood management.
I ask the Minister to confirm that these actions will continue to be funded under ELMS and that this Government remain committed to supporting nature-based solutions as part of our national flood defence strategy. Regrettably, many farmers and communities are now anxious and uncertain. They have been watching this Labour Government abolish the farming resilience fund, which was a lifeline for mental health, and introduce their heartless family farm tax—all at a time when many are still repairing the damage from last season’s storms.
The flood resilience taskforce was designed to co-ordinate national response and readiness, yet the answer to my parliamentary question shows that it has met only infrequently since Labour took office. Can the Minister tell us what tangible outcomes the taskforce has achieved so far? Given the increased frequency of severe storms, the taskforce must be proactive. Will it start to meet more regularly than at quarterly intervals?
I want to acknowledge the charities that provide vital support to those affected, such as YANA—You Are Not Alone—and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies and the Farming Community Network. The impact of flooding is not only physical or financial, but deeply emotional: the anxiety of waiting for the next storm, the trauma of seeing homes and businesses lost and the long path to recovery all leave scars that last for years. Too often, that is ignored. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to deliver holistic support for flood victims not just in the immediate aftermath, when the water subsides and the blue lights leave, but for the long term.
In summary, communities who face the threat of flooding need certainty. They need reassurance that preventive measures will be sustained, that robust support is available when disaster strikes, and that their physical and mental wellbeing is taken seriously. I very much hope that the Minister will use this debate to provide that clarity and to guarantee that the Government will stand by our rural and urban communities, protect funding for flood defence and address the toll, both physical and mental, that flooding continues to inflict on our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this debate on a highly important matter. Flood and coastal erosion risk has increased and is projected to continue to increase as a result of climate change. I hope that that is at the forefront of all the conversations at COP this week.
A priority for this Government is to protect communities around the country from flooding and to improve the resilience of the country. I recognise the challenge that all constituents, including my own, face during extreme weather events. I sympathise about the impact on households and businesses and, of course, on people’s mental health. Now more than ever, it is important to act to improve our country’s resilience to flooding, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
Before I respond to Members’ remarks, I wish to raise the issue of Storm Claudia, which brought heavy rain and high winds to the UK over the weekend. The worst impacts were felt in south-east Wales. A major incident was declared in Monmouth because of significant flooding in the town and evacuations; The incident was stood down on Sunday, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) this morning. My sympathies go out to all those affected by the flooding—I personally know the distress and upset that flooding can cause—and my thanks go to the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, other responders who were volunteers and all the people who have worked together to protect and support communities and who continue to do so. As flooding is a devolved policy issue, I have contacted the First Minister of Wales to offer my support, and the Environment Agency has offered support locally, including any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales.
I now turn to the focus of today’s debate. I like the passion that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South brought to this conversation. It shows clearly how much this issue means to her and what an important issue it is to her constituents. I thank her for her continued engagement on the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme, which aims to reduce the flood risk to homes and businesses from Sankey brook, Dallam brook and Longford brook in Warrington.
We aim to announce in March 2026 the further list of schemes that will receive investment during 2026-27, but with further announcements to follow each year subsequently. This announcement will follow the regular statutory yearly process for allocating flood funding, with support from the regional flood and coastal committees across the country. The reason we do it in this way is to give local people some say over the money and the schemes that are happening in their area, so it is really important that the regional flood and coastal committees play their role in looking at how the money is best spent and helping to ensure that it meets local priorities.
In 2026-27, we are prioritising projects that are already in construction—we are basically just getting on with building stuff—so the money will be going into projects that are literally being built. I would say, “Build, baby, build,” but I think someone else may have used that in a different debate. We will be delivering flood projects. This will deliver flood risk reductions as soon as possible and will secure the best value for money for taxpayers by avoiding costs that would be incurred if these projects were delayed. We will just get on with doing it and get on with building them.
The EA remains committed to the long-term goals of Sankey brook flood risk management scheme and will continue to work closely with Warrington borough council and United Utilities on progressing the scheme. There will continue to be close working on that as it goes on, and I will update my hon. Friend with any information that I have.
I was quite excited about one point raised in this debate—I am probably the only Minister to get excited about pre-pipe conversations. We can continue to build defences larger and larger, but as so many hon. Members said during the debate, if we slow the flow, if we deal with what happens to the floodwater elsewhere, we do not need as many concrete defences when we reach the bottom of the hill. What is really interesting about the pre-pipe idea is looking at how we prevent lots of the floodwater from ending up in the combined sewerage system, because when these sewerage systems become overwhelmed, what happens? We have a pollution incident, we have flooding—we have something happening around the country.
The pre-pipe idea is so sensible, but the previous flood funding formula rules inhibited natural flood management and inhibited what we wanted, which was to do things in a more innovative way. Our water White Paper takes the issue of flooding and water more holistically to look at the pre-pipe idea. Basically, where is the floodwater going to go? The floodwater is going to go somewhere when we have a downpour, so where do we want it to go and how do we design it to be in the places where we want it, rather than the places where we do not want it? It is a really interesting idea.
We have also increased the weighting for natural flood management. Under the old scheme, there was a separate fund for natural flood management, but that was because the actual formula did not result in natural flood management outcomes. The reason was that with natural flood management, it is not an engineered solution. We cannot build natural flood management and say, “I guarantee this changes the flood risk bracket—I guarantee this natural flood management scheme will hold this much water,” because by its nature it is a natural flood management scheme. We have changed the rules and the system around them to enable us to have more natural flood management.
The other thing of real interest in how the flood funding formula works is that we have given a deprivation weighting, because we know that areas with higher levels of deprivation are often the last to recover from a flooding incident and find it the most difficult to recover. Adding a weighting for deprivation and an emphasis on natural flood management to the formula that allocates where the money will be spent enables us to have more nature-based solutions and protect those who are most in need and least able to respond to flood events.
The EA budget has increased, not decreased. Under this Labour Government, we increased it by £188 million this year, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most money that has ever been spent on flooding. As a Labour Government, we can proudly say that we are putting the most money ever into flooding and giving the Environment Agency the most money it has ever had.
Oliver Ryan
It is great to hear about the record funding to tackle flooding. I wonder whether I can copy the words of another Member and invite the Minister to my constituency to see some of the great benefits of that funding increase in Padiham.
Emma Hardy
That is very exciting. I was offered beer by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), so perhaps I can come for a visit on the way.
The issue of forecasting was raised. We have improved our flood warning and informing system, with a new system going live on, I think, 21 October. The maps allow people to zoom down for more detailed information. Constant work is going on to make our forecasting more accurate. I encourage all hon. Members to talk to the specialists at the Met Office about how they do this work. It is more art than science, because they have to look at different predictions. If there are heavy downpours concentrated in one area, as we had last year, it becomes difficult to judge exactly, but they are continually working to improve the forecasts. Our flood forecasting in this country is some of the best and most accurate in the world, but there is always more that we can do.
Many hon. Members raised the issue of insurance. We had an insurance roundtable. As I have explained before, the floods resilience taskforce is a huge group of people who meet together, before creating action groups that go away and focus on particular issues. We have just had an action group to look into insurance—who is getting it, who is not getting it, how affordable it is and what information is out there. There is also the flood insurance directory, which I am happy to circulate among Members; it allows people to find something that is affordable. I have been pushing insurance companies to offer the Build Back Better scheme, which gives people an extra £10,000 to make their properties more flood-resilient, to as many as possible. Greater Manchester combined authority is doing great work, taking a combined look at how we tackle flooding: it is one of the best examples of that holistic working around the country. The authority sits on the floods resilience taskforce to offer advice.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It was lovely to visit Leigh and Atherton and talk to people there. I have met the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) to discuss watercourse maintenance, and I stand by my promise to visit next year.
On insurance—I apologise if everyone knows this—I want to flag something about how Flood Re works. It puts a levy on everybody else who pays insurance, so every time someone asks that the scheme be increased or widened, or that more people benefit from it, I want to sound a note of caution, because that would result in people who are not at risk paying more for their insurance. That is how it works: it is a levy system. It would be wonderful to have lots more money for everything, but I hope that everyone who is asking me for extra money will support our Budget next week.
Finally, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for securing this debate on the incredibly important issue of flood risk and defence. We should all encourage our constituents to sign up for flood alerts and warnings, have a flood plan and know what to do if there is a flood emergency. A pack has gone out to every Member of Parliament and was circulated again just last week with a “Dear colleague” letter. Will Members please use that information and share it as much as possible, so we can ensure that everybody is prepared for the winter ahead?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I call Sarah Hall to wind up extremely briefly.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
That was commendably brief.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West.
Education
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Hinchliff
I really welcome the efforts to curtail the excessive examination time that our children are facing. It does not help real learning and is having a big impact on the mental health of the younger generation. What opportunities does the Secretary of State see for introducing more modern approaches to teaching that offer opportunities to learn through play and would provide wider access to education than traditional methods do?
Bridget Phillipson
We want to ensure that as we reduce GCSE content by 10%, we do so, together with the regulator, in a way that maintains the validity and integrity of the system. There are a range of different approaches that teachers can benefit from, and the Department provides much in the way of training and development. We always keep that under review to ensure that this is evidence-informed and driven by the best pedagogy.
[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 948.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
Bridget Phillipson
We want to ensure that as we reduce GCSE exam time by 10%, we do so, together with the regulator, in a way that maintains the validity and integrity of the system. There are a range of different approaches that teachers can benefit from, and the Department provides much in the way of training and development. We always keep that under review to ensure that this is evidence-informed and driven by the best pedagogy.
China-manufactured Surveillance Equipment: Sensitive Sites
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government continue to take the security of their systems and physical infrastructure extremely seriously. In November 2022, the previous Administration instructed all Government Departments to cease deployment of surveillance equipment on their sensitive sites where it is manufactured by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China. They also committed to providing an annual update on the matter to Parliament.
This Government have continued the work at pace, and I am pleased to confirm that all sensitive Government sites originally identified with such equipment have now finished their replacement work.
[HCWS1065]
Integrated Security Fund: Allocations for Financial Year 2025-26
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I wish to update the House on the integrated security fund’s initial regional and thematic allocations for this financial year—2025-26. This builds on the ISF’s 2024-25 annual report, which was published on www.gov.uk on 30 October. Non-ODA Allocated (£m) ODA Allocated (£m) Total Allocation (£m) Total ISF Budget 621.82 233.00 854.82 Continuing Portfolios Africa 18.68 38.56 57.24 Counter Terrorism 18.00 13.00 31.00 Cyber and Tech 93.70 5.30 99.00 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 35.23 55.00 90.23 Economic deterrence initiative 17.50 0.00 17.50 Information threats and influence 15.00 0.00 15.00 Middle East and North Africa and Iran 40.29 40.29 80.58 Migration 7.00 3.00 10.00 Serious and organised crime 7.95 16.40 24.35 Western Balkans 7.00 17.00 24.00 Non-discretionary peacekeeping 205.32 42.21 247.21 AU mission Somalia (AUSSOM/ATMIS) 25.00 0.00 25.00 Op TOSCA 12.20 0.00 12.20 Central administration costs 13.00 0.00 13.00 Exit costs 4.00 0.00 4.00 New Portfolios Biosecurity 15.00 0.00 15.00 Gender and National Security 4.00 0.85 4.85 Small-scale standalone programmes 10.00 1.65 11.65 Discretionary peacekeeping 0.55 0.00 0.55 Transfer to FCDO Overseas territories* 13.95 3.95 17.90 Closed Portfolios Afghanistan and Pakistan 0.05 0.00 0.05 Americas 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gender, peace and security 0.00 0.00 0.00 India and India Ocean 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multilateral Strategy 0.44 0.25 0.69 National Security and Communications Team 0.03 0.00 0.03 South-East Asia and Pacific 0.000 0.00 0.00 State threats 4.13 0.00 4.13 Total ISF Allocations** 568.02 237.46 805.48
The ISF is a cross-Government fund, designed to tackle the highest-priority threats to the UK’s national security at home and overseas. It supports delivery of the national security strategy.
ISF 2025-26 Allocations
In 2025-26, the ISF has allocated £854.82 million, of which £233.00 million is overseas development assistance, and £621.82 million is non-ODA (table 1).
In 2025-26, the ISF will build on its first year of operation by continuing to invest in the UK’s top national security priorities. This includes a combination of activity to both strengthen domestic resilience and security and support our partners and protect British interests overseas. The ISF continues to prioritise support to Ukraine and other partners in eastern Europe and the western Balkans in the face of Russian aggression and hostile state interference. This includes vital stabilisation work for communities near the frontline in Ukraine, as well as activity to strengthen our partners’ capabilities to counter misinformation and cyber-attacks.
The ISF is also investing in bolstering the UK’s own resilience to these threats and in capabilities to improve the economic security of both the UK and our allies through the ISF’s economic deterrence initiative. The ISF will continue to deliver programming to promote stability and security in the middle east and Africa, where instability results in a direct threat to UK national security interests. This is complemented by the fund’s work to address non-state threats, like serious and organised crime and terrorism.
In 2025-26, the ISF has undergone structural reform, including the consolidation of its thematic and geographic portfolios to improve efficiency and streamline the ISF’s work. The changes made for 2025-26 represent a transition towards a revised and simplified governance structure that is due to be implemented over the spending review 2025 period. Allocations for the remainder of the SR25 period will be announced in due course.
Table 1: Indicative ISF Funding Allocations 2025-2026
N.B. the indicative table below omits references to activity and associated budgets exempt from publication. It also provides for a small over-allocation to reflect the fact that underspends can arise when delivering new programming, and to ensure full use of the ISF’s allocated budget over the financial year.
* Programming in the Overseas Territories has returned to FCDO to support in 2025-26.
** Some closing ISF Portfolios received transition support from the ISF in 2025-26.
[HCWS1066]
North Hyde Substation Outage Review: Government Response
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
In March 2025 the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero commissioned the National Energy System Operator to undertake a comprehensive review of the incident at North Hyde electricity substation. The review was to identify lessons and recommendations for the prevention, and management of future power disruption events, and lessons for Great Britain’s energy resilience more broadly. NESO published its review report on 2 July 2025.
The Government response to NESO’s report sets a clear implementation plan to make progress against NESO’s recommendations. We will build on this implementation plan through our commitment today to publish an energy resilience strategy in 2026. The strategy will set out the Department’s strategic priorities to ensure a secure and resilient energy system, now and in the future.
Energy resilience strategy:
On top of taking immediate action to address learnings from the North Hyde incident, it is critical that we also consider how the risk landscape is evolving rapidly and growing more complex. The Government’s clean energy superpower mission will drive a sector-wide transformation, offering a critical opportunity to further embed security and resilience into system design, strengthening energy reliability.
The energy resilience strategy will address sector-specific challenges across the entire energy system, like those identified following the North Hyde incident. It will set out this Government’s ambition to build power sector resilience across society, including the critical sectors that rely on energy to deliver our critical services, and it will create a framework to embed resilience across the energy system now and in the future.
North Hyde implementation plan:
The North Hyde implementation plan has been developed in collaboration with the energy resilience group—a partnership between Government, the regulator and industry. This ensures a joined-up approach to energy resilience, emergency response and recovery—will set out specific actions to enhance resilience across the three pillars of NESO’s review:
Resilience of energy infrastructure;
Response and restoration of energy infrastructure; and
Enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure to energy disruption
The majority of actions will be delivered by the end of 2026 and will bolster the energy industry’s prevention and preparedness for exceptional events, reducing the likelihood and impact of energy disruption. While improvements will be made, no energy system can be totally immune from disruption, which is why, in tandem, these actions will support other critical national infrastructure sectors—just as transport—in enhancing their own resilience to such events, as far as is reasonably practicable.
The newly established energy security and resilience taskforce, chaired by the Minister of State at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and comprising senior energy sector representatives, will oversee and assure the implementation of these actions.
[HCWS1067]
Storm Claudia
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Storm Claudia brought heavy rain and high winds to the UK, resulting in flooding to several areas. The worst impacts were felt in Wales, where a major incident was declared in Monmouth. In England, the Environment Agency is reporting 57 properties flooded to date, with 18,000 properties protected by flood defences. The rain has now passed, and the situation is improving.
My sympathies go to all those affected by the flooding. I have seen at first hand the disruption and distress it causes to communities. My thanks go to the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities and other responders who have protected and supported communities and who will continue to do so.
As policy on flooding is a devolved matter, I have contacted the First Minister of Wales to offer my support. The Environment Agency has offered support locally, which includes any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales.
Strong action was taken in preparation for, and during, Storm Claudia to protect communities. Over the weekend, the Environment Agency issued flood warnings and alerts to over 165,000 people. Flood defences were operated in dozens of locations, including the new scheme recently completed at Beales Corner in Bewdley.
Storm Claudia will not be the last storm we face. Flooding poses an increasing risk to many communities. This Government are therefore responding to today’s challenges while investing for the future in our flood defences and building long-term resilience.
This Government have set up the floods resilience taskforce to advise Ministers on flood resilience and preparedness nationally and locally, and to provide key learnings from previous major flood incidents. The taskforce brings together Ministers from DEFRA, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Transport, with experts from the Environment Agency, the Met Office, local authorities and mayoral offices, emergency responders, the insurance industry and rural, farming and environmental groups.
In recent months, taskforce members have delivered a range of improvements. The Met Office and Environment Agency have improved national flood modelling. The agency recently launched a new flood warning system that delivers more timely, accurate, and accessible flood warnings, helping communities across the country prepare and respond more effectively. DEFRA and the Environment Agency have exercised national co-ordination arrangements. MHCLG has raised awareness of flood-recovery schemes with local authorities. In September, the taskforce reviewed flood preparedness for flooding this autumn and winter.
The Government are committing more than £10.5 billion by 2036 to deliver the largest floods programme in history, protecting 900,000 properties. Since this Government came into office, the Environment Agency has already delivered 151 schemes, ensuring that 24,000 properties are better protected.
Climate change means that more communities will face heightened risks of flooding. In October, following a public consultation, we announced reforms to make it quicker and easier to deliver the right defences in the right places by simplifying flood funding rules. These new funding rules will come into effect with the start of the new floods programme in April.
Maintaining flood defence infrastructure is essential to ensuring reliability, safety, and long-term value. In total, we have reprioritised £108 million to maintenance, halting the decline in asset condition and including urgent repairs to defences damaged in previous flooding events. Without this intervention, their condition would continue to decline year after year.
Flood insurance is also a valuable tool to help people recover from flooding. That is why we are supporting people to access insurance through our partnership with Flood Re, a joint initiative between the Government and the insurance industry that ensures households at the highest risk of flooding can access affordable insurance. In the financial year 2024-25 alone, Flood Re provided cover for over 345,000 household policies.
We are committed to improving property flood resilience. In October, the Environment Agency published the “Flood Ready” review. Its recommendations will be taken forward by a core leadership group of industry and Government, who will work closely together to prioritise and deliver key actions. We are working with industry to promote the Build Back Better scheme. This initiative ensures that properties affected by flooding are improved, reducing time families spend out of their homes and lowering the overall cost of recovery.
This Government will continue their steadfast work to protect communities from flooding, improving preparedness, response and recovery.
[HCWS1064]
Planning Reform: Next Phase
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. This will require house building at levels not seen in over 50 years, but it is essential to restore the dream of home ownership and ensure every family can access a safe, decent, and affordable home.
Meeting this commitment requires a combination of ambition and resolve: ambition in the scale of our reforms, and resolve to see them through. We have already taken significant action—including introducing mandatory and higher housing targets, modernising green belt policy, taking the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its final phases, and accelerating growth supporting infrastructure. It is now time to press ahead with our next phase of reform—going further on fixing the foundations, transforming the housing market and building homes for those who need them most.
Over the coming weeks, I will set out the actions that comprise this next phase of reform. That starts today, with three pro-growth planning reforms designed to accelerate house building: unleashing development around rail stations, intervening to support growth, and streamlining the statutory consultee system.
Unleashing development around rail stations
First, development of the right quality and density around train stations enables working families to benefit from greater opportunities to live in close proximity to transport hubs—saving them time and money—alongside unlocking more opportunities for jobs, education, and sustainable growth.
That is why—as part of a revised, more rules-based national planning policy framework—the Government intends to provide a “default yes” to suitable planning applications for development within a reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations. This will give greater certainty for house builders, allow development to be approved more quickly, and unlock tens of thousands of new homes during this Parliament.
This new policy will form part of the consultation on a revised NPPF by the end of the year, and will apply to land around both train and tram stations with a sufficient frequency of services. Recognising the significant benefits for jobs and growth that can be unlocked by building around train stations, these rules will extend to land within the green belt—continuing efforts to ensure that a policy designed in the middle of the last century is updated to work today. As with other green-belt land, the golden rules would apply, ensuring higher levels of affordable housing, local infrastructure and green space are provided to local communities.
The new approach will apply equally across all local authorities, so that these benefits are realised across the country.
Intervening to support growth
Secondly, while planning decisions are principally for local authorities, I hold powers that allow me to take over applications and determine them directly—ensuring the right decisions are taken in the local and national interest.
Given the scale of the housing crisis, and the imperative of building the homes we need, I want to use these powers in a more focused and active way. I will require local authorities to notify me where they intend to refuse an application for 150 homes or more—providing me with the opportunity to decide whether to take it over.
This will be enforced through a new consultation direction and a change to legislation, and supported by a revised call-in and recovery policy.
The Government will also commence new provisions that allow called-in applications to be dealt with faster through written representations, rather than requiring an inquiry, where requested by the main parties.
Streamlining statutory consultees
Thirdly, the statutory consultee system requires reform. Statutory consultees play a crucial role in the planning system by providing expert advice on significant environmental, transport, safety, cultural and heritage issues, ensuring informed and balanced decision making. However, a lack of clarity in the requirements for consultation and an overreliance on statutory advice can contribute to delays and inefficiencies in the planning process.
That is why we want to ensure they offer practical, timely advice, focused on what is necessary for development approval. To that end, the Government are today publishing a consultation that proposes the removal of Sport England, the Gardens Trust, and Theatres Trust as statutory consultees in planning applications to help rationalise the planning system, as set out in the written ministerial statement on the “Reform of the Statutory Consultation System” of 10 March. Since the spring, we have also worked with key statutory consultees to develop broader reforms, which aim to cut applications requiring input from bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England by up to 40%, saving time and effort for developers and councils.
We expect that these reforms to the planning system will reduce delays and uncertainty in the process and remove bottlenecks to economic growth.
Wider acceleration plan
These three changes are necessary but not sufficient if we are to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—which is why they mark only the initial steps in our second phase of reform. I will set out more detail on my wider acceleration plan before the end of the year, including publishing a revised version of the NPPF for consultation that establishes a more rules-based planning system, including our policy on unlocking development around rail.
[HCWS1062]
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the detention of Gerry Adams—who was interned in July 1973—was unlawful because the interim custody order was not personally signed by William Whitelaw, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time. The Supreme Court’s view was that the wording of the provision indicated that the Carltona principle was displaced. The Supreme Court quashed Mr Adams’ convictions for escaping from prison while detained under the 1973 order, and he has since applied to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland for miscarriage of justice compensation.
The Carltona-based challenge was made over 40 years after the order for Mr Adams’ internment. There had been no suggestion at the time of enactment or in the intervening period in any other previous case that the lawfulness of the interim custody orders were in doubt because they were made and signed by Ministers, rather than the Secretary of State personally. At the time that these decisions were taken, Ministers believed they were acting lawfully on the basis of the Carltona doctrine. We consider that, based on Parliament’s intention, they were right to do so.
We consider that it would be unjust and inappropriate in public interest terms for those who were detained under these orders to be able to make claims based on the fact that it was Ministers and not the Secretary of State personally who made the orders. Importantly, there has never been any argument that there was anything other than a proper and lawful substantive basis for making the orders in the Adams case—the grounds for detention were appropriate and sound under the legislation. There can thus be no real doubt that the decisions would have been precisely the same if it had been the Secretary of State taking the decision on the same material as was before the Ministers.
We consider that, in all the circumstances, the right course is one of correction, so that the law is treated as having always been as Ministers then understood it to be. Parliament can change, and can clarify, the law as it wishes, including to correct what it perceives to be errors or unintended consequences flowing from court decisions. It can also ensure that such a change is to be taken as having always been the case—in short, applying the correction of the law retrospectively. Parliament has done so in the past precisely to correct what it considers to have been an incorrect interpretation of the law by the courts.
Clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill are specifically intended to address the erroneous interpretation made in Adams regarding the application of the Carltona principle. The Carltona principle is a vital principle for Government; and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered to be incorrect inroads into it. These clauses put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State.
One effect of the clauses the Government are introducing is that compensation will not be payable in the Adams case and other similar cases. That is the effect of the provision made in the new clauses that they are to be treated as always having had effect—that is designed to ensure a genuine correction of the law. We consider that that is the right decision for Parliament to make. We also consider that it is a course that is compatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which we take extremely seriously. For all the reasons I have given, I have felt able to make a section19(1)(a) Human Rights Act compatibility statement to that effect, and hope that the House agrees that this is the appropriate course of action to take.
[HCWS1063]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. For the convenience of the Grand Committee, we will debate the first two Motions together.
Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall also speak to the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.
I am pleased to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025; they were recently debated, and subsequently approved, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2025. The regulations have also been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Neither committee raised any concerns about the legislation.
How audiences access TV content has fundamentally changed with the introduction of streaming services, so it is important that regulation keeps pace with these changes. Our public service broadcasters have, prior to the Media Act 2024, been governed by laws written over 20 years ago, so the implementation of the Media Act is vital both to reform outdated broadcasting laws and to ensure that our public service broadcasters can compete in the digital world and continue to deliver for audiences.
Specifically, the Act seeks to modernise the public service broadcasting remit and PSB quota system; it is the quota system to which these regulations relate. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that our PSBs make and broadcast a range of content. This includes: requirements for PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, known as the independent productions quota; requirements to broadcast programmes commissioned by the PSB, typically called the original productions quota; and requirements to produce programming outside London, referred to as regional programme-making or the regional productions quota.
PSBs are required to comply with these quota obligations in exchange for certain benefits, such as prominence on TV guides. Currently, PSBs can deliver against these quotas only via their main linear broadcast channel. However, once fully commenced, the Media Act will permit their delivery via a wider range of services, including on-demand services. This is in recognition of the fact that audiences are increasingly choosing to watch PSB content via on-demand content.
Historically, our PSBs generally meet—and often surpass —these quotas, so our overall ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing quotas, enabling them to be fulfilled by making on-demand content as well as traditional linear broadcasts available. To make this operable, the Act amends the quota system by converting the existing percentage quota to a specific number of hours so that they can apply to on-demand programming. Although the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, as set out in the Schedule to the SI, the responsibility for setting the levels of the original and regional productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom.
With this in mind, this Government took the decision to use the power to delegate responsibility for determining the treatment of repeats for these quotas to Ofcom, in order to make sure that any decisions it makes regarding these quotas are made in the round and operationally make sense. Ofcom leads this process and has been engaging with the PSBs on their approach to determining quota levels, as well as the treatment of repeats. More widely, Ofcom has overall responsibility for monitoring the delivery of the public service broadcasting quotas.
These regulations bring forward the necessary amendments to implement all of the changes that were set out in the Media Act. For example, the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, update relevant definitions in the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to align with the amendments made by the Media Act, as well as introducing a requirement on Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas.
Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will, if approved, revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 and update relevant definitions, as well as setting the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB.
As required by the Communications Act 2003, the department has consulted the BBC, S4C and Ofcom, as well as the other PSBs and PACT, throughout the drafting process. An initial draft of both instruments was shared with the statutory consultees and all other PSBs on 19 March this year. Both draft regulations were then published in draft on 6 May 2025. We have used this engagement with industry to inform the drafting of these regulations. No substantive concerns were raised; I want to take this opportunity to thank the PSBs, Ofcom and PACT for their constructive engagement throughout to ensure that the regulations work.
DCMS is continuing to progress the implementation of the other remaining provisions in the Act, recognising that the Act delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our PSBs. A key priority is to ensure that our PSBs are equipped to face the challenges posed by changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition on demand. The commencement of the modernised PSB remit and quota system on 1 January 2026, alongside bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, is an important part of this work. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in preparing for what will, in general, be a very short contribution—with one or two questions for the Minister —I went back to 1955 and the establishment of ITV in Britain. When it was established, it came in the form of a great number of companies all over the country—admittedly running analogue services, but nevertheless very much based on the regions that those companies wished to represent, with a real flavour.
I emanate from Newcastle, where I had Tyne Tees Television on channel eight—it was a very good television company—and subsequently moved to Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Television still is a substantial regional company, together with the BBC and the regions that have been set up for it. I was also involved as a director of ausb company that applied for a commercial radio licence in the early 1970s. Again, that was very much a company based not only on regional interests: the content to be put out was required at that time by the IBA to be sufficiently broad, not simply playing records one after another. Over many years, I have seen a drop in the regional nature of productions. Luckily, in a region such as ours, in Yorkshire, we are still left with local programming—from the BBC and ITV, of course, as well as some commercial radio stations—although, as I say, this has been massively diminished.
I have a great concern about this whole question of regional output being maintained. With the current threat to ITV—it looks as if it could be sold to a contractor that may not feel so strongly about having the regional identities of different programme-makers and companies—we might lose Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees, Granada and companies in the south of England. I am really worried about this.
In that context, I want to ask the Minister one or two quick questions. The Minister referred to the fact that we are moving away from free-to-air TV to on-demand services, but, as she knows—indeed, as we all know—on-demand services have to be paid for. I know that free-to-air TV is also paid for in certain ways, but we have here a situation where a different audience, who can financially afford to move to one of these on-demand services, will be established. Therefore, there does not seem to be a level playing field here.
As far as the regional component is concerned, therefore, I would like to know whether there has been any comment from Ofcom, from the Government or from elsewhere about the balance that has to be drawn between regional programming on free to air and those for which a subscription is necessary. Is that going to be clearly defined between the two so that we continue to have sufficient regional programming, hopefully through the retention of regional television stations? That is an important question.
Secondly, I am confused about the question of repeats. They can be counted against quotas in some cases, but what is the position where a programme is first seen free to air and then consigned to on demand, or never intended for free to air showings? What happens with the repeat situation there?
The third question concerns the definition of regions. As I said, it was very clear in 1955, when the television regions were created, although there have been consolidations since. Are we simply stating, as the Minister did, that anything regional just means outside London? Is there no division here between different regions as to what components? I think there is in the case of the Welsh, with S4C, for instance, where there is a separate arrangement, but is there anything that determines different regions, as opposed to one amorphous thing?
The other thing I would like to ask about is the difference between programmes that are commissioned and paid for by a PSB and those that are simply bought in from an intermediary company. There is a reference here to intermediary companies. Are those intermediary companies subject to the same rules as to regional content as those that are actually commissioned directly by a PSB? I think that is important too, because we have, burgeoning around our country— I know there is one in Sunderland, for instance—companies that are now producing a lot of good regional material. Where that goes and how it is utilised is another matter. Are we therefore looking at the emanation of the regional programmes or the actual putting out of those programmes, either free to air or on an on-demand service? I hope those odd questions are of help.
I finish by saying again that I am deeply worried. Most of us in this House benefit from appearing from time to time, if we wish to, on regional programmes. Certainly, the BBC is very good at giving the views of politicians and so on, and allowing them to speak. ITV does this, but not quite as regularly as it used to do in the regions. I just do not want anything to happen here that further diminishes the way in which the public can enjoy programmes that have a clear regional content or regional basis. I hope that these measures will not affect that and I hope that the Minister will not mind me asking her those questions.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister is right that how people access television has dramatically changed. We need to move with that change. I presume that in the consultation on this SI, the PSBs were broadly in favour —I think the Minister said this. Will the Minister give her thoughts on the fact that when Ofcom implemented uprating spend quotas by 2% each year to reflect inflation—and, secondly, the requirement for coproduction to have a minimum of 25% PSB funding—it kept the former and will review this every three years but have dropped the latter. I think that might be something we need to consider.
Regional productions outside London, as the Minister said, have been hugely important, but it is about not just productions but the commissioning. Sadly, the commissioning arrangements still largely have London at the centre. I do not know whether the Minister has the current figures for the percentage of regional productions, because it would be interesting to know. If she does not have them, perhaps she can send them —mind you, we can get them from the Library.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to consider these two statutory instruments. They form part of the implementation of the Media Act 2024, which I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships’ House in practically the final hours of the last Parliament.
I thank the Minister for her introduction to the two instruments in front of us. As she clearly outlined, these instruments are technical but important. They ensure that the quotas applying to our public service broadcasters—whether for independent productions, original productions or regional programme-making—remain meaningful, measurable and fit for purpose both at a time when the balance between how people consume their news and their entertainment is shifting from linear channels to on-demand services and at a time when people are watching not just British broadcasters but streaming services owned by international entities.
I turn first to the regulations relating to independent productions. We on this side of the Committee have no difficulty with the changes that these regulations introduce. They are designed to reflect the clear shift in how viewers consume content and the wider reforms that were implemented through the Media Act. The statutory instrument updates the independent production quota by converting the long-standing 25% requirement into a minimum number of hours; that seems to us a sensible evolution, ensuring that the quota can be applied consistently across linear broadcasting and on-demand platforms. It will help maintain a strong and diverse pipeline of high-quality programming from the UK’s independent production sector.
The SI also updates the definitions of “independent productions” and “independent producer”, while rightly preserving the important principle that qualifying content must be made by companies not owned or controlled by broadcasters. The Government are also correct to uphold the established position that repeats should not count towards the quota, given the importance of commissioning new content and supporting our creative industries. These are proportionate changes which strike the right balance.
The first instrument relates to regional programme-making and original productions. Again, these amendments ensure consistency with the new regime brought in by the Media Act. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his contributions based on his own extensive experience in broadcasting—and it was very good to have another contribution from the land of Tyne Tees. I agree particularly with what he said about probing the description “regional”, which must not become a way of saying “not London”. For plenty of us in other parts of the country, London is a region, too. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about the importance of local news. It is particularly important at a time when we have a greater number of metro mayors and further devolution. With decisions made at an ever more local level, it is all the more important that the decision-makers are held to account by rigorous and independent local news productions.
The changes in this SI update the definitions of “original productions” and “regional” programming so that programmes can qualify whether they are first made available via linear broadcasting or online—which, again, is a necessary alignment with modern production and viewing habits. Importantly, they also give Ofcom the discretion to determine how repeats should be treated in these quotas, which is a practical and coherent approach reflecting the operational realities of commissioning and scheduling. It maintains the integrity of the system while giving the regulator appropriate flexibility.
Taken together, the two instruments before us bring significant aspects of our public service broadcasting framework up to date without altering the underlying principles that have long supported the UK’s world-leading broadcasting ecosystem, diversity of supply, strong regional representation, and the central role of independent producers in delivering high-quality British content. They reflect the changing nature of viewers’ behaviour, provide regulatory clarity and maintain the balance between public service broadcasters’ obligations and the flexibility that they need. We are very happy to support both instruments before the Grand Committee today.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that despite the lack of numbers in Grand Committee today, this has been an important and useful debate with interesting points made. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon.
It is clear from the contributions that we all recognise the important role our public service broadcasters play, both on and off screen, in their contribution across the country and in our day-to-day lives. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, gave an insightful contribution on some of the background and the value of regional output, reflecting the conversation earlier where he also gave some of the broad texture around it. There is a value to having such insights and it is hugely important for people across the country to recognise their own region in the output of public service broadcasters—I will come to that later when I respond to the noble Lord’s questions.
I also recognise the validity of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the importance of regional media in the context of an age of devolution of decision-making, and the importance of making sure that we have an appropriate level of coverage where the decisions are made at a regional and local level. As the noble Lord will be aware, given how speedily he and others made sure it received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024, the Media Act 2024 makes much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003.
Since then, as I mentioned, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. We are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change, which is why we are getting on with implementing the provisions in the Media Act designed to modernise the public service broadcasting system, including the PSBs’ quota regime. These regulations simply update and replace existing secondary legislation to implement the changes introduced by the Act, such as permitting the delivery of certain quotas via a wider range of services.
I come to the points and questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked a number of questions about regional commissioning and the extent to which public service broadcasters are doing enough in this area. I will go through a number of those points. We think PSBs are leading the way in this area. On average, they spent 62% of their external production budgets outside the M25 last year, and they are among the largest employers outside London. For example, 69% of ITV staff are based outside the capital. However, we want them and the rest of the sector to go further by investing more and opening up more opportunities for people across the country beyond just these quotas.
The noble Lord also asked about repeats and whether they would count towards the regional production quotas. As with original productions, decisions on whether repeats can count towards the regional production quota sit with Ofcom. Following consultation, Ofcom has proposed excluding repeats from regional production quotas, as is the case currently. Its decision reflects the importance of regional programming and the continued investment in productions in the nations and regions.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about the extent to which “regional” is classed as just outside London. Ofcom guidance sets out the definition currently of what can count towards the regional production quota. To qualify as a regional production, at least two of the following three criteria must be met. The production company must have a substantive business and production base in the UK outside the M25; at least 70% of the production budget, excluding some specific costs, must be spent in the UK outside the M25; and at least 50% of production talent by cost must have their usual place of employment in the UK outside the M25. I do not have a more nuanced detail on regional breakdown beyond this. However, I am happy to commit to contacting Ofcom and raising the points the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised, because for large parts of the country, outside the M25 does not necessarily count as being close to where they are regionally.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
This is important. If we simply talk about “regional” output, it could all be just in Hertfordshire, which would have no effect whatever on the north-east of England, Yorkshire, Lancashire or, indeed, anywhere else. That is what we are looking at here—how this is divested downwards, as it were. I should be grateful if the Minister can find out for me the proportions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I will get in touch with Ofcom about the noble Lord’s point, which was well made. As somebody who has spent a large part of my life in London and the south-east, the one thing I would say is that outside the M25 is not the same as outside London, but, at the moment, it is quite clear that not all the remaining production takes place in Hertfordshire, for example, albeit some of it will. I take some comfort from that, but the noble Lord made the point extremely well. We will get in touch with Ofcom, and I will share the letter with him and others taking part in this debate.
Lord Storey (LD)
We have seen the model that happened with commercial radio, where they said, “Yes, we’re going to keep local news”, but the local news is commissioned from London and does not involve local people or local journalists; they just literally opt out. We do not want to see the same happen with Herefordshire, Hertfordshire or wherever hurricanes happen; we want to make sure it is actually made in that region.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will add that point to the list of questions I send to Ofcom, and as I said, I shall share the response I get from Ofcom with noble Lords.
The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised was on current media developments around ITV and the current situation regarding the potential purchasing of ITV Media & Entertainment by Sky. I am afraid that, as he is probably aware, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any live discussions regarding a potential media merger, but we want to make sure that our public service broadcasters continue to thrive and compete.
These statutory instruments are important to ensure that our PSBs remain fit for the modern technological and digital age and so that they can continue to deliver for audiences. The commencement of the modernised PSB framework on 1 January next year will be an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act, and demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to ensuring that the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.
In conclusion, this debate has offered a great opportunity to discuss the value of our PSBs and the vital content they provide for UK audiences. We want to ensure that our PSBs can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online, and ultimately so that they can continue to do what they do best. As I said earlier. implementation of the Media Act and introducing the updates to PSB quota systems via these regulations is an important component of that work. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who contributed, and I beg to move.
Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.
The Government have identified data centres as essential infrastructure, necessary to support, grow and develop the UK’s economy. Data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology, and it is increasingly critical for public service delivery and for how citizens interact with each other and the state. That is why data centres are crucial to delivering on the UK’s industrial strategy, and why the Government designated data centres as critical national infrastructure in September 2024, putting their loss or compromise on the same footing with essential services such as energy, water, transport and other critical national infrastructure sectors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including digital infrastructure such as data centres. Following the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning system reforms consultation last year, the Government announced plans alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December of that year to enable certain projects within high technology and data-driven industries to be capable, on request of the developer of a project, of being directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects process.
These regulations deliver on that announcement by effectively adding data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects—such as manufacturing, distribution, sport and tourism—that are set out in the Schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013. This would mean that certain proposed data centre projects could be capable, on request, of being directed by the Secretary of State to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, rather than having to proceed through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 route.
It is important to stress that the regulations do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route—far from it. The regulations just provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they so wish, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act route.
I also wish to make it clear that, having received a qualifying request from a developer under Section 35ZA, the Secretary of State could decide to direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they considered that the project or proposed project was of national significance and met the other requirements in Section 35. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out both the national policy and the policy framework for decision-making for data centres. It will also set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as being of national significance and, therefore, capable of meeting the requirements of Section 35. DSIT aims to publish the draft national policy statement for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny shortly after these regulations come into force.
To summarise, what we are discussing today is the mechanism by which certain data centre proposals—those deemed to be of national significance—may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to give a direction, to opt in to a different planning route, the NSIP consenting process route, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act planning process. The SI before us enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State giving a direction to that effect.
I hope that the Committee agrees that these changes are sensible steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which, as she said, enables the development of data centres using the NSIP regime. As Liberal Democrats, we understand and support this in principle. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report raises important concerns. These are that
“the ability of affected local communities to make representations”
with regard to a data centre application via the NSIP process seems to be curtailed by using the NSIP regime.
As the Minister will know, I have raised this issue many times throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is, I believe, a serious concern—one that I share with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. The reason is that there will no longer be a statutory requirement for a pre-application consultation with the affected community. Consequently, communities may not be aware of an application and may not be able to register in time to voice their concerns at a hearing.
As well as the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have the following questions for the Minister. First, this statutory instrument would have made more sense if the promised national policy statement had been introduced, even in draft form. It is much more difficult to scrutinise this SI without the policy statement. That was also raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, so when is that likely to be published?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that national planning policy, such as green belt policy, will be fully observed in relation to the siting of data centres?
Thirdly, do the Government intend to develop a spatial energy strategy to create a framework within which data centres can be developed? On the face of it, that seems adjacent to the purpose of this SI, but data centres consume a considerable amount of energy and, unless there is a spatial energy strategy, having too many data centres in one place could put pressure on the national energy system. For example, the existing data centres currently need 1.4 gigawatts of energy. As a country, I think we produce about 30 gigawatts a day, so data centres will use a big chunk of that energy.
Fourthly, given the energy that data centres use, they will produce a lot of heat. Either they will have to negate this in some way, or, as I would prefer, local heat networks will have to be set up in conjunction with data centres so that domestic users nearby can use free energy, because they would be doing a good deed for the data centres by using this waste heat. A great number of homes could benefit—up to a million, it is estimated—by using this energy that is currently being produced.
The fifth and final question—I apologise that I have so many questions—concerns the water usage of data centres. There is anxiety that the huge use of water by data centres, especially if they are developed in water-stressed areas, will result in even greater pressure on water supplies for domestic and other commercial uses. Can the Minister confirm that any new data centres will be required to have what is called a closed loop system of water use? I think that is self-explanatory.
What investigation has been undertaken into the use of what is described as grey water? For instance, because of sustainable urban drainage, many sites now have to put in attenuation tanks in order to take the run-off and hold it back before distributing it to the natural networks. It would be innovative if attenuation tank water could be part of the closed loop system, using grey water to cool down data centres, with the heat exported to households; it would be a win-win-win.
I know that the Minister will be very grateful for all the questions I have asked. If I have asked for answers that she does not quite have at her fingertips today, I would be grateful if she could drop me a note with the answers. With that, we Liberal Democrats support this SI in principle.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there is a certain amount of logic in adding data centres to the list of projects that may be taken through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. We agree with the Minister that having sufficient data centre capacity will be absolutely crucial to this nation going forward. We also recognise that, when this legislation, with its list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, was originally written in 2008, data centres were a dream on the horizon. However, allowing decisions on large data centres to be taken by the Secretary of State rather than through the local planning system is a significant change; I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, around local democracy and accountability.
These issues were also raised, as was said earlier, by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew attention to two key concerns. The first is that the Government have not yet published their draft national policy statement for data centres alongside this measure, which means that we cannot analyse it in the round. Without that framework, neither Parliament nor the public can properly understand how such applications will be assessed under the national regime.
For a bit of fun, I looked on the web for the definition of a data centre. It is defined as a “facility containing computer servers, data storage systems, high-capacity networking and associated plant”. To me, that is an incredibly broad definition, so we need a great deal of clarity about what exactly it is; otherwise, there is the potential to include pretty much anything that has a computer as a data centre.
The second concern is the Government’s intention, subject to future legislation, to remove statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage and instead rely on non-statutory engagement. Ministers say that they still expect high-quality consultation, but the committee urged the House to seek firm assurances that local people will still have a meaningful opportunity to make their views known. We share that concern.
Some data centres have already proved highly contentious because of where they are proposed, particularly where they involve development on the green belt. The Government are moving steadily to loosen green belt protections. We have warned against this consistently, which is why, during the passage of the planning Bill, we tabled and won an amendment to ensure that brownfield land is prioritised for development. That principle attracted support from all sides of the House then, and I have no doubt that it still commands broad agreement.
Against that background, the Government should have set out a clear policy statement now, not at some vague point in the future. Only with such clarity can Parliament and the public understand how decisions will be taken. We all remember that, shortly after the election, the Secretary of State intervened to approve two large data centres on green-belt land that had been rejected by their local authorities. That episode shows exactly what is at stake. If the Government wish to avoid further controversy, they must be open and honest about how they intend to weigh local impact against the national need.
That is why proper consultation is indispensable; it is not a procedural formality but a foundation of legitimate planning. Local voices must remain at the heart of the process and not be pushed to the margins. Yet, as was said earlier, the Government are removing long-standing statutory duties to consult with the community. Ministers say that they expect high-quality engagement, but expectation alone does not deliver. Only enforceable routes for community involvement can do that.
We have always stood firmly for the principle of local content—that is something that I share with the noble Baroness; we have a bit of an alliance on this—and will do so again, when your Lordships’ House examines the forthcoming devolution legislation. Communities deserve a real say in decisions that shape the places that they call home. It is our duty to make sure that they are not denied it.
How will the Government ensure that energy and resource pressures, particularly on water, as has been mentioned, do not undermine development of data centres that are now deemed nationally significant? We are already seeing huge pressures on local electricity and water grids that are already hampering development, both housing and commercial. How will Ministers ensure that future data centres are located and designed responsibly and that the policies of the Secretary of State for Energy Security do not put those investments at risk?
If we are to develop the data centres that this country needs, it is not just a case of streamlining the planning system. No amount of power grab of planning powers by the Secretary of State will address the fundamental issue of the cost of electricity in the UK. It is this that is undermining our industry and undermining the economics of data centres in the UK. When will this Government change policy and seek to address this fundamental issue of electricity and energy costs in the UK?
I would be grateful if the Minister could address three short questions. First, to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, when will a draft national policy statement for data centres be published for consultation? Secondly, what guarantees will the Government give that local communities will have real and effective opportunities to make representations once statutory consultation is removed? Thirdly, what will this Government do to ensure sufficient electrical and water capacity in order to ensure that future data centre development does not place unsustainable pressure on local energy and water infrastructure? These are important questions, and the Government need to answer them clearly and with a commitment for action, not warm words and obfuscation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate on the SI. I shall try to address all their questions; if I miss any, I am sure that they will let me know, and I shall respond in writing to them.
First, to pick up on the issue of the publication of the national policy statement, which I know is a concern that both noble Lords have expressed, we do not anticipate any significant gap between the SI coming into force and the publication of the draft national policy statement. If for some reason the gap is more pronounced, any projects subsequently directed into the NSIP regime will be considered in the same way as any other business or commercial project under Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008.
When the NPS arrives, it will set out which types of data centre infrastructure are considered of national significance—I think that is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised. That includes details of any thresholds and parameters, such as size or other relevant factors, as well as relevant policy background—including the needs case for data centres. The national policy statement is currently under development and testing. Given the time it may take to comply with statutory requirements for the designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate to lay the statutory instrument in advance, because we know how quickly this industry is moving and we want to make it possible to deliver data centres as quickly as we can.
The proposed national policy statement for data centres will be the very first national policy statement to be prepared covering a prescribed type of business or commercial project. We are working on that at speed. If there is no national policy statement in place, the Planning Act 2008 will apply, as I said. I hope that that clarifies when we are expecting that to come forward.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also mentioned grid capacity. He knows that I have been working very closely with DESNZ colleagues—I do not have the net zero brief anymore, but I continue to take a great interest in this. My colleagues in DESNZ understand that grid capacity is not just an issue around data centres; it affects the whole construction industry. We need to move at pace to make sure that we have grid capacity to meet needs going forward. DESNZ is actively working on that, and I am sure it will make further announcements in future on that subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned some issues around the environmental sustainability of the impacts of data centres. They are important, and, of course, it is important that we make sure that the NSIP regime does not diminish them, as in comparison with the TCPA regime. Both planning regimes are governed by the same underlying principles to ensure that environmental effects from the proposals that come forward are identified and considered clearly as part of the application and decision-making process. The underlying legal and policy frameworks are different. For NSIPs, where a national policy statement has effect, the first port of call for decisions is in the context of the relevant national policy statement. Under the TCPA regime, local authorities decide planning applications in accordance with the local development plan, as we all know. That is the substantive difference between the two, but it should not undermine the environmental aspects being taken into consideration.
The extent to which a proposed data centre NSIP would have environmental impacts, both positive and negative—including water and energy consumption, noise pollution, waste generation, land use, visual impacts and location—would be part of the consideration of the NSIP during its examination and its determination by the Secretary of State. Prescribed statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Canal & River Trust, play an important role in that examination. They must be notified of accepted applications and invited to a preliminary meeting, and they are entitled to make oral representations at hearings.
Environmental impacts are considered as part of the development consent order process, and the 2017 environmental impact assessment regulations set out the procedures for determining whether a proposed development requires the applicant to undertake an environmental impact assessment. Many large business or commercial projects, which will now include data centres, can be caught by the EIA regulations. An EIA is a process where the likely significant environmental effects are assessed and taken into account, and, where applicable, an applicant must submit an environmental statement as part of their application to the Planning Inspectorate.
The emerging national policy statement on data centres, like any national policy statement that is being developed, will need to be supported by an appraisal of sustainability which takes account of the environmental, social and economic effects of designating an NPS and reasonable alternatives, sets out mitigation and enhancement measures and helps inform the preparation of the national policy statement to promote sustainable development. Habitats regulations also apply to an NPS on habitats sites.
I have gone into that in some detail because I want noble Lords to understand that there is significant environmental protection, regardless of which route through planning data centres take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned heat. Data centres produce significant heat; the technology exists to capture that and use it in district heating networks or to meet significant demand. I hope that, increasingly, as this industry develops, there will be more creative and imaginative uses for that heat. There is potential for it to be captured and used for further benefit and there have been successful examples of using data centre heat for hospitals and homes. A current UK example, if she is interested, is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. That is very good news. The Greater London Authority is developing a pilot to test heating up to 10,000 homes and at least one hospital—Middlesex—from London-based data centres. We are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether further interventions are necessary and appropriate to encourage that sort of take-up of recycling the heat.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt. Capturing the so-called waste heat from data centres and using it for the benefit of businesses or households nearby is important, both environmentally and in helping local communities to find acceptance for a great big building in their midst.
I should like the Minister to say that there will be a requirement to use the technology to capture the heat that is wasted and to use it appropriately to provide for hospitals, or whatever, and households as well. That is what I should like to hear because there has to be a bit of payback for these great big data centres being built across the country, and that is one of them. I have not heard the word “requirement” yet and I should like to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The emerging nature of some of the technology involved here will enable even greater sharing of the heat and energy that comes from data centres. As I said, we are engaging with operators and will consider what further interventions may be necessary in future. At the moment, we are trying to encourage developers and operators to go down this route. The noble Baroness knows, because I have had the conversation with her, that I agree with her about the benefits that this could give to offset some of the feelings that people have about not wanting data centres near them. It is a key issue and we are working on it. It is important to continue to work on that programme as much as we can.
In relation to the strain on water supplies, data centres do not necessarily require large amounts of water. We have talked about how data centres can use water in a cyclical way. They use a variety of different cooling systems. Only a small percentage use entirely water-based ones and the technology develops. The older ones were heavier on water usage. Now, it is more common for that water to be used in a cyclical way. The Government are monitoring the areas that are subject to the greatest demand.
With critical national infrastructure, we will have greater engagement with the industry, which will help us better understand the potential alternatives. There are ways in which to minimise the impact on supplies and output of wastewater, and that is important to do. We encourage data centre developers to work with their water and wastewater supplier early in the planning process because that is key to understanding and planning their water usage. It is an important point that to some extent—this is an adjacent issue—the computing power of data centres will enable even further consideration of the use of water and energy. In other words, we hope that to some extent they will be able to solve their own problems through the strength of their computing power.
Both noble Lords raised the very important issue of local accountability. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals that go through that process. Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving the details of any likely impact of proposed development on their area, to which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applications need to go through, provides opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for those to be considered by the examining authority as it examines the application and the subsequent report. That report will then be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.
I reassure the Committee that representations are thoroughly considered by the examining authority through that examination process, which can be up to six months in duration. It is then considered by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to grant consent in accordance with the legal and policy framework. Having seen these applications come through in the department, there is a great emphasis on comments and input provided by local authorities and local people.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the issue of brownfield sites. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield sites first policy, and we are looking further at brownfield passporting, as he knows. However, as regards this critical national infrastructure, we cannot always avoid meeting the need for critical infrastructure where a brownfield site may not be available. So we want to make sure that we use the brownfield-first policy wherever possible, but where it is not possible, we still need the critical infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also raised the issue of energy consumption. I have covered the grid issue, but the quantity of energy and water used by data centres depends on a number of variables around them. They are energy intensive, but data centre operators are taking a wide range of measures on sustainability. They are updating their hardware for more efficient systems and are working with their supply chains, and innovations such as taking the waste heat to use in local heat networks, which we have already been discussing, are becoming more common. So we encourage developers and operators to continue to improve that. Of course, there are very strong commercial incentives to do so, including the cost of energy and customer demand. As I said, I hope that with many of these issues around the use of energy and water we will be helped by the computing power of data centres themselves to resolve some of those issues. So I hope that will move us on a bit.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister may have been coming on to this, so I apologise if I have butted in too quickly. It was not just the quantum of energy; it was the cost of energy, and this is very much seen as an enabling bit of legislation to make it easier from a planning perspective to build data centres. Fundamentally, we have extremely high energy costs in the UK. They are 25% or 30% more than in Europe and more than double the price in the USA. If we want a competitive industry for data centres, we need to get the energy price down. Can the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think colleagues in DESNZ are working tirelessly to make sure that we are looking not only at the cost of our energy in this country but at its security, because that is very important. That is why there has been this very strong push. We have removed the restrictions on land-based wind farms, and I know that DESNZ colleagues are working very hard to make sure that we both have energy security and are reducing the cost of energy, for businesses, which is really critical, but also for our householders, because I know that energy bills are a real pressure on family budgets.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am probably stretching my licence here, but the Minister talked about removing restrictions on wind power. Might her colleagues in DESNZ be looking at moving some of the restrictions on North Sea oil and gas, which would also have a big impact on our energy costs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard the noble Lord’s party speaking about that in the other place. At the moment, the emphasis is very much on making sure that we make the most we can out of renewable energy sources. It is a great resource that this country has and it has been very underused in recent decades. We can make far more of that, helping to establish our energy security and make that safer, as well as making sure that we are reducing the costs for householders.
In conclusion, I want to draw the Committee back to what these regulations seek to achieve. They are an enabler for developers of data centres, and I thank noble Lords for their support overall for that being a part of our critical national infrastructure. This will enable these projects to be directed into the NSIP consenting process through the Planning Act 2008 as opposed to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Applications for data centres directed into NSIP will undergo a thorough and robust process, including examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and other interested parties can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations in full.
Carer’s Allowance: Overpayments Review
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the final report of the Independent Review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government would like to thank Liz Sayce for the work and insights that went into the independent review of earnings-related overpayments of carer’s allowance. We are carefully considering the findings of the review and will publish the report and our response by the end of this year. We have already taken steps to improve carer’s allowance, including implementing the highest-ever increase to the earnings limit.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. I trust that I can feel hopeful about it and that, when the government response comes, it will be both positive and compassionate. I hope she will agree that the most important thing we have to avoid in future is prosecution of carers and the great distress caused to them by inadvertently going over the earnings limit when claiming carer’s allowance. The Government have pledged to increase the earnings limit and to keep it pegged to the national living wage. Can my noble friend confirm that this will happen from next year?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s patience; I am afraid that I must ask her to be patient for just a little longer. On the important question of earnings-related overpayments, we are very conscious that some carers found this extremely difficult—hence the need for the report. As I said, we have committed to keeping the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit pegged to 16 hours of work a week at the national living wage level. That meant that, last April, there was a record jump in the earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week. We will announce the new earnings limit from next April in the next few weeks. I hope the House appreciates how difficult this has been but also that we are determined to get to the bottom of it. Carer’s allowance is an unusual benefit: if you earn £1 below the threshold, you get the lot; if you earn £1 over it, you get nothing. It has taken quite some work, but we hope the report will be out very soon.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassurance, and we will of course wait for the independent review. In the meantime, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that carers are not unfairly penalised for minor or unintentional breaches of earnings rules? Will they consider writing off historical overpayments where department error is a significant factor?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord will also have to be patient for just a little longer to hear what the Government will do in response to this. It was a very detailed report of over 100 pages, with lots of detailed recommendations; we have been through it in an equally detailed manner and will publish a proper response very shortly. In the meantime, the Government have done a number of things to make a difference. For example, we have already improved guidance to help staff make judgments about the way they treat overpayments in earnings. The crucial thing, which my noble friend just asked about, is that increasing the earnings limit by so much will mean that a lot of people will not be caught by this issue at all and, by the end of this decade, another 60,000 people will be able to claim carer’s allowance. We have already taken significant steps to improve things and will do more in the months ahead, but for the details I am afraid he must wait for the response to the report.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the reply the Minister gave a few moments ago, why does the carer’s allowance, unlike other benefits, have a so-called cliff edge, where if you earn £1 over you lose all the allowance? Surely there should be a taper, as with other benefits, to avoid some of the problems which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has raised.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The issue is long-standing. The real difference is that carer’s allowance, unlike universal credit, for example, is not actually means-tested. It is a benefit which is there to recognise that somebody may not be able to work, or not as much, because they are caring. The requirements are that you must be providing care for 35 hours a week to someone in receipt of a relevant DWP benefit. You must also not be in gainful employment, which we class as being 16 hours a week at the national living wage, and you must not be a full-time student. It is an individual benefit. For example, a woman in a household with no independent income of her own but with income in the household can still claim carer’s allowance.
Having said all of that, we would like to look at the way this works. Unlike universal credit, which was built with a taper in mind and automatic earnings from HMRC, carer’s allowance had none of that, either in the systems, the IT or anything else. Therefore, we have begun to look at other ways to automate certain kinds of earnings coming over from HMRC and what it would take to do a taper, but I do not want to raise expectations too quickly. This is a significant piece of work to modernise the system, which will take some years—but we are looking at it.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, in the preparation of this report, could the opportunity be taken to pay a very warm and well-deserved tribute to carers for what they do? As a society, we should always indicate how indebted we are to the people who care for other people with very special needs.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am so grateful to the noble Lord—trust him to say the thing I should have said right at the outset, but I am very grateful to him for raising it. With all of his experience, he has seen this close-up. As he knows, anyone who has worked in professional social care knows just how much we all depend on the tier of unpaid carers who make all of this possible. I am told that 20 November is Carers Rights Day, so I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all of the unpaid carers who work so hard, day in, day out, to look after not only themselves but the people they care for. The whole of society depends on them. I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful nudge, and I am very pleased to pay tribute to them.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, since the Government halted the recruitment of overseas care workers in July 2025, around 40,000 visa holders who came here in good faith to work in the care sector remain unemployed. What specific steps are the Government taking to support them and to ensure they are able to find suitable jobs in the care industry?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the care route admitted more than 150,000 workers in three years. There have been changes to the Immigration Rules, but that will not prevent those who want to from building a career in the sector, because there is a transition period until July 2028, which allows, for example, in-country applications from people who came in by other visa routes. This means that care providers could recruit graduates, for example, or people who come in other ways.
My noble friend is absolutely right that, on 1 July, we laid changes to the Immigration Rules, which included closing the social care visa route to overseas recruitment. That said, there remain significant numbers of international care workers who are looking for work in the UK who have not had the chance to support the system as they wanted. New measures have already come into effect which require care providers in England to prioritise recruiting international care workers who are already in the UK and require new employment.
More generally, DWP is doing a lot to try and encourage people into social care. We are working with adult social care bodies in developing recruitment events for the sector to encourage people into it. We want people who are committed professionals and who want to work in the sector, and we will do what we can to encourage them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is a pretty sobering statistic that 150,000 children provide more than 50 hours of care a week. What is being done in schools to understand who these pupils are and to give them the optimum support as they undertake their studies?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Viscount raises a very important point. Certainly, I have met with organisations over the years that work with young carers. Schools are becoming increasingly aware of these pressures. Good schools with good pastoral care systems are identifying them and making sure both that these young carers get the support they need and that they themselves are aware of broader issues in the home of which other authorities might need to know. The noble Viscount will know that this does not stop at 18, and there are issues for young adult carers who want to carry on and complete their studies. Fortunately, if somebody is doing less than 21 hours a week of supervised study, they can still claim carer’s allowance, but we are looking at how we can best identify and support young carers to enable them to combine their study with their caring. We want to make sure that their childhood is not ruined and that young adults have a chance to make a life for themselves as well as caring for those whom they love.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the level of carer’s allowance, understandably, was not part of the terms of reference of the review, but its very low level, relative to other similar benefits, contributes to the disproportionate risk of poverty faced by carers. Is this something that the Government might look at in the future?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will say to my noble friend that one of the differences, as I began to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is that carer’s allowance is not a means-tested benefit. If someone is on a low income and is doing some caring, they can also apply for a means-tested benefit, such as universal credit or, if they are older, pension credit. Although they cannot usually get both of those benefits, if they do get one of those benefits, they can get an extra £2,400 a year in universal credit or pension credit to acknowledge that caring. Having said that, the Government are determined to make sure that this maintains its value and is increased by CPI every year, and new rates for 2026 will be announced in the next few weeks. The Government are spending a record £4.5 billion this year on supporting a million carers through carer’s allowance.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us, unpaid carers do a challenging, varied and extremely difficult job, but they do it invisibly. What are the Government doing to ensure that the visibility of unpaid carers is heightened, and that, whether they are in DWP or the health and care services, those providing complex support to this invisible and important population are seen and are supported?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important question; I am not surprised, given her charity work, that she is aware of this and the role of carers. Let me mention a couple of quick things. What DWP and other parts of government do is support those events which highlight them. For example, as I am sure she knows, Carers Week was back in June and Carers Rights Day is on Thursday, and the departments have been involved in those, trying to highlight the importance of this and engage with people. For example, tomorrow night Carers UK is holding a reception, and I know that my right honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms, who is a Minister in my department, and Minister Kate Dearden from DBT, are both going to that reception to mark it. The noble Baroness raises a really important point. Hopefully, even our having this conversation will help to raise awareness of that.
Ministry of Defence Procurement: UK-manufactured Products
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to maximise UK- manufactured products in its procurement decisions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the defence industrial strategy set a vision to make the UK defence sector more competitive, innovative and resilient, including measures backing UK businesses, lowering barriers to entry and increasing competitiveness by supporting SMEs through the defence office for small business growth, reforms to social value and exploring an offset policy, regional defence growth deals supported by £250 million and establishing the office of defence exports, helping businesses compete globally.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Under the national shipbuilding policy, the Ministry of Defence is committed to placing UK shipbuilding orders in UK yards to ensure a continual drum beat of work. Therefore, why, under the defence maritime services next generation contract, which has just been awarded to Serco, will 24 tugs and pilot boats be built by Damen in the Netherlands? Why are we exporting UK defence jobs to Holland and to a company that has recently been bailed out by the Dutch Government? I ask my noble friend to follow the German Government’s recent announcement that they will cancel their frigate order with Damen and to place those much-needed orders in UK yards.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will look at the specific example that my noble friend has raised about the awarding of that contract. As well as that example, I could give others of where we have been successful in ensuring that shipbuilding is seeing something of a renaissance in our country, not least the recent winning of the contract from Norway for Type 26 frigates on the Clyde. That was an enormous boost to British shipbuilding and to that part of Scotland. That is the sort of example that we want to build on, but I will look at the example that my noble friend raised.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, those who know about defence procurement—as the Minister does; I am encouraged by much of what he says—know that it is incredibly bureaucratic. That slows down any decisions —I do not know whether it has affected this decision—for UK-made kit rather than buying stuff off the shelf. Can the Minister please look carefully at how we can get rid of some of the bureaucracy surrounding defence procurement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have recently recruited a new National Armaments Director and reforms are taking place in the Ministry of Defence. I ask this of the noble Lord and the House: why is it that in wartime we have an urgent operational requirement that cuts through bureaucracy and red tape, allowing us to deliver the weapons and equipment that our Armed Forces need? We need to ensure that that sort of attitude and culture operate in peacetime. It should not take a crisis or war to deliver the things we want and the equipment our troops need.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the real barrier for UK SME manufacturers is the time it takes to secure contracts, which is typically years, even for kit upgrades. By contrast, as the Minister knows, I recently hosted an event exploring ways to link UK manufacturers with Ukrainian software developers, who are innovating and making daily updated wearable drone detection kit. That is saving soldiers’ lives in Ukraine every day, but our troops do not have it. Can the Minister tell the House how the defence industrial strategy will engage with SMEs, for example in supplier networks such as the neutral vendor framework for innovation? Could this include cross-border joint ventures with innovative front-line experience elsewhere, of the sort I have just referred to?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have established and are looking to grow a defence office for small business, which will be important. The noble Lord’s point is an extremely good one. The idea that the solution is always massive business has been shown by Ukraine not to be the case. The development of small business and small industry—the noble Lord gave the example of drone manufacture on a small-time basis—has been essential to the Ukrainian effort against the illegal Russian threat. His point about how we can develop that sort of capability and capacity is important for us all and something we need to learn from. As I said, the office for small business growth will take that forward.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I declare an interest in that one of my sons works in defence procurement. In light of concerns raised about the reliance on overseas supply chains, can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that procurement decisions actively support UK-based manufacturers so that our defence capability is not dependent on foreign production?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are doing everything we can to support UK manufacturing. Let me set out one of the reasons why we are doing that. As I have said many times, Ukraine has been a wake-up call for us. The manufacturing industry in this country has been allowed to decline over decades, in a way that puts our homeland defence at risk. It is in our own national interest to grow our defence industries, which is why it will be at the heart of what we do. It is not only about what we do here. The noble Baroness will have seen that the carrier strike group was out in the Indo-Pacific and is now back in the Mediterranean. There have been numerous round tables, conferences and industry events on the carrier, and on the ships with it, to promote growth. One of the ways to do that is by expanding our growth to the rest of the world.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I revert to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. When it comes to MoD procurement within the United Kingdom, there are two certainties: there is a £2.6 billion black hole in the defence budget and domestic procurement has virtually dried up. In addition to that, the defence investment plan appears to have evaporated. Can the Minister tell this House what is happening to put this country on to the Government’s much-vaunted phrase, “war readiness”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the specific question of the defence investment plan, that will be published this year, so the noble Baroness and the House will not have to wait too long. It will lay out the investment decisions we are going to make. On the basis of a growing defence budget, that defence investment plan will lay out the sorts of capabilities we need and the decisions that will need to be made to ensure that we have war readiness. We need to learn from what has happened in Ukraine and look at the wars of the future. The defence investment plan will look to fight that war to ensure that we are war ready.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, in the two or three years after the end of the Cold War, around 150,000 jobs were lost in defence manufacturing. Everyone is right in hindsight, but now, looking back, that looks extremely short-sighted. Is there not now a need to reverse that process and expand our manufacturing base, at least as far as weapons manufacture is concerned, in this insecure world?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point, and of course he is right to say that. The total number of direct and indirect jobs supported through MoD expenditure with UK industry a couple of years ago was 272,000, which was up from 244,000 the year before—so defence is growing. Is it growing fast enough? We would all like to see it growing more quickly. But there is no doubt that the development of a UK defence industry is crucial to our defence and the defence of our allies.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches next and then it will be the Conservative Benches.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
Noble Lords will recall the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier this year of £1.6 billion in contracts for Thales in Belfast to supply air defence missiles for Ukraine, creating 200 jobs in Northern Ireland. The deal also included the prospect of a further £500 million of additional work to be added in collaboration with the Ukrainian industry partner. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on progress, including how many new jobs have been delivered and whether the extra £200 million of work for Thales in Northern Ireland has been secured?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
One of the key points that the Government have pursued is to ensure that the increase in defence expenditure is felt across the nations and regions. Northern Ireland has secured significant sums of money: Thales, as the noble Lord mentioned, as well as other manufacturers, including small and medium-sized businesses. It is a massive success story for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland plays a huge role in the defence and security of our nation. There are huge numbers of jobs being created there, and there is a huge amount of investment taking place as well.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, as Defence Procurement Minister back in the 1990s, I recall receiving almost daily communications from No. 10 Downing Street. Does the present Prime Minister play any part?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me answer a couple of questions, and I hope it addresses the noble Lord’s point. The Prime Minister is very supportive of the defence industry and the development of this country and has supported that a great deal. He allows the defence industry and the MoD to carry on with their work. The important point is that he is very supportive of that, as noble Lords can see by the increase in the defence budget and the interest he takes in both defence and foreign affairs.
Election Law
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commence work on the consolidation of election law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that electoral law is complex and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his persistence in pushing that point. However, consolidation would take longer than the time available in this Parliament. We have set out our strategy for elections, which represents a way to make real progress, setting out actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our democracy. As detailed in our manifesto, we already have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including expanding the franchise and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focusing on delivering that agenda.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the clarity of the Minister’s Answer and the clear commitment to the principle of consolidating election law. I take the point that it is a time-consuming measure, but is that not why it is all the more important that the Government make a start on it now, rather than putting it off?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do understand the impatience that the noble Lord pushes. We did a recent review of electoral registration conduct to improve resilience, reduce risk and support administrators and voters alike. We are now taking the key priorities from that review and enacting them to make sure that our election system is as good as it can be without creating a long delay before we do anything.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, over 6 million eligible UK citizens are not signed up to vote. What steps are the Government taking towards automatic voter registration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. As we set out in July’s strategy, the Government have committed to introducing more automated approaches to electoral registration. We are actively exploring some very innovative approaches to registration, including leveraging some of the public sector data and digital services to boost registration rates and improve the accuracy of electoral registers. Any new registration processes we bring in will be tested properly to make sure that they work well before we roll them out.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to help those who do not have passports, driving licences or other easy identification for being able to vote?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are looking very hard at expanding the identification forms that we can use to make sure that nobody who is entitled to vote is excluded, including bank cards and so on, so that we make sure to give the widest possible spectrum of ID that people can use to exercise their vote.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have claimed that the local council elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. However, when pressed, they admit that local elections may be cancelled next year due to unitary restructuring. This is creating uncertainty for councils, political parties and, most importantly, local people. Will the Government come clean and publish an open and transparent statement on its intentions for the 2026 local elections? What is going ahead and what will be cancelled? Also, do the Government agree with the Electoral Commission that elections should not be delayed by more than one year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I have made the Government’s position on the 2026 elections very clear from the Dispatch Box. It is our intention that all elections during 2026 will go ahead.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the Representation of the People Acts sought to create a level playing field for constituency campaigning, but they no longer do so as a result of the legislation of 2000, which brought in national party limits. These limits were suddenly increased by 80% just before the last general election. Will the forthcoming legislation address the problem that a party contesting every constituency could spend £35 million in 70 target seats—half a million pounds per constituency—thereby driving a coach of horses through the principles of the Representation of the People Acts?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord’s party, along with all other political parties, will be invited to comment on the elections Bill when it is in draft, and I am sure they will do so.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as an enthusiastic volunteer on the Learn with the Lords programme, I strongly applaud the Government’s plans to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. In preparation for that, what can the Government do to help teachers in schools prepare young people and be able to teach about politics in a way that does not get them in trouble for perhaps being seen to be partisan?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is a really important point around the expanding of the franchise. As the grandmother of a grandson who will be 16 in February, I am very aware that we need to make sure that education and engagement are a vital part of implementing policy. We take empowering and equipping young people with the knowledge and skills that they will need very seriously. The independent Curriculum and Assessment Review’s report and the Government’s response have now been published. We really welcome the review’s recommendations in this respect and the Government are already taking steps to progress the review’s agenda.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I remember attending the Law Commission, some 10 years ago if not more, when it promised to bring forward a new electoral registration Act, together with a review of the whole of election law. I declare my interest as the solicitor of the Labour Party in relation to election law.
The case for consolidating and indeed modernising election law is very strong, because the current system is fragmented, outdated, confusing and increasingly unworkable. Consolidation and modernisation itself would bring a single coherent legislative framework; modernising the rules would make election law fit for digital campaigning, which is the world we live in now, whereas election law currently is very much paper-based; consistency across elections would mean that we would all know, whichever election we were standing in, that the rules were more or less the same; and it would lower the administrative burden and make clearer offences and enforcement.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Law Commission brings forward a review, certainly within the next couple of years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, I understand the frustration about this, but the core scope of the review was to make sure that we pick up the main risks and issues related to electoral registration and the conduct of elections. A complete review of the electoral system would be a very complex and long-standing procedure and we wanted to do this on a risk-based approach, dealing with the challenges faced by the electoral sector rather than undertaking a wholescale consolidation. We have some pragmatic solutions to address the key issues and we are taking those forward.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the request for consolidation of election law made by the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack: it is a complete mess at the moment. I will pick up on the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, where she said that it was the intention that all local government elections will go ahead. Is she actually saying that the relevant authorities will have elections, or that it is their intention at the moment but we will be told in X number of weeks or months’ time?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It sounds to me as if the noble Lord is dancing on the head of a pin here. The Government’s intention is that all elections that are due to take place in May 2026 will take place.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, a major problem is that people are disillusioned with the political system. Political parties are busy selling themselves to the highest bidder. Nearly half of 18 to 24 year-olds are not registered to vote and turnout at elections is low. Even if people vote, political parties appease their paymasters first. So what proposals do the Government have to cleanse the political system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Actually, there are a very significant number of young people who have expressed their wish to take part in the political system. From my point of view, engaging more people in our system with the education steps that I spoke about earlier, to make sure that we introduce civic education and education around the political process, will help improve trust and confidence in the system.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lady Brown’s question about automatic registration, and following on from questions about young people, can my noble friend give me the assurance that at least young people voting for the first time aged 16-plus could be automatically registered? We know that voting is habit-forming and that we need participation in our democracy in order to give it strength.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained, we are doing our best to look at all forms of identification and how that might impact on voter registration. We want to be as broad-minded as we can. I will expand a little more. The secondary curriculum will also build on the introduction of civic citizenship at key stages 1 and 2 so that we can make sure that, at both primary and secondary age, pupils are getting an essential grounding in all the topics they need. We need to work on making sure that young people are not disfranchised because of the ID systems we use for voting. So we are putting our minds to it and will bring forward new steps in the elections Bill.
Space Debris
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made about the risks to the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure from space debris.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think the House will understand why it is topical.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that space debris is a risk to critical national infrastructure due to our reliance on space services, including for communications, climate monitoring, navigation and timing. A summary of the national risk assessment is set out in the UK’s National Risk Register 2025. We invest in space situational awareness, in-orbit servicing and active debris removal missions. We work with international partners through the European Space Agency and the United Nations to address the risk.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Two weeks ago today, your Lordships’ UK Engagement with Space Committee, of which I was a member, published its report, The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out, which highlighted the issue of space debris. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of bits of junk going round the earth. This was dramatically illustrated last week when three astronauts were unable to leave the Chinese space station to return to earth because their spacecraft was hit—probably by space debris.
Satellites are a critical part of our national infrastructure. What strategy are the Government adopting to protect our satellites and other elements of critical national infrastructure and to encourage the UK to play its part in the space economy of the future? Will these issues be raised at the European Space Agency Ministerial Council next week?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to thank the UK Engagement with Space Committee for all the work it has done and for the recently published report mentioned by my noble friend.
The Government are strengthening UK space surveillance, tightening regulatory standards and investing in debris mitigation technologies. We are committed to global leadership in sustainable space operations. We committed funding to the debris programmes at the European Space Agency Ministerial Council in 2022. I will ask my ministerial colleague, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, to raise the issue of space debris at the forthcoming ESA ministerial meeting. The UK’s approach on space will balance our national security and growth with expanding the global space economy.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister and the noble Viscount mentioned the most recent report of the Select Committee. Given what the Minister has said about active debris removal and the European Space Agency, what are the Government doing to ensure that the cost of end-of-life compliance is met by commercial satellite operators and not from the public purse?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. The Government are currently funding innovation in debris mitigation and removal. We support the research and development of UKRI and Innovate UK and are funding private companies such as Astroscale and ClearSpace to carry out in-orbit servicing trials. As far as cleaning the outer and inner in-orbit debris is concerned, space is global and we have to work with our global partners in addressing this issue. Conversations are ongoing as to who will pay for it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I suppose I should declare a small interest as having been the progenitor of the space committee. We think of space as infinite. In fact, the usable orbits are a crowd of high-speed rubbish. Just a fleck of paint will do damage. Not long ago, a single bolt took out a French satellite. The only satisfaction was that the bolt had come from another French satellite, but that is another story.
Does the Minister agree that there is a serious economic opportunity here for the United Kingdom to take the lead on the legal and licensing issues in this global space, which is still the Wild West? I leave noble Lords with an image in their minds: it is full of dangerous shrapnel. Sooner or later, an astronaut will be killed.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting and good point there. Space may be the final frontier, but it is beginning to resemble the final landfill; if we are to boldly go where no man has gone before, we must first ensure that we are not tripping over the debris of those who have already been there. He is absolutely right that it is congested up there. I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are currently something like 12,500 functional satellites, 2,700 satellites that are not working and defunct, 54,000 pieces of debris up to a size of 10 centimetres, 1.2 million pieces between 1 and 10 centimetres, and 140 million pieces between 1 millimetre and 1 centimetre. Yes, we need to clean up, and there is economic growth in there, and our companies will get a share of that.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, having our own sovereign launch capability is one of the most practical tools we could have for monitoring space debris. It gives us the ability to put the right satellites into the right orbits at the right time without relying on another country’s launch schedule or priorities. What are the Government doing to invest in building spaceports, especially in the north of Scotland—Sutherland —and not just one but a cluster, to enhance our sovereign launch capability?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. We should be very proud of the spaceport up in the Shetland Islands. The Government are investing in that project and I hope we will be making an announcement soon on when we can launch a satellite from there. His Majesty the King is very interested in this whole area of space: he announced the Astra Carta initiative in June 2023 and is bringing stakeholders together to look at how to create a more sustainable space for everybody.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Most of our infrastructure relies on signals from space—timing signals for the finance sector, positioning signals, and so on. They can be interfered with in a variety of ways, including by space debris, but they are vulnerable to being hacked and spoofed and all sorts of things. Will the Minister tell us what arrangements are being made to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the circumstances in which those signals are seriously disrupted for a significant period? What is our plan B in the event of that disruption?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that point. As it stands, DSIT is playing a major role in developing UK space surveillance. This covers debris and satellites. Through the space clusters and the infra- structure fund, we are backing new ground-based observatories and analytics platforms. We are also co-ordinating with the UK Space Agency, academia and the defence sector to integrate civil and military space surveillance assets into a national capability, thereby reducing dependence on foreign data and supporting strategic autonomy.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I will attempt to boldly follow the line of questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, around the US building into its licensing requirements that commercial operators take this into account. It has a regulation that there is five years for the de-orbiting of low earth orbit satellites. We do not do that: we work on a 25-year basis. Surely it is about time we tried to catch up in this area.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. We have to work with international partners, whether the US, Japan or the European Space Agency. Currently, the Government are developing space sustainable standards with commercial space sector investors and insurers as part of our wider regulatory reforms. We must bear in mind that reforms have to be outcome-based and have clarity and certainty. This is why we are attracting a lot of foreign-based companies that are establishing operations in the UK, such as Astroscale, which I mentioned earlier.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we have threats to space infrastructure from hostile actors. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, identified space debris. There is also a threat from space weather. On 11 and 12 November, we saw a significant solar storm hitting the earth, and the National Audit Office is now looking at doing an inquiry, reporting in spring, on that issue. With all that in mind, are the Government considering that we do not necessarily have to digitise every service that we provide and every piece of infrastructure? Perhaps keeping them non-digital would be a way to ensure resilience.
Lord Leong (Lab)
That is a very interesting position to take, but whether we like it or not, we are in the digital age. We cannot go back to the analogue age. Because we are in the digital age, we rely on satellites, and it is very important that we ensure that it is safe up there.
Independent Football Regulator
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, these three breaches of the appointments code are not just about trust in government. UEFA and others have made it clear that English teams’ participation in foreign competitions depends on the new regulator’s independence.
Mr Kogan certainly appears to be very lucky. He did not originally apply to be chairman and was allowed to apply after the deadline had passed. He withdrew from the process last November, so was not one of the 10 people interviewed or three found appointable. He was reinserted in March by the Secretary of State, having previously made two donations to her Labour leadership campaign—something she says she did not know about. He was given his own interview. Within six hours, he was her preferred candidate,
“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.
A note was sent to the Prime Minister, whose leadership and general election campaigns Mr Kogan had also donated to, and the Prime Minister gave his approval. He now says he should not have done that.
When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said this was not a prime ministerial appointment. If that is the case, why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for the green light? If the Prime Minister had agreed with Sir Laurie Magnus that he would play no part in the appointment of the regulator, how can he play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for these multiple breaches of the code?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
That was quite a lot of questions in one question. I will do my best to answer the noble Lord, but on his points about UEFA and the success of the Independent Football Regulator, I want to make it very clear that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the Government were right to establish the IFR, which is to put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s reply to a note. The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Laurie Magnus on this point shows that he knew that the decision was for the Secretary of State. He replied on the basis that the decision had been taken. He made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given the note or confirmed that he was content, and he sincerely regrets this. The Football Governance Act is clear that DCMS Ministers alone make appointments to the board of the IFR. In practice, in the end, David Kogan was appointed as chair of the IFR not by the Secretary of State nor by the Prime Minister but by the Minister for Sport.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if we are to assume that this is cock-up and not conspiracy, can the Minister assure us of the process that will happen next time to make sure that this does not happen again? Also, it might be helpful for this ongoing situation if we could get some definition of what we are looking for as regards the success of the Independent Football Regulator.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The department has reviewed all appointments processes to ensure that this issue does not arise again. We will work with the Cabinet Office and the commissioner, as per the recommendation in the report. On what success looks like for the Independent Football Regulator, I know that the IFR under David Kogan will protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities, which is exactly where they belong.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, whatever the imperfections —and there manifestly were some—identified by the commission in the selection process, Mr Kogan did not apply but was invited to apply for the regulator post when it was first advertised, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just reminded us, under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that whether Mr Kogan had been appointed under a Conservative or a Labour Government, it would have been solely because of his unique ability and expertise, which are widely admired right across football?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is no doubt in my mind, and I know in the minds of noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, that David Kogan is supremely qualified for the role to which he has now been appointed. As the noble Lord highlights, he was approached under the previous Government for this role and is eminently qualified for the job.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, the Hillsborough law that this Government are introducing will make it a criminal offence for an elected official to mislead the public even if he or she did not intend to do so. Does the Minister agree that, had the Public Office (Accountability) Bill been on the statute books, the Prime Minister would now be liable for prosecution for telling his independent ethics adviser that he had recused himself from the appointment of David Kogan, only to then sign off on David Kogan’s appointment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely not. The Prime Minister replied, as I have said previously, on the basis that this decision had been made, and he made it clear that it would have been preferable for him not to have been given a note or confirmed that he was content. He sincerely regrets this. As I have previously stated, the Football Governance Act is clear that this is a matter for DCMS Ministers alone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a shame that the Opposition are sniping away at something that they first supported when they were in government. They proposed a regulator to ensure that the game became more sustainable, that owners were genuinely fit for purpose and that clubs thrived at the centre of their communities. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, had it not been for the Opposition’s delaying tactics, we could have had the Bill on the statute book earlier, sending a signal to owners and fans that the state of the game must be improved? Does she further agree that the only thing that supporters of clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe want to see is the regulator up and running, effective, and protecting the interests of fans, footballers and supporters at large?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could not agree more with my noble friend. He highlights a number of clubs that have gone through an incredibly difficult time. We are pleased that we have now made it through all the parliamentary hurdles. At one point, it felt like we were never going to get there. For players, fans and clubs across the country, I am absolutely delighted that the regulator is going to bring rigour and new financial regulation, which should improve the financial resilience of clubs across the football pyramid so that no owner can jeopardise clubs’ futures. We can all be pleased that we have finally got there. It is regrettable that it took so long.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the manifest suitability of Mr Kogan to perform this important job—given, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, his unique expertise and experience—it is unfortunate that this synthetic dispute should seek to undermine the important responsibilities he is performing?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am pleased that, despite the potential distractions around the process, there is pretty much universal support for David Kogan and the incredible range of skills and experience he brings to this role. The Secretary of State was clear that she will own up when she gets things wrong, as will this Government. As she said, when we make mistakes—and we will make mistakes; we are human beings—we will put ourselves through those independent processes, which are there for a reason, and take the consequences.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-suffering Sheffield Wednesday supporter. Now that the regulator is in post, is the Minister assuring us that there will never be another debacle like the one we have seen at Sheffield Wednesday?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would love to say that there will never be another debacle like the one we have seen at Sheffield Wednesday. It has clearly been a very difficult time for the club, its players and fans, and, no doubt, the noble Lord. We have established the Independent Football Regulator, following the incredible work by the former Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, on her fan-led review, to make sure that we introduce much stronger financial regulation, which will improve the financial resilience of clubs across the country and across the football pyramid. We are really keen that fans will be at the heart of football, where they rightly belong.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There is nothing synthetic about the fact that the Prime Minister has had to apologise for something he said he did not do. That is the issue. The least that should happen is that “independent” should be taken away from the name of the Independent Football Regulator, because there is nothing independent about it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have huge respect for the noble Lord and quite regularly agree with points that he makes in this House; I simply cannot agree with this point.
Budget: Press Briefings
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, two weeks ago the Chancellor held an unprecedented press conference at Downing Street. As a result, everyone believed that income tax rates would be increased in the Budget. However, last Friday, the Financial Times, obviously briefed by Downing Street, said that this plan had been scrapped, leading to an instant increase in bond rates and debt servicing costs. Has the Treasury launched an investigation into the source of this and related leaks? If not, why not? Is it that the source of such leaks is all too obvious—the noble Lord’s political friends?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She claims that it is unprecedented for a Chancellor to comment on the economic situation ahead of a Budget. I do not think it is in any way unusual; there is always speculation ahead of it. As she knows, I am not going to speculate on the next Budget now or comment on any individual tax measure, nor will I comment on the ongoing Budget process. The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a new forecast. The OBR and the Treasury exchange information throughout the forecast process, which is usual practice, established over many years. The Chancellor will then take decisions based on that forecast and set out our fiscal plans in the Budget. She has been very clear that the Budget will protect the NHS, reduce the cost of living and reduce the national debt. We will continue to rebuild the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the country was led up the hill and then marched right back down again. Does the Minister recognise that this sort of kite-flying is really undermining confidence in the comments that anybody now makes from the Treasury Benches? Does he accept that, although bond yields steadied a few days after flurrying, with that flip-flop and change in policy, we still find ourselves paying over the odds for issuing gilts, largely because markets are so uncertain about the direction of public finances? Steadying and calming surely ought to be the order of the day.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness says that comments from the Treasury Benches create uncertainty and then invites me to comment, so I shall not do that. I shall not comment on bond yields as she asks me to do; as she knows, I never do. I will not comment on the ongoing Budget process or on speculation on individual tax measures.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it is not good enough for the Minister to talk just about speculation, as his colleague did in the House of Commons. This comment was driven, first, by the Chancellor’s speech, which was not about economic policy but specifically about the Budget, and then by the interview that she did on Matt Chorley’s programme, specifically on the Budget. This information has been put into the public domain by Ministers. It has had real-world economic effects and it should stop.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that it is for him to say what is and is not good enough. He expresses shock and horror that the Chancellor should comment on the Budget; that is somewhat overdone. It is perfectly in order for the Chancellor to comment on the Budget before, during and after it. As I say, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question as a journalist? I wonder what happened to Budget purdah. For years, we journalists could never get anything out of the Treasury before the Budget approached. Nowadays, we print story after story that the Government have kindly given us, then we print the contradictions to those stories which the Government have also kindly given us. That seems to be of great benefit to our headlines but of very little benefit to the country. Is the Minister planning to bring a return to purdah?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is far more experienced in these matters than I am, but he will know very well that there is always speculation ahead of a Budget. I do not think there is anything unusual about that. I am slightly unclear whether I am being told that speculation is wrong or being invited to speculate. As I have been clear, I am not going to comment on the Budget process, on speculation ahead of the Budget or on any individual tax measures.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, over the last few months not only have the bond markets been affected by this speculation, but people have made life-changing financial decisions, in part fuelled by speculation rooted in private government press briefings. These decisions may prove to be unwise when the Government’s actual decisions are revealed. Have the Government considered other, less damaging means of gauging public opinion than fishing through the media?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate says that the Government are the source for this speculation when he has no such evidence for that. I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, as I say, nor on the speculation that is perfectly usual ahead of a Budget.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister surprised at the criticism that has come from the Opposition Benches about leaks when, in the past, leaks went as widely under any previous Government as under this Government? Is he surprised to hear criticism about the impact on the bond markets after we have had one of the worst times, financially, as mismanagement by the previous Government caused a crash in the market?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to say that there is always speculation ahead of a Budget. As he knows, I am not going to comment on the bond markets, but he is right to point out that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, on 10 November, the Chancellor said on BBC Radio:
“It would, of course, be possible to stick with the manifesto commitments, but that would require things like deep cuts in capital spending”.
Does that statement still stand?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said, I am being told by noble Lords opposite that speculation is wrong and now the noble Lord is asking me to speculate. As I have made very clear, I will not be commenting on individual tax measures.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when she was shadow Chancellor, said that teasing major policy shifts can create market uncertainty and should be avoided?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As a general principle, I always agree with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I said already, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned October 2022 in his previous response, so I ask him: is the yield on the 30-year UK government bond higher now than it was in October 2022?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Earl knows full well that I will not be commenting on the movements of bond markets.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will not ask the Minister to comment on bond markets or to speculate. I will simply ask him whether he agrees with himself when he told this Chamber last year that a freeze on income tax thresholds would be a tax rise on working people costing them billions of pounds.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness did exactly what she said she would not do and asked me to comment on individual tax measures—something she knows that I am not going to do.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Mr Sam Coates on Sky News said that this Budget had “unravelled” before it had been given. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said several times already, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, following the Chancellor’s climb-down on increasing income tax, £27 billion was wiped off the FTSE 100 on Friday. Does the Minister think that that was helpful?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said already, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
No one was speculating until the Chancellor raised the subject of income tax. Does the noble Lord take the public for fools by thinking that there is nothing to see here, when we can all see that there is something to see here? Secondly, if any of the public are looking at these Questions, does the Minister think that this behaviour in answering the last two questions is likely to engender trust in politicians or undermine it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to the noble Baroness’s first question is no. On her second question, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. There is always speculation ahead of a Budget and it is quite right that I do not comment on any individual tax measures.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Does the Minister understand that he has to answer questions and not just butt them away?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, given the answer that the Minister has given on a number of occasions that he is not prepared to comment or speculate, could he perhaps outline to the House which matters he is prepared to comment on?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That would be quite a long and exhaustive list. Right now, I am not prepared to comment on individual tax measures, speculation ahead of the Budget and the ongoing Budget process.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Going back to a previous question, my noble friend behind me asked whether the noble Lord would comment on something that he had said. It was nothing to do with the Budget. Would the noble Lord please reply?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I was asked to comment on individual tax measures, which is something that I said I would not comment on.
Police Reform
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I remain confused as to the true purpose of this Statement. The Government announced a police reform White Paper last year, but this has not yet materialised. We now see the Government announcing the abolition of police and crime commissioners. Why have the Government made this particular announcement now, ahead of the publication of the full details of their plans for police reform? More importantly, why is the Home Office fiddling about with PCCs rather than taking real action to reduce crime?
Turning to the content of the Statement, there were two main arguments deployed to support the abolition of police and crime commissioners. The first is that the PCC model has led to the politicisation of the police. But the proposals in the Statement are for oversight of police forces to be moved to the directly elected strategic mayors or local councils. Directly elected mayors are party political, as are councillors. The Government’s solution to the problem of the politicisation of the police is to move control from one elected politician to another. That argument is completely nonsensical. There is no world in which this policy leads to a decreased politicisation of the police.
The other argument the Government have put forward is on accountability. The Minister said in her Statement to the other place that
“the PCC model has weakened local police accountability”,
but there is no evidence for that assertion, and nor did the Home Secretary explain how the Government’s new model would rectify that. We know that where there will not be an elected mayor, the functions of oversight will be undertaken by policing and crime boards. How will transferring the functions of PCCs to boards of councillors and bureaucrats increase accountability?
Further to that, the Minister said that
“we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation”.
Yet here in London under Sadiq Khan, knife crime is up 86%, five police front counters are being closed altogether, and a 24/7 station front counter is being removed from every borough. The total crime rate has increased from 89.3 per 1,000 people when he took office to 106.4 per 1,000 people in 2024-25. I would hardly call that a success story.
The simple fact is that policing is not overly complicated to get right. It requires common sense, good leadership and practical training. We cannot pretend that everything is rosy, but embarking on some police reform crusade will simply distract us from the real task at hand. The Home Office needs to focus on boosting police numbers, keeping front counters open, stopping officers policing tweets, and cutting crime.
The British people feel that crime and disorder is certainly on the rise. Do the Government seriously think that these changes will have a material impact on the daily lives of the British people? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, police and crime commissioners were an innovative idea, but experience has shown they have not delivered as intended. Instead, they have proved to be a costly and flawed experiment, so we welcome their abolition. However, I hope the Minister will be able to provide the House with rather more clarity on what will replace them. We do not believe that transferring PCC powers to mayors is the answer, as this would concentrate even more power in single individuals, with too little scrutiny or accountability.
The proposal for a police and crime lead, described as
“akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime”,
risks being a rebadged PCC. Unless the legislation is crystal clear, this role could again become a focal point for political leverage over chief constables. It must be made abundantly clear that chief constables retain full operational independence, and that these new leads and boards will not have hire-and-fire powers. If not, we risk repeating the mistakes of the PCC model, drawing policing further into politics rather than strengthening impartial policing by consent.
The Government say that these boards will not be a return to the invisible committees of the past, but this assurance needs substance. How will they work, and how will their work be accessible and visible to the public? The former Metropolitan Police Authority may offer some useful lessons. Having served on that body for seven years, I can attest that no one could describe it as invisible. Its meetings were in public and widely reported, and its scrutiny of senior police officers was robust. Will the Home Office carefully consider what worked in that model before finalising these new arrangements?
I was particularly disappointed to learn from the Minister’s Statement in the House of Commons that the £100 million that could be saved in this Parliament through the abolition of PCC elections will go to the Treasury rather than to front-line policing. An over- stretched police service will find that a very difficult pill to swallow. The Home Office says that reforms to police governance will save at least £20 million a year —enough to fund 320 extra police constables. Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that this money will definitely be spent on recruiting those 320 extra police officers? Saying that something can happen is very different from saying that it will happen.
Finally, rebuilding public trust in police goes far beyond governance. True accountability demands transparency. Will the Government require police forces to publish data on officers under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, and will they now act to bring police record-keeping in England and Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, ending the discretionary destruction of police records, as recommended by the Hillsborough Independent Panel?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for this opportunity to outline the Government’s plans for police and crime commissioners. In doing so, I hope I can answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord, Davies of Gower.
First, we anticipate doing this for efficiency reasons. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is a potential £100 million saving. Some £87 million of that £100 million will be through the cancellation of elections. They are currently funded centrally, which is why that resource will go to the Treasury. This will save around £20.3 million over the course of the rest of this Parliament, which will be put into front-line policing and fund around 320 additional officers. They will be part of the 13,000 officers we intend to put on the ground over the course of this Parliament, either as specials, PCCs or warranted officers, of which 3,000 are already in place.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, there is currently a patchwork of responsibilities for policing. Five existing mayors—in London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire—have policing powers. The existing mayors in Merseyside, Nottingham, Derby, the West Midlands and the West Country do not have policing powers. There are new mayors coming on stream in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Sussex, Cumbria, Hampshire, and potentially in Cheshire and Lancashire, who do not currently have policing powers. There are also other areas, such as Humberside and Lincolnshire, where the responsibilities of police and crime commissioners overlap with those of their directly elected mayors. That is a big patchwork. As far as possible, we are trying to get the mayoral model to have accountability for policing, as is the case for the five such mayors to date. Usually—but it is up to the mayor—a deputy mayor is appointed to be responsible, as the lead person, for those statements. I think that is helpful.
The noble Lord asked why we have brought this forward now. We thought it was useful to give as much notice as possible that the cancellation of the elections would happen in 2028. The noble Lord also asked about the police White Paper. I can assure him that it will be produced before Christmas of this year and will therefore be before both Houses of Parliament before this Christmas. It was important to give as much notice as possible once the decision had been taken, and we wanted to ensure that police and crime commissioners had an opportunity to reflect upon that.
The noble Lord asked how this helps with crime. It gives a focus, direction and greater efficiency but, equally, it is not to be seen in isolation. As he knows, almost every day of this week we will be dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill. We have 13,000 extra officers in place, additional initiatives on shop theft and a whole range of proposals to deal with anti-social behaviour and knife crime. He mentions London; it has had its lowest murder rate this year. It is still very high, with 93 people being killed—I am not denying that—but it is the lowest rate for many years. There is a push to try to reduce crime across the board, of which this will be part.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, operational independence is critical. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to move away from this model, because there is still a temptation for police and crime commissioners to want to be the chief constable as well as setting the budgets for police and crime. Operational independence from political interference is vital. The police and crime boards that we will establish in areas where there is not a mayor will potentially have the same role, with lots of senior councillors from an area being able to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget. The London model might be very appropriate for that, because there is an opportunity for the lead councillors in an area, usually the leaders of local councils, to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget, and to do so. I say again that, in local council areas, the budget settlement is a precept; the police precept is usually included in the rates bill, which is held to account usually by the leader or leaders of the council. So there is scope there as a whole.
I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome for the abolition and hope she will work with us when we publish legislation, as we will have to do to implement this measure, at some point in the future. She will have the ability to test those issues at that time.
I say to all noble Lords that the first election had a turnout of 15%. The second election was slightly higher. The third was down from the second, at 24%. There is not necessarily an awareness. Anybody in Greater Manchester knows who Andy Burnham is; everyone who lives in my neck of the woods in Merseyside knows who, ah—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Knows who Steve Rotheram is. I am being distracted by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, who is anxious to bounce up. We have 20 minutes in this first part—he should know that by now. He is bouncing away and trying to get in. I will give him the opportunity, but I still have up to eight minutes before the 20 minutes for questions from the House. Everybody in the area knows who Steve Rotheram is. The noble Lord put me off at a crucial moment there, but I forgive him and will continue.
I say to the House generally that this is an efficiency measure that will focus policing and help support the Government’s crime and safer streets mission. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House and declare that, as a former director of Liberty, I was in unusual lockstep with chief constables in opposing what was to become the cross-party mistake of police and crime commissioners. Does my noble friend agree that the design fault that distinguishes the PCC model from others that have been discussed, including committees of councillors, mayors and so on, is in the word “temptation” in the Statement? An elected politician whose sole raison d’être is policing faces the almost inevitable temptation to dip their toes, particularly in media statements, into operational matters, and it is that design fault we need to avoid in future.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. Key to the potential new model is that the police mayoral model/policing board model will be accountable for setting the budget and for holding the chief constable, whoever he or she may be, to account for the delivery of a police and crime plan that the police and crime commissioner signs off.
The temptation is there now for a running commentary and wanting to be the front person on any incident in a community because, ultimately, that election depends solely on police and crime performance. It does not depend, as mayoral elections do, on a whole range of issues, many of which are not directly political but many of which are. So there is a shift there which I hope will be welcome. Again I say that, at some point, this House will have an opportunity to test our proposals, because legislation will be required to facilitate these changes.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister. We will shortly be debating the English devolution Bill, where it will be interesting to raise these matters again, because, of course, some local authorities are moving to unitary and others to mayors. This will all fit into that new template.
How can the Minister convince us that this will actually improve the quality of some of our senior police? We have some very good chief constables, not least the chief constable of Greater Manchester: we need others of that calibre. Equally, we have some situations, as in my own area of Devon, where we had at one point three chief constables: one suspended, the temporary one suspended as well, then an interim chief constable, all being paid for at the same time. That is bad policing and bad leadership. How is any of this going to increase the quality of those at the top of policing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we must ensure we have extremely good support, via the police service, for improving the quality of senior officers. If he looks and the Crime and Policing Bill in detail, he will see that there are measures to improve training, support, promotion opportunities, quality, vetting and other mechanisms, in relation to improving the quality of police officers.
Again, it is important that the policing individual for the mayor’s office, or the police board, holds the chief constable to account. In the case that he mentions, it is arguable that that did not happen to the extent that it should have done. There is an important distinction between budget, holding to account and agreeing a plan versus day-to-day operational activity. Improving the quality of staff is absolutely important, and that is what our new proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill are designed to do.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the Government have done the right thing in removing PCCs. That said, some of them were very good and they sometimes made some good decisions. However, interestingly, as PCCs came along, we ended up with selections for chief constables with one applicant: the home candidate. Unsurprisingly, they ended up with people who agreed with them. So, I am afraid that some change was necessary, and that is a good idea.
I am less convinced by the Government’s solution in other respects. First, the move to mayors may be a good idea, but I worry about the rest. The Minister said that, at the moment, it is a patchwork. I am afraid that the alternative solution to a mayor looks like a hodge-podge. I include in that the City of London, which appears to be keeping its own committee, for reasons entirely beyond me. Why does the City of London, the smallest force in the country, need a committee that nobody else can manage?
Finally, I am not sure about these savings. I can almost guarantee that the council leaders who take on this responsibility will want their own people to support them, so will absorb that saving immediately. The Government may want to look at what arrangements will be in place and whether there will be any cap on the expenditure for the new governance, which frankly has gone through the roof. As the Minister has just explained, that saving will be gained by the new arrangements.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I first echo what the noble Lord has said. This is not in any way directed at the performance of individual police and crime commissioners. There are many good people who have given a lot of commitment and time and, in many cases, have made significant changes. However, at the end of the day, we are looking at the governance model. In my view, it needs to move towards the mayoral model. Where we can do that, we will.
The genuine problem is that not every area is seeking to have a mayor at the moment and not all police authorities are coterminous with mayoral authorities. Those are issues that we will have to look at downstream, but the general presumption is to build on the models we have now, in London, Greater Manchester and the Yorkshires, to ensure that we firm up that mayoral accountability.
The police White Paper—which, as I have just confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be published before Christmas—will look at issues such as efficiency, a range of matters to do with the improvement of training, going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and how we can improve performance outputs in policing. I will bring that back to the House before Christmas but, at the moment, I cannot stray too much into that area.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a superintendent some years ago, I spent some time at the FBI academy in Quantico, studying the criminal justice system in the USA. This is where the idea of police and crime commissioners emanated from. Judges and district attorneys, not to mention county sheriffs, are elected by political parties. This goes right up the ladder, and we see today the FBI director being sacked by President Trump because he did not carry out his wishes. Incidentally, he also appoints the members of the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice is directed to carry out the President’s wishes.
Does the Minister agree that the rule of law is a precious thing to have been born out of Magna Carta, which places legal limits on government power? It evolved the idea of fair trials, habeas corpus and universal legal rights, and political parties should not be involved in political governance, which is evidenced by the low turnout in police and crime commissioner elections. Chief officers should be independent of party politics. I opposed the PCCs as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association and still do. I whole- heartedly welcome these changes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can take my noble friend back to 2010-11, when the Labour Party, then in opposition, opposed police and crime commissioners in principle but fought the elections because when there is an elected position, you have to try to fight to fill it. We have looked at the issues of governance and at the issues that my noble friend mentioned. We think it is important that we have independence of policing, but we still believe that there has to be some oversight of that policing, of the budget and of the chief constable to make them accountable. That is why the directly elected mayor will have the responsibility, among many others, to appoint a deputy mayor, potentially, to run policing. In areas that do not have directly elected mayors, we will look to have an indirectly elected policing board comprising senior people from the council, but it is absolutely important that the integrity of that independence is maintained.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and agree with its direction of travel. Fellow bishops serving in more urban contexts where elected mayors now hold policing functions speak positively about the clarity and democratic accountability that the new approach has engendered. Other communities, such as my own, have had to work extremely hard to interest the electorate in voting for a police and crime commissioner. I think we have done slightly better than average in that regard, but even then the turnout is comparatively low. Will the new policing and crime boards lead to tensions in communities where so-called upper-tier leaders, who are often not used to working together, take very different perspectives on policing priorities? What might be done at this stage to lessen the potential of stalemate in such situations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important point, because in areas such as the right reverend Prelate’s there are always going to be tensions between rural councils and the urban council. There are going to be tensions in any authority between high crime levels and lower crime levels. Again, I hope that the policing board model—which I think will be the minority, because of the numbers of mayors that are either in place or coming on stream before the election in 2028—will be one of serious grown-ups having to set a rate for police funding, set a plan for police funding and then hold the chief constable to account for delivering it. Those are their three essential roles. With due respect to the police and crime commissioners, those three roles can be managed in addition to what council leaders are doing. It is no different from council leaders contributing to a wider district plan on environment, transport or housing issues, which happens in every other field of local government responsibility now.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a paid but fiercely independent adviser to the Metropolitan Police. The Statement says that the PCC model has drawn policing more into politics and
“had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables”.
Are these problems not the result of concentrating the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of one party-politically aligned individual? How does moving to elected mayors address this problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The power to appoint the chief constable will reside with the appointed person who has responsibility for policing. That could well be the mayor, the person appointed by the mayor as the deputy mayor, or the lead councillor in a policing and crime board. The dilemma that the noble Lord mentioned will still be there, but it is important, given their wider responsibilities, for the chief constable to be appointed by the person to whom they will ultimately be accountable. That is the same as for any chief executive. Political interference on the day-to-day business of the chief constable is an absolute red line that we want to strengthen.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Statement to which my noble friend the Minister is responding. He was right to remind us of the history, which is that the Labour Party opposed the creation of these positions. We were 100% right in doing so, because they failed in their central objective to make policing more accountable. The abysmal turnout for the elections shows that that has not worked. Added to that is the recognition figure in the Statement, whereby only 16% of people can say who the police commissioner is in their area. I have only one rather nosy question to ask my noble friend. With his insight and information, and bearing in mind that this was a decision by the coalition Government, who do we primarily blame for this: the Tories or the Liberal Democrats?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As a believer in collective government responsibility, which I have to be at this stage, I say that there was joint and several responsibility for the policy. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady May, cannot be with us today; as Home Secretary at the time, she was the prime deliverer of the policy. I wrote to her to give her advance notice of the Statement. To answer my noble friend, it is a shared responsibility.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that those of us who live in Lincolnshire are not seeking the removal of Marc Jones, who is a rather good police commissioner? We are seeking a recognition of the difficult circumstances that face rural counties, such as Lincolnshire, which are sparsely populated and where policing costs are very great. Does he understand that we seek a further adjustment in the funding mechanism to recognise the sparsity factor? To be fair, I have been making this point since 1979, when I first became a Member of Parliament for a Lincolnshire seat.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Viscount cannot persuade Mrs Thatcher, I do not know who he can persuade. The issue with Lincolnshire is interesting, because Humberside Police includes parts of the mayoralty of Greater Lincolnshire, such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe, but the rest of Lincolnshire is separate. Some discussion must be had about what we settle on and how.
A police settlement will appear in draft form before Christmas, following which the noble Lord can again make representations around the police settlement for his county. We are trying to make sure that we deal with rural as well as urban policing. Tremendous effort has been put in place to look at rural crime, and some of the measures we have in the Crime and Policing Bill deal specifically with that. Issues on the Government’s agenda include livestock worrying, equipment theft, and small villages being subject to a great deal of shop theft and intimidation. However, we will have to look at the circumstances around Lincolnshire specifically, given the model that we are trying to drive forward: there is a mayor in Hull and a mayor in Lincolnshire, but the police forces currently overlap both. That subject is for another day.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the Statement describes policing in Wales as “unique”. Perhaps that actually furthers and strengthens the case for the devolution of policing to Wales. I welcome the news that discussions are to take place with the Welsh Government on new arrangements to replace PCCs in Wales. We do not have mayors in Wales, so that is not an option. May I ask the Minister how much better off Wales would be if police funding was devolved and funded through Barnett?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The issue of devolution is not part of this Statement. We are looking at the governance of policing, not the devolution of policing. There are no mayors in Wales—that is a vital point to make. The Policing Minister and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Minister in the Welsh Government responsible for this area. We want to look at how we can build a better model of policing boards in Wales. That is a matter for discussion, but there is general agreement that police and crime commissioners will not happen in Wales. There will continue to be different political views from different political parties on devolution, but it is not on the agenda in this Statement.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, bearing in mind the last question regarding Wales—my noble friend the Minister was a Welsh MP and Minister and is now a Welsh Peer—I assume that the police and crime commissioners in England will be abolished and that the Welsh commissioners will be abolished at exactly the same time. I do not know what that exact timescale will be, but of course there are elections next year to the Welsh Senedd. A new Government, of what political sort we do not yet know, will be formed.
Presumably, the negotiations that the Minister has been having with Jane Hutt are on what will replace the police commissioners in Wales, bearing in mind— as has been said—that we have no mayors and are very unlikely to have any mayors. Perhaps the Minister could give a little more detail on the negotiations.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Police and crime commissioners across England and Wales will be abolished at what would have been their next election. There will not be another election for police and crime commissioners, which means that they will serve out their term of office until early May 2028, when the election would have been held. In the meantime, we will be establishing further discussions. That abolition requires legislation in this House, which will be brought forward at a suitable time. In the meantime, we will discuss with this Administration in the Senedd and whoever forms the Administration after the election in May how we manage a policing board and local government involvement in the management of police forces in Wales.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the introduction of powers going to mayors where there are mayors. That remains the democratic accountability. Can I ask the Minister to think again about policing boards, though? That did not work in the past. It is very important that there is proper democratic accountability for priorities and budget setting. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government just want to get rid of a set of difficult elections ahead of the next general election.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I take issue with the noble Lord’s last point. This is a very difficult decision. Remember, we are abolishing 17 Labour police and crime commissioners who are doing a good job and would have been seeking re-election in that year, along with a number of other party-political and independent PCCs.
We are trying to support the mayoral model. As I mentioned earlier, there will be a list of new mayors in 2027. There are existing mayors in place who do not have police powers, and there are existing mayors in place who do have police powers. I intend to ensure that we minimise the number of boards by maximising, wherever possible, the mayoralties. That has to be done in conjunction with discussions over time. This House will have an opportunity to discuss this, because it has to be facilitated by legislation.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lord Callanan
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) cede sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago,(b) dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory,(c) provide for the continued British administration of Diego Garcia, and(d) limit the citizenship rights of the Chagossians.(2) Nothing in this Act grants or recognises that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to add a purpose clause to the Bill to demonstrate more clearly the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said at Second Reading, this Bill is right up there in contention for the title of “worst Bill of this Session”. It is a surrender Bill and the Government should be ashamed of having brought it before your Lordships’ House. The sparsely populated Labour Benches—congratulations to the three Members who have turned up—illustrate how unpopular it is on all sides. We now begin the detailed scrutiny to seek to improve the Bill and to see just how far the Government are willing to move, if at all, to deliver a better deal for the British people and, crucially, for the Chagossians.
My Amendment 1 would put a clear statement of the Bill’s purposes on the face of the Bill. In essence, it is a clear and faithful description of the effects of the provisions of the Bill. It delivers clarity. The Bill does cede sovereignty over the islands, seek to dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory after 200 years, provide for the continued British administration of Diego Garcia and limit the citizenship rights of the Chagossians.
Strangely, the Bill is completely silent on who shall have sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago in the future, which is against the precedent set in previous Bills where territory has been conceded. By bringing this Bill, the Government are saying that presumably all these changes are good things that they are justly proud of. I therefore see no reason why the Government should resist this amendment on the grounds of fact. The Minister always seeks to be constructive in her work in your Lordships’ House, so I am sure she would not resist an amendment that delivers essential legislative clarity simply for the sake of delivering an unamended Bill at the end of the scrutiny process.
Against this context, should the Government oppose my amendment we will be led to assume that the Government are in fact embarrassed by the reality of their legislation being set out in simple terms. If they are indeed proud of the Bill, they will have no cause to be embarrassed and should accept the amendment.
Amendments 8 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley put the Government’s fundamental motivations under scrutiny. I certainly will not presume to make my noble friend’s argument for him before he has spoken to his amendments himself, but the question of whether a court exists that could deliver a binding and enforceable judgment on the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago is essential to the fundamental purpose of the Bill. I am not aware of such a court, and without such a court the Government’s argument for the necessity of the Bill falls apart.
As we all know, this Bill is not necessary or essential. It may have been framed as such by the international lawyer friends of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. It may be the deep conviction of the Foreign Office officials who seem determined to act against Britain’s interests on this issue. It may even be the view of the Attorney-General. But ultimately it is a political decision of this Government. Ministers should not hide behind legal advice. They should come to the House with a positive message of whatever benefits they think the Bill provides to the British people and the Chagossians. That is what normally happens with any other Bill before this House.
While we are debating the subject of international law, as I am sure we will be, I would like to ask the Minister a question. I draw her attention to a 1967 international agreement concerning the availability for defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory. This is an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States in which we agreed that the British Indian Ocean Territory
“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”.
Do the Government accept that their proposals to cede sovereignty over the territory to Mauritius would involve a breach of their obligations in this treaty? They are always lecturing us on the importance of abiding by international agreements and treaties, so I assume they would not wish to be in breach of an international treaty. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what they are proposing to do about that international agreement.
Amendment 21 is designed to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s actions on Chagos by requiring a ministerial Statement to Parliament when the treaty comes into effect. We know that the Commons were, in fact, denied a substantive debate on ratification, despite long precedent under CRaG requiring that debates should indeed be granted. We know the Government are likely to press ahead with the treaty irrespective of any opposition from these Benches, but their conviction to deliver a deal that is good for no one but Mauritian taxpayers should not mean that we have less parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, as I have said before, if they are so proud of their record, I am sure they would be delighted to come to Parliament to talk about exactly how they are pressing this issue.
Finally, I have indicated my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. In my view, this is a bad Bill that should rightly be consigned to the pile of other uncommenced legislation. If it lacked a commencement clause, I think that would be a very sensible outcome.
Before I give way to the noble Lord, I give Ministers advance notice that I intend to degroup Amendments 14, 64 and 84, and I believe my noble friend Lord Lilley will add Amendment 25 to that, on the subject of a referendum. We will take them out of the next group and talk about them when we get to them. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Given that the Bill is to give effect to the treaty, I wonder whether the noble Lord could say a little more, because in introducing his amendment he did not, about how his amendment interacts with Article 1 of the treaty that Parliament has ratified?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, the Government have said on a number of occasions that ratification does not come into effect until this legislation comes into effect.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It has been ratified; Parliament has ratified the treaty. It has not been brought into effect, but the treaty, which states that Mauritius is sovereign, has been ratified by Parliament. That is the treaty that the United Kingdom has entered into, and which Parliament has ratified. What is the interaction between that and proposed new subsection (2) of the noble Lord’s amendment, which says:
“Nothing in this Act grants … that Mauritius has sovereignty”?
He is seeking to have an amendment to a Bill which overrides a treaty commitment that Parliament has ratified, is he not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is a statement of fact that this legislation gives up British sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, but it does not say who should have sovereignty—the treaty is a separate matter. The treaty cannot come into effect until the legislation is approved, as I said.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord is just factually wrong. The treaty has been ratified—it is now a treaty. His amendment is seeking to alter the treaty. Article 1 of the treaty, which Parliament has ratified, says that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia. Is he seeking for Parliament now to try to change the treaty which it has ratified?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am saying that we have every right to oppose this legislation. The legislation has come as a result of the treaty that the Government have agreed. We opposed the treaty; we think it is unnecessary. We also oppose the legislation, and we are entitled to table amendments to it because, as the Government have stated, the treaty cannot legally come into effect until the legislation is approved. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name. Amendment 8 says that the treaty shall not come into force until a binding case in an international court requires us to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Amendment 9 requires the Government to spell out their legal position on why they believe such a ruling to be possible, let alone likely.
The whole basis of the Government’s case is that
“without this deal … within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1284.]
At Second Reading, the possibility of such a ruling was contested not just by me but by several other noble Lords, on the basis that there is no international court which can rule against our sovereignty in this way. Yet Ministers failed to address that issue and those arguments. Even noble Lords who have held the highest office in the FCDO—mandarins of our diplomatic corps who tenaciously defended this deal—failed to answer or address the question of which court could reach a binding judgment against us.
First, everyone acknowledges that the ruling of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory and not binding on us. Secondly, it was based on resolutions of the UN General Assembly which themselves are not legally binding; nor have they ever been endorsed by the Security Council. Thirdly, when Britain signed up to the ICJ, it specifically precluded disputes between the UK and present or past members of the Commonwealth. So the ruling was triply non-binding, and the ECJ cannot rule against us on this in future because it is a dispute with a Commonwealth country.
Ministers have chosen to ignore these arguments and not dispute them, although it is not clear that they were aware of this situation when they plunged into these negotiations. I rather suspect they were not. They have tacitly acknowledged the truth of these arguments by moving on to assert that the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea could rule against Britain and in favour of Mauritius on the issue of sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, spelled out in forensic detail, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no such power. Britain has invoked Article 298 of the convention, which excludes military matters, so it is outside its wherewithal.
Even when the Philippines brought a case about artificial islands built in the South China Sea, ITLOS ruled that it cannot rule on the sovereignty of the area around those artificial islands—that is not within its purview. It can rule whether the islands are artificial or real and therefore have some territorial waters or not, but not whose they are and who they belong to.
We wonder why the Government got into this position. If the court has no power to rule on matters of sovereignty and the UK insists on exercising its rights under Article 298 of the convention, it just cannot do so. The Government’s silence on all these arguments must be deemed tacit acceptance that they are true. If there is some court or some hidden clause in the agreements that none of us knows about which overrides the points I have made, Amendment 9 will be no problem for them because they can implement it. According to them, within weeks, an adverse ruling will occur in a court which is binding on us. Since they have quite a long time before they can complete even these processes, we will get to know the answer to that conclusion. Alternatively, they could accept Amendment 9 and spell out the legal basis on which they believe an international court—which international court, why and on what grounds—could find against us.
If the Government reject this amendment, we will know that they do not even believe their own case. We will be forced to conclude that they are following, wittingly or unwittingly, the long-standing view of the Foreign Office—expressed very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the Second Reading debate—that, unless we accept even an advisory ruling, we will not be able to persuade other countries to accept legally binding rulings. That is perhaps how diplomats think, but it ought not to be how this House thinks.
We ought to reject that doctrine and be very cautious about allowing ourselves to be driven along by long-standing arguments of the Foreign Office. Thinking back, it was very keen on us giving up the Falklands to the Argentines, so it is perhaps no surprise to find that it is very keen nowadays on us giving up Chagos to Mauritius. But none of them—and none of the great mandarins who spoke in the debate—spelled out why we are legally obliged to do so. It was all on the basis that the Foreign Office position would be easier to maintain logically and would be more persuasive with Governments that, otherwise, we were recklessly following.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
How far back is the noble Lord going to go in his historic examination of British Governments? Is his position that the British Government should never ever cede sovereignty to any former colony? I am thinking of Australia, South Africa or Canada. How far is he going back in saying that it is absolutely wrong to cede sovereignty?
Lord Lilley (Con)
If the noble Lord wants me to go back further, I think it is a shame that we did not follow the advice of Edmund Burke and reach an agreement with the American colonists to give them independence earlier on.
But we are not talking about giving independence to the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands; we are talking about giving the Chagos Islands to a country which has never ruled them and is 2,000 kilometres away. To do that simply on the basis of long-standing Foreign Office doctrine is, surely, unwise. I hope your Lordships’ House will consider seriously these amendments because, if they are passed, we will know once and for all whether the Government have a strong case or not. If they are rejected, we can be certain that they do not have a strong case for giving away these islands.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he could correct some remarks he has been making about people he has given a Chinese name to. I am not quite sure why he thinks that that is so telling. The arguments advanced were drawn from the testimony of Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former British member of the International Court of Justice. If he read his testimony—which, of course, is all available in the report from the International Agreements Committee of this House, which is being totally ignored by him and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan —he would see what the case is, which was set out very fully. It was set out not by the FCDO but by Sir Christopher Greenwood.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am certainly very happy to mention that the noble Lord himself mentioned Sir Christoper Greenwood’s testimony in his speech, but his primary reasoning was that we should accept even purely advisory rulings of foreign courts in order that we be able better to uphold the rules-based international order. I remind him that the chairman of the committee that heard that evidence said in the debate that, although the committee was divided on the evidence it heard, he was inclined to agree with the arguments I had put forward.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 1 by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I take it that he was not entirely serious when he dreamt up this particular innovation, which is right at the start of the Bill, whereby the purpose of the Bill should be presented in the way that the opponents of the Bill would find most attractive. It is a novel constitutional idea. In his reasons for the purposes of the Act, he has included only things that obviously he agrees with, but he has not included, for example, that this will secure the base for the UK and the USA for the next hundred years. There are arguments for and against, as there with any piece of legislation, but to think that you should state at the beginning of a Bill that the purpose of the legislation is what the Opposition would like to see enacted is novel. The only parallel I can think of would be if the sundry privatisation measures that were passed by the Thatcher Government had said, “The purpose of this Act is to sell off at knock-down prices the assets of the British people”. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would have been in favour of that kind of constraint when that legislation was going through. I do not take this as a serious amendment, and I am sure he will not press it to a vote—it might be fun if he did, but we will see anyway.
One part of the noble Lord’s proposed new clause that is contentious—well, a lot of it is contentious—on which I would certainly like to hear more from my noble friends on the Front Bench is paragraph (d), which suggests that the Bill will
“limit the citizenship rights of the Chagossians”.
I do not think the Bill as it stands does that, and I want to be clear about that, but I think it raises an issue which we will come to later in the Bill, which is of concern to a number of us here, about what further rights for the Chagossians are appropriate, given the appalling way in which—we are all agreed—they were treated when they were basically thrown out of their own island.
My specific query, which if my noble friend cannot answer at the moment I would certainly like to hear later on in subsequent amendments, is that I still cannot understand why the military requires the whole of the island of Diego Garcia without any other settlement on it other than what is required for military purposes. I have asked that question of Ministers. The last time I asked my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister, he answered by saying,
“it is impossible for that to take place”—
that is, to have permanent settlement of Chagossians on Diego Garcia—
“operationally. It is not suitable or appropriate”.
I am very fond of the Minister, but just saying something is not suitable or appropriate, without any further clarification or explanation, is not good enough, as far as I am concerned.
The best I have got so far is to be told that, operationally, it is very difficult if you have civilians alongside the military, and it is much more convenient to the military if they have it all to themselves. In response to that, I can say only that repeatedly, in all parts of the world, including in my former constituency, civilian workers at a base quite happily live adjacent to the base and do a job that is of mutual benefit to the military and the civilian workers.
I think it would be a huge step forward to be able to say to the Chagossians—there may not be many who would want to do it—that those who would really like to settle in the land of their forefathers on Diego Garcia would be able to do that and work at the base or, if necessary, work in other activities as well. So far, I have not had a good argument against that happening, and I hope that at some stage during the passage of this Bill my noble friends can provide me with one.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I think the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was being a little bit unfair on him. He said very clearly that this is an appalling Bill that he wants to stop, and he has an amendment about Clause 1 standing part.
I would like to speak on one point about the Chagossians, which I know we are going to come to later. I agree with the noble Lord 100% on that point. There are quite a few Sri Lankan staff at Diego Garcia and there is no reason why there could not have been put in place some while back a scheme for Chagossians—Chagossians from Mauritius, from the Seychelles, from Crawley, from London—rather than the American airbase employing Sri Lankans. That should be the case. Of course, they did not originally come from Diego Garcia; they lived in some of the islands in the outer archipelago. Diego Garcia, as I understand it, was only sparsely populated historically. That was a very good point and we hope that the Minister will answer it.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a Friend of the British Overseas Territories. I support the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his efforts to bring clarity to the Bill, at the very beginning of the Bill.
I particularly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in relation to his amendments. It was in the conversation about those amendments that the issue of self-determination came up. I know that we are going to talk about self-determination in relation to amendments later on in Committee. However, there is a fundamental point about self-determination. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked whether we would ever cede British territory. Well, of course we have, when we have had self-determination exercised. In this case—the Minister went through this in some detail in Second Reading, because I raised it—it is deemed not applicable to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
We all received a letter today from 650 members of the Chagossian community here in the United Kingdom. In that letter they say:
“To do so, however, in the context of re-denying the people concerned self-determination while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that people self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion, more money than is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory, in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation”.
I completely agree with that.
I also completely agree with the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made on resettlement. We all heard at Second Reading that there had been an exercise looking at resettling Chagossians into the Chagos Islands. Back in 2015, the KPMG report gave the details of the costs and the then Government decided not to proceed, probably based mostly on cost. But now the costs we are paying to the Mauritian Government far exceed the costs of resettlement. There is an opportunity for some Chagossians, if they wish, to resettle on Diego Garcia. In other British Overseas Territories there are civilians on military bases: Ascension Island comes to mind. So it could be the case that it happens in Diego Garcia as well. We will touch on resettlement rights and the right to return in other amendments, but, given that it was raised in this context, I just wanted to make those couple of points. I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Callanan and the objection to it from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which was that this wasincompatible with the decision taken by Parliament. I will just quote—because I think it is helpful—Article 18 of the treaty. It states:
“This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of receipt of the later note by which the Parties notify each other that they have completed their respective internal requirements and procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Agreement”.
In other words, it cannot enter into force until both Chambers of this Parliament have given their assent.
We have not made any bones about the fact that we do not like the treaty at all. I think it is a bit much to complain about my noble friend making this point in principle.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord will recall that I had said that it is not in force. I said Parliament had ratified it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord can intervene on an intervention, but I am sure he can intervene on his noble friend in just a moment as a proxy to intervene on me. Parliament has ratified the treaty. The treaty is not in force, but treaty-making is a prerogative power, not a parliamentary power. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I will, of course, invite an intervention. I do not know what the rules are on intervening on an intervention.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy that my noble friend gives way, because, since the noble Lord intervened on me earlier, I have had a chance to check the facts of the case and, unsurprisingly, he is completely wrong. Parliament has not ratified the treaty because Parliament cannot ratify the treaty. The ratification of treaties under the CRaG legislation is a matter for the Government, using the royal prerogative. Parliament can delay the ratification but cannot prevent it. Whatever this House voted, or whatever the House of Commons voted, the Government are entitled, under the royal prerogative, to ratify the treaty in any case. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
That is extremely helpful. I very much welcome my noble friend’s intervention.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am very much going to regret getting involved in this, but I think it is helpful to understand what this House has and has not done. Both Houses of Parliament have voted that the Government should ratify this treaty. That is the situation as it is. This debate is about making sure we have the right legislation to enable us to enact the treaty.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I think lots of positions will be endlessly stated on that; I am not going to take it any further now. I do not see anyone changing their minds about that, but I would like to address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who suggested that this was really about a reluctance ever to cede sovereignty and to allow any colony to go its own way.
One of the peculiar features of British rule overseas was the nature of its dissolution. The British Empire, unlike most others, had a self-dissolving quality because it had the democratic self-determination principle that was adumbrated in this House and then exported. Very few imperial moments ended so peacefully. Yes, there were tragic exceptions in Kenya, Cyprus, India and Palestine, I suppose. Ireland was a slightly different story, because it was not treated as a colony but as part of the country itself. But those were exceptional; in most places, including most Caribbean countries and Malaya, independence happened without a shot being fired in anger because there was that belief in self-determination. Quite often the imperative to decolonise, as my noble friend Lord Lilley suggests, overrode self-determination.
Some noble Lords will, I am sure, remember that in 1956 Malta voted in a referendum, by 77%, to turn itself into three Westminster constituencies and become part of the United Kingdom. It was turned down and, soon after, Malta ended up not just independent but outside NATO and the Commonwealth, and pursuing an extremely unhelpful line. During the Maltese process of accession to the European Union, I discussed this with Dom Mintoff, who was still alive. He was an old and revered figure at that time, and he said, “My wife is British and I love Britain, but how do you expect anyone to respond to being treated in that way?”
I mentioned Malta because there was a similar debate, which I do not think has come up in any of your Lordships’ deliberations, in one of the parties in Mauritius in the 1960s about whether to adhere to the United Kingdom and seek representation at the other end of this building. The idea that this is really about some kind of grasping imperial power refusing to let go is wrong in the generality and especially wrong in this case, because we are refusing to recognise the wishes of the people concerned—the only people who ever formed a permanent population of the Chagos Archipelago between 1714 and the early 1970s.
Self-determination does not always mean independence. It means exactly that: you can self-determine to be part of a larger bloc. The referendum in Scotland in 2014 was an act of self-determination; it did not stop being self-determination because of the referendum result. That is what we mean by democracy. I fear that self-determination, which is a core principle of the United Nations and of the legal order that we have defended even since the Atlantic charter in 1941, is being overridden here for no good reason at all. This is what makes me so frustrated. Every time I sit down to draft what I want to say about these amendments, I start getting angry all over again about the utter needlessness of it all, for the reasons set out by my noble friend Lord Lilley. We are surrendering to a case where there is no jurisdiction over us. If Ministers think that that is wrong, I would love to hear the Minister explain why the Government will not accept my noble friend’s amendments.
It seems that what we are doing here is creating a hierarchy of norms, not by the intrinsic importance of their jurisdictional power, but on the basis of taste and fashion. The principle of self-determination is thus ranked below the principle of general decolonisation—getting out of the way—and that is fundamentally because of a transient public mood. It is considered unfashionable to have flags with little Union Jacks in the top corner, which sets a very dangerous precedent.
It may be—I do not know—that the Government will argue that the reason we are following this non-binding resolution, which is not a legal judgment, is not because there is some hidden reason that we really have to, as my noble friend suggests, but, they may say, because we have to give an example. It would be because the international order is in danger; countries are throwing their weight around; Machtpolitik is prevailing; the whole post-war order is looking shaky; even the United States, on which it rested, is now asserting its interests without recourse to treaties. Therefore, we need to set a lead.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, after the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I am tempted to recount my time in Malta in the 1950s or my visit to Djibouti in 1965, but I will resist that temptation—at least this evening.
As I said at Second Reading, I support this necessary and sensible Bill, but I want to pick up something that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. I do not agree with the proposed Amendment 1 of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, but, as I said at Second Reading, the Government need to give very serious thought to how the rights, interests and wishes of the Chagossians— I say Chagossians in the plural to mean not just those who have written to us from the United Kingdom but those from elsewhere as well—need to be taken very seriously into account by the Government. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s intentions later in our discussion in Committee.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, for fear of treading on the toes of my noble friend Lord Hannan, I want to add to the debate that took place a moment ago concerning the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment. I invite noble Lords to look at Clause 1. Clause 1(1) provides that the treaty is the treaty that was considered by Parliament. Clause 1(2) expressly provides that:
“When the Treaty comes into force, so do sections 2 to 4”
of the Bill.
The Bill is indivisibly connected to the implementation of the treaty, as the Minister will no doubt tell us in her closing speeches to all the groups that we have today. This is reflected in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, paragraph 18 of the Explanatory Notes, which sets out in crystal-clear detail that:
“Entry into force of the Treaty is defined in Article 18 of the Treaty, as being the first day of the first month following the date of receipt of the later note”.
There is nothing in the fact that this Parliament has considered the treaty that precludes an amendment of the type advanced by my noble friend Lord Callanan, because it is a statement of the purpose of the Bill. Purpose clauses have become something of a norm in legislation, and there is nothing wrong in principle with such a statement being placed in the Bill. Indeed, the purpose of the second part of his amendment is simply to state, as a matter of fact:
“Nothing in this Act grants or recognises that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago”.
That statement is absolutely correct. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I have listened carefully to what he has said, as I always do. Does he agree that there is a distinction, however, between debating legislation that gives effect to a treaty that has been agreed and ratified by Parliament, which this treaty has, and implementing legislation which seeks to alter a treaty that has been agreed?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord seeks to justify his intervention but fails to do so. Because of the way the treaty is drafted and the way Article 18 operates, the treaty can come into force only when this legislation is implemented. That is unusual, but it has the effect of not allowing the noble Lord to make the point he tries to make. He argues that my noble friend Lord Callanan cannot make this amendment because it is in some way in breach of the agreement that has already been signed by the Government, but that agreement is not in force. This is a point we have explored in great detail. I am sure the Minister would agree with me on that point.
Moving to the other amendments in the group, I entirely support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley. I am very grateful to the reference that he and my noble friend Lord Bellingham made to the points that I made at Second Reading in respect of the non-recognition of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I would just add one point in furtherance of that. The International Court of Justice also has no power and no jurisdiction to query the dispute over the Chagos.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who I am sad to see is not in his place, heavily relies on the evidence of Sir Christopher Greenwood, but he chooses to ignore evidence which does not favour his case. A very powerful exposition of the contrary case was put by Professor Richard Ekins, KC, professor of constitutional law at Oxford. He made it clear that the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction specifically excludes any dispute with the Government of any other country which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth. Mauritius’s acceptance of the ICJ’s jurisdiction also excludes disputes with the Government of any other country which is a member of the British Commonwealth of nations.
If there had been any basis upon which Mauritius could have sought a binding ICJ judgment against the UK, it would have already done so. The fact is that no such basis exists or has ever existed, which is why Mauritius was forced to use the advisory opinion route to obtain its non-binding advisory opinion. Its bargaining position would have been far stronger if it had had a binding ruling against the UK, but the fact is that it has chosen to negotiate without seeking such a ruling, because it obviously knows that there is no way in which it can obtain such a binding ruling.
For those reasons, I strongly support the lock that is present in my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment. It would mean that only if there is a binding ruling should this treaty come into force, and therefore the Chagos Islands should remain in British possession and this act of strategic self-harm should be avoided.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lilley. Once again, it raises the issue: why do our Government seem to jump as soon as some international court says something that is not even binding but advisory? The public need to know that we are actually selling out the people of the Chagos Islands because lawyers have decided that an advisory court has said that we should transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. I think the public are beginning to realise more and more that we are being ruled far too much by international law that does not take into account morality to start with, and the rights of people to self-determination. These amendments really do get to the heart of what we are discussing.
I will add my remarks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I was very pleased to hear him talk about the way in which the Chagossian people could go back. It is interesting that, over all those years—from the 1960s right through to 2025—the British Governments, who could have allowed the Chagossians to go back, refused. We are now passing them over. We are selling them, buying them and spending a lot of money. Once the islands belong to Mauritius, they will be allowed to be repopulated, except for the island with the base. I absolutely agree that there seems to be no reason why the Chagossians could not live peacefully on part of that island. As the noble Lord said, we have not had any real answer to why that could not happen. British Governments did nothing over those years to allow the Chagossians to go back, but suddenly it is all right, because Mauritius is going to be running it. Of course, in debates on other amendments, we will go into whether we believe that Mauritius will allow the Chagossians to go back, and the way in which it is going to control them.
Clearly, the issue here is self-determination. I know we are coming to that, so I will not say any more now, other than that I would like a response from the Minister that actually answers some of the questions raised in this debate.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I will be brief. I was going to intervene on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, but we reached a point at which there was a triangulation of interventions such that, for a brief period, perhaps the only person who was unable to contribute to that speech was the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, himself.
If we are to base this decision on where we stand on international law, the Government must explain much more clearly why they believed there was going to be an imminent binding ruling against us. At present, we have simply been served with an advisory position that, by definition, clearly does not hold any legal weight. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has highlighted how weak the legal position is and that it would, in effect, be impossible to force us into a binding position. I do not want to reiterate all his points, but I very much support his amendment.
As I think was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, we have heard the opinion given to the Committee on this subject, which, in effect, is an opinion from a third party. It may be a very well-informed third party, but we have not heard directly from the Government themselves. The Government need to explain their opinion. The suspicion of many of us is that that silence—the absence of a watertight explanation from the Government—signals a lack of confidence that this is going to be binding on the UK.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, indicated, in the absence of a binding legal position, we should undoubtedly be looking towards the self-determination of the Chagossian people. Self-determination is more than simply independence, because it is clearly not self-determination if you give people only one choice. Self-determination is about the level of choice, and it is very clear that the Chagossian people want to maintain the link with the UK. At times, the Government, and some Members on Second Reading, disputed that, saying that there are other Chagossian voices who want to go down a different path. There is obviously a very good way to test that out: to pursue the self-determination of the Chagossian people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, noted that part of the complication stems from the fact that, in terms of the hierarchy of principles, we have seen the subjugation of self-determination to signing up to a fashionable support for anticolonialism. The noble Lord may well be right that this is the motivation of some people, but I would contend that some of the nations keenest to jump on the bandwagon of anticolonialism do not have a particularly good record themselves.
China is perhaps the most colonial nation on the face of the earth. It is not the old 19th-century version of sending a gunboat and an invading army; it is a lot more insidious. No nation is more colonial in trying to spread its effective control over a range of third countries. I do not believe that China or many of the other countries lecturing us on this are in a good position to hand out lessons to the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, indicated, we have a much better record on decolonisation. While there have been some problems, the UK does not have in its past an Algeria, an Indochina, a Belgian Congo or even a Mozambique, as other European countries do. Our record is much better.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have amendments to this Bill—I think they are in the last group—but I will not address them. I will keep to the amendments in this group, which has strayed into some wider areas. Since the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not seeking the guidance of the Companion, which discourages changing groupings that have already been agreed, we will no doubt discuss all the amendments in detail as we go. I tabled my principal amendment but no others because I chose to respect the work of the International Relations and Defence Committee, which may well have considerations in advance of Report for us to consider.
I will make some short remarks on the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, presented any different, additional arguments in introducing his amendments from those he presented at Second Reading. Therefore, we have heard them before. Other noble Lords agreed with his argument.
Lord Lilley (Con)
If the noble Lord regards the amendments clearly, he will see that the difference is that I am saying, “Suck it and see”. If you believe there is a possibility of a court coming up with these judgments—they say it will be within weeks—then let us see.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I understand that argument, which the noble Lord alluded to at Second Reading, but it is a curious one when a treaty has been agreed. If he had presented this argument under the previous Administration post 2022, during the negotiations, that may have held a degree of credibility, but I did not hear him at any stage ask the previous Government to abort those negotiations. This is important because he and others who agree with him are suggesting that the previous Government perhaps did not enter in good faith into negotiations based on ceding sovereignty to resolve legal considerations. That was the Statement that the Foreign Secretary made in November 2022. As I said at Second Reading, I assume—the noble Lord may be able to correct me—that the Government would not have made that policy choice in November 2022 without advice from the Attorney-General at the time.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Since the noble Lord is famous for his pernicketiness, I remind him that the Statement in November 2022 referred to the “exercise of sovereignty”, not the ceding of sovereignty.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I see. Presumably he is arguing that it would be joint sovereignty. How would you enter into negotiations with another sovereign state on the exercise of sovereignty if we were going to retain it? I do not understand. This is interesting. Is he now saying that the previous Government entered into those negotiations without the intent to cede sovereignty?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I promise the noble Lord and the Committee that this will be my last intervention. I had no insider knowledge and was not in any way involved, but the possibility, from reading the Statement, was that the negotiations would consider the possibility either of joint sovereignty, as has existed in certain parts of the world, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, said—on a much better informed basis—of retaining sovereignty of Diego Garcia but ceding it elsewhere. There are all sorts of possibilities, and none of us knew at the time. That is why I certainly did not want those negotiations to take place, but I was not involved at all.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Part of the noble Lord’s lack of involvement was in not raising his objections in Parliament at the time. If those negotiations were entered into to resolve the legal considerations then the Statement in 2022 undermines his quite novel argument now.
It is the case that the previous Government entered into those negotiations. I believe that they entered into them in good faith and they knew what the conclusions would be. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, is of course correct with regard to the 2017 declaration by the United Kingdom Government that they would be able to choose not to adhere to any rulings by the ICJ on the basis of a Commonwealth country, if that dispute started after 1987. It is a moot point whether this dispute started before then; there remain many arguments that it had. However, even if he is right, I am certain that the former Attorney-General—one of potentially three in 2022—would have advised the previous Administration that, regardless of that 2017 UK declaration, the ICJ would, as under its statute, refer to the General Assembly, because that is its purpose, and that there would be a resolution at the General Assembly. That was the entire point of the ICJ considering it, because it was referred to the ICJ by the General Assembly. I understand the noble Lord’s argument, but we would not be in a different place now even if his argument was very robust.
On the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and our little to and fro on the treaty, we have been told on many occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and his colleagues in the previous Administration that treaty-making is a prerogative power. We do not have that short a memory in this House; we recall the Rwanda Bill and the Rwanda treaty. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, telling us that it was not our role to interfere in the prerogative power of Governments making, implementing or changing treaties. I quote:
“My Lords, we are not aware of any precedent for Parliament mandating the Government in international negotiations conducted under the royal prerogative. The Government were not prepared to accept such a significant … shift”.—[Official Report, 24/7/18; col. 1598.]
That is ultimately what the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, puts forward. That quote from Hansard is from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He was insistent that it was not Parliament’s role to interfere or mandate a Government in the negotiation of treaties under the royal prerogative. He was either wrong then and right now, or he was right then and wrong now. I am sure he will be able to say which when he sums up the debate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—slightly wide ranging, but that often happens with the first group in Committee. I am sure we will return to some of the issues raised in proper depth when we get to the relevant amendments, and I look forward to that. We have heard some interesting claims from the Opposition, but it is the Government’s contention that none of the amendments in the first group is necessary, and I will explain why that is.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is unnecessary because it is clear what the purpose of the Bill is. It has been debated many times over. The Bill implements in domestic law, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, explained very clearly, those elements of the treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago that require such implementation. There are also elements of this amendment that are just false. We will have a further debate shortly, I am sure, but it is incorrect to state that the Bill seeks to limit Chagossian citizenship rights. The Bill makes changes necessary so that no new claims for British Overseas Territory citizenship can be made, but it also preserves the existing British Overseas Territory citizenship for those who hold it. The Bill preserves Chagossians’ rights to obtain British citizenship and the British citizenship of those who already hold it. We have been clear about this, and anything that suggests otherwise is helping, I think, to circulate misinformation, which does no good for anyone, least of all the Chagossians.
Amendment 8 would jeopardise our national security if accepted and fundamentally goes against what this treaty and Bill do, which is to safeguard our national security. This amendment would prevent the UK ratifying the treaty until an international court delivers a binding ruling. In that scenario there is a very real risk of the deal collapsing, and the Government’s view is that this would put the UK in a very weak negotiating position—far weaker than that in which we started negotiating. Actually, we did not start negotiating; as many noble Lords have observed, there were 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. We have set out our legal rationale on multiple occasions, but for the avoidance of doubt I will restate it here: the Government acted to protect the Diego Garcia base because it faced an existential threat. The previous Government knew this, and that is why they started negotiations over three years ago and continued them for 11 rounds. Under the previous Government, Mauritius secured a string of legal and political victories against the UK.
On Amendment 9, the Government have already published their legal reasoning for signing the deal and have set this out clearly to Parliament on several occasions. Committees have heard expert testimony on these points, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us.
On Amendment 21, a notice will be published in the London Gazette on the day the treaty enters into force, as is the usual practice, and we will consider the utility of whether a Statement in Parliament at that point would be beneficial. It may well be.
On the clause stand part notice, Clause 1 sets out when the different clauses of the Bill come into force. Clauses 2 and 4 commence at the same time that the treaty enters into force. Article 18 of the treaty states that the treaty enters into force on the first day of the first month following the confirmation by both the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius that they have ratified the treaty.
Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration. Therefore, this clause provides that legal certainty and ensures that there is no ambiguity as to when the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer an overseas territory or as to which laws will be saved. As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State will publish a notice in the London Gazette when the treaty enters into force.
I will give a little more detail about something that has come up several times. Noble Lords suggested that there is no legal risk here and, further, that there could never be any legal question around this. That really makes me wonder what on earth the previous Government were doing with officials’ time, ministerial time and the time of officials from other Governments, when they set about negotiating for 11 rounds. They paused the negotiations when the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was appointed Foreign Secretary and then restarted them. If there was no legal jeopardy whatever, what on earth were the previous Government thinking when they set about that process? On the question of what court—
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I asked a very clear, core question: from which international court does she fear a damaging, binding judgment? She will not tell us. She says that she does not know but that the previous Government must have known.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Forgive me, but I did not say that I did not know; I was just about to answer that specific question. I was making a point about the inconsistency and—frankly—ludicrousness of the Opposition doing something that, when they were in government, took up a great deal of time and resource, but which they now contend they never, ever needed to do.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Will the Minister give way? We keep hearing that the previous Government negotiated over 11 rounds and went on negotiating, but surely that reveals something about the previous Government’s steadfast determination to secure a good deal. If the Government had not been able to get a deal, would they have eventually signed up to an agreement? I do think they would have done.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
At the risk of jumping further down the rabbit hole with the noble Lord, my point was simply that to contend now that there was never any possibility of any legal jeopardy, as many noble Lords have sought to do today, does not correspond with the fact that the previous Government did enter into negotiations. If there was never a legal risk, why did they do that? That is the point that I am seeking to make, a pretty straightforward point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked me about binding judgments and courts; they are fair questions. I believe that I have responded to them previously, but I am happy to go into more detail today, as that is what Committee debates are all about. There are numerous avenues through which Mauritius could pursue a legally binding judgment, including under the dispute provisions of the treaties to which both states are parties or further arbitral—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am getting on to that. Noble Lords are very impatient this afternoon. We are in Committee—we have time, and I am in no hurry. I am prepared to stay here as long as we need to get these things done.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am speaking for myself; other noble Lords may take different views on that point.
Mauritius could also pursue a legally binding judgment through further arbitral proceedings against the UK under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK—and I will come on to the points about the extent of those judgments and sovereignty, too. Such cases could be brought rapidly and include provisional measures, themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. The long-standing legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation.
The other important element to note here is that, even if the UK chose to disregard any legal rulings—that is not something that this Government would want to do, but we could—we rely on third countries to service the base. Therefore, the operability of the base depends on other states taking a view on such rulings. We of course control what we do, but we cannot control what other states do. If we need those states to agree with us and to ignore a legal ruling too, we may not be successful. It may be that we then compromise the operability of the base. That is a very real threat; we were concerned about that, as were our allies and partners, including the United States.
The risk of a binding ruling relating to sovereignty from this type of tribunal is simply too great, given the importance of the base for national security. Some have pointed to the 2015 arbitration between the UK and Mauritius, in which the tribunal was clear that it did not have jurisdiction over the question of sovereignty. That is right. However, that was before the advisory opinion in 2019 and before the 2021 judgment of a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a case about delimitating the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives. In that case, it was ruled that Mauritius’s sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s advisory determinations. These have changed the legal landscape.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, in those proceedings to which she just referred, the United Kingdom was not a party and made no submissions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I never said that we did; that was between Mauritius and the Maldives. My point is to make the case to noble Lords that the advisory opinions—advisory though they are—stand to inform subsequent opinions of international tribunals. That is what happened in that case, and that is why I bring that as a supporting argument for the Government’s case—to help noble Lords understand how we have got to where we are.
While an arbitral tribunal under UNCLOS almost certainly would not address the question of sovereignty directly, it may reach decisions on related matters based on conclusions about sovereignty. Noble Lords may disagree, but the Government’s position is that we are concerned about this—and I suggest that the previous Government were also concerned about this; otherwise, what were they doing? We are concerned not just about the effects of a binding judgment on the UK but about the legal effect on third countries and international organisations, which could give rise to real impacts on the operation of the base and the delivery of all its national security functions.
Although I do not expect there to be agreement on this, I believe that we cannot say that the Government have not fully considered all the potential legal jeopardy in which we would place ourselves. Further, we believe that the suck-it-and-see approach that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, advocates would leave us in a much weaker position when it comes to negotiating with Mauritius.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
May I press the Minister on that point? I am very grateful to her for giving way. She said that there was an existential threat to the base. So that I have understood that clearly, is she saying that there was something in addition to the possibility of an adverse UNCLOS judgment? As she conceded a moment ago, UNCLOS has no sovereignty; I just looked up what it says on its website, and it says, “We don’t do sovereignty issues”. That issue was tested with the case between the Philippines and China, when the latter was building reefs over some contested land, and UNCLOS said that it had nothing to do with it. Therefore, is there something else? Is an adverse judgment from a body that cannot decide sovereignty, in her view, an existential threat to the existence of the base? Would it make the existence of that base impossible?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What do we mean by existential? We could still have a Diego Garcia—there could be something there. However, it would be existential because, if the operability is compromised, the base as it exists today—it is a unique place and it does things that we do not do anywhere else—would be compromised. To that extent, I suggest that that is an existential threat to the operability of the base.
With that, I hope that noble Lords who have presented their amendments are satisfied. If not, we can of course return to these issues on Report.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Can the Minister answer my point about the UN Security Council and the UK’s ability and right to veto?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are not saying that this goes to the Security Council. We are saying that there could be further rulings. With respect, that is a bit of a red herring. There could be rulings that affect how we are able to operate on the base. There could be votes at the General Assembly, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, explained quite well. He is right; we could veto something at the Security Council, but we do not anticipate that, and that is not the legal threat that we are concerned about. It is a different legal threat.
If there are no further interventions, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the Minister for her replies. This has been an interesting debate. As she says, this is how the first debate in Committee normally goes. It is fairly wide ranging, and I am sure we will return to many of these issues.
Just before I address some of the other issues, I return briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We have already made the point that it is not Parliament’s role to ratify treaties under CRaG. Parliament has the right to delay them only, but the Government still have the right to agree them. I am not questioning the Government’s right to agree treaties under the royal prerogative. I might not like it—in fact, I really dislike it—but of course they have the right to do that. The reality is that they have now presented us with a Bill to implement the treaty that they have agreed. We fundamentally disagree with that treaty, so we have the perfect right to put forward amendments to the Bill that they have presented us with—the Table Office has ruled our amendments in order—and to debate them and vote on them if we wish.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for his excellent amendments in this group. I look forward to working with him throughout Committee and Report. We should certainly return to the question of international law on Report. My noble friend Lord Hannan made some excellent arguments as well.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply to my amendments, and I will look carefully at her remarks before we return to the Bill next year on Report. However, there is one point that she has not addressed. I return to and reiterate the point around the 1967 agreement with the United States. There was not a CRaG process in 1967, but that treaty, which has presumably been ratified, was agreed under whatever process we had then. Does the Minister not think it is still valid? Would she like to reply to that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to respond to that, and I am very sorry for not including that in my closing remarks. Obviously, the UK and the US are party to that treaty, and parties to treaties can agree to do things with those treaties. I remind the noble Lord and everybody else that the US very much supports what we are doing with our treaty with Mauritius.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Is she saying that the United States has agreed to abrogate that treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am saying that the United States publicly and in terms supports the treaty that we have agreed as a Parliament to ratify with Mauritius.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I heard that, but that was not in fact the question that I asked. If the original agreement is still in force—it is still an international treaty and is presumably still lodged—I assume that the Minister is telling me that the US has not yet agreed to abrogate that treaty. Therefore, if we concede the sovereignty of the BIOT, we are in breach of that treaty. She wants to talk to her noble and learned friend the Attorney- General, who is so keen to refer to international law all the time.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My point is that we will be doing so with the consent of the other party to the treaty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will look at Hansard, but I do not think that she has answered the question here.
The other point I want to make, going back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is that I think he said at one stage that he has proposed amendments—plural. I can see only one amendment, unless another one has gone in recently that I have not yet seen.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am happy to clarify. There will be a second, consequential amendment. As I mentioned in my remarks, there is a principal amendment and there will be a consequential amendment. I am sure the noble Lord is looking forward to reading and supporting them.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not see much problem with the one that is there. I will look at any other consequential amendments in detail. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification, but I am slightly confused by the Liberal Democrats’ position. Their Members in the House of Commons thought the Bill was so bad that they voted against it at Third Reading, yet all the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House have proposed only one, fairly mild amendment. From the noble Lord’s remarks so far, and indeed how they voted on the original CRaG amendment, they certainly seem fairly supportive of this treaty, which seems a strange position to be in. I am sure we will return to many of these issues in future rounds of debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
“(2) Sections 2 and 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in section 1(2A) (right to return), 1(2A) (lease renewal), 1(2A) (termination), (Referendum), (Employment rights of Chagossians), (Asylum claimants) and (Consultation) are discharged.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to others in the name of Lord Lilley, seeks to make commencement of sections 2 and 4 dependent on certain conditions.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I will speak in favour of Amendments 2, 13, 25 and 28. Amendment 2 is an all-purpose amendment saying that the treaty should not come into force until other conditions in amendments are incorporated. Amendments 13 and 28 call for consultation, and Amendment 25 for a referendum.
As I have mentioned previously, the advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice was based on a non-binding UN resolution about the process of decolonisation. That ruling explicitly says that a colonial state can sever part of a territory if it is the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned that they be separated.
The Chagossians cite the example of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. The parallel between the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the situation of Chagos versus Mauritius is striking. When the Government consulted the people of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands before ceasing to be the colonial power, they found that there was considerable opposition in the Ellice Islands to being lumped in with the Gilbert Islands. The parallels between that and the Chagos Islands and Mauritius are very striking. The Chagos Islands are 1,339 miles away from Mauritius, and the Ellice Islands are just 800 miles away from the Gilbert Islands. The Chagos Islands have a different ethnic mix. They are basically populated by people from the African continent, whereas that is not the case in Mauritius. Likewise, with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, one was Polynesian and one was Micronesian. The disparity of numbers is, if anything, even greater in the case of the Chagos Islands versus Mauritius than it was in the Ellice and Gilbert Islands.
After consulting, the British Government rightly decided that they should test the views of the people concerned. They had a referendum, and the vote was very striking. The people of the Ellice Islands voted to separate from the Gilbert Islands by 3,799 votes to 293. This is a comparatively small number of people—fewer, in fact, than the diaspora of Chagossian peoples in the UK, the Seychelles and Mauritius itself. It surely is possible for us to consult with them and seek their views, ideally through a referendum. The Government may say, “Why have a referendum? It’s so difficult. We can’t do it”. But the Chagossians themselves have today given the results of an opinion poll they have carried out, which 3,500 people responded to out of roughly 10,000 potential respondents. That is a very high proportion. Of those 3,500, an overwhelming proportion were against being lumped in with Mauritius.
The Government may well say that it is still only a minority of the total population. That is fair enough. Again, suck it and see—have a referendum of the total. Who would be the potential electors? The Chagossian nationals would be, as defined in this Bill. We have done that bit for the Government, so that is already there. It is clearly possible over a period to consult them if the Chagossians can organise a poll like this fairly rapidly and with such a high response rate.
The Government often argue that the Chagossians are “not really a people and in any case they’re no longer there”. However, there are precedents in history for people being removed from a place and allowed back. The Acadians were shipped out of Canada because they were thought to be unreliable French-speaking Catholics but subsequently were allowed back and are still a distinctive community in that part of Canada. Similar things have happened with the Chechens and the Crimeans more recently, after the Second World War. In history, we all know the displacement that was suffered by the ancient Israelites. It is possible to say that people who have been removed from a territory still have a right to that territory and should be consulted about its sovereignty.
These amendments seek to ensure that we do have a referendum. Failing that, if the Government can convince us that it is impossible in some way to organise a referendum, let us have a thorough and prolonged period of consultation. I would like to hear more from the Government on what they are doing now, having been provoked into it by the amendment to the committal Motion to ask the relevant Select Committee of this House to carry out a consultation. How are they envisaging that being carried out, and how will they define the Chagos consultation groups and so on? I think your Lordships’ House would almost certainly welcome greater information about that process and how the Government see it happening. If they do not satisfy us on this, I think we need to press ahead with Amendments 13 and 28 on the consultation, but ideally let us go ahead and have a referendum under Amendment 25.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I introduce Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is prevented by a family illness from being here. His amendment draws attention to the contradiction between the principles in this Bill and some of the UN resolutions dealing with when it is valid to partition a territory. The legal case on which the Government rest, as we established in the last round of amendments, is fundamentally UN Resolution 1514, which was the basis of the Mauritian claim that it was wrong to have divided the territory at independence.
This is an extraordinary precedent to set. The idea that if a territory, for reasons of administrative convenience, was at one time governed from somewhere else, that creates a lasting claim, would upend borders on every continent and in every archipelago. It would mean that Aden and Somaliland are again governed from India, and that the Cayman Islands are again governed from Jamaica. If we extend beyond British territories, it would mean that the Philippines were governed from Mexico, and that Bolivia was again governed from my native Peru, which was the seat of the viceroyalty. It would be an extraordinary principle.
Indeed, when read in context, the UN is not arguing that. If it did, it would have opposed the split of Czechoslovakia, the independence of Montenegro from Serbia, and so on. Of course it does not argue that. The three resolutions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, essentially establish criteria where it is proper to divide a territory for reasons of geography, history, ethnic distinction or nationality—a sense of being a people and wanting to live in your own polity. As we just heard from my noble friend Lord Lilley, all those criteria are plainly met in this case. When the Chagos Islands were ceded by the French in 1814, they were ceded as a separate territory from Mauritius. They are populated by a different population, one that came from the west rather than from the east. The only reason that they were governed from Mauritius was not because they were part of Mauritius but because there is nowhere among those sparse and beautiful atolls suitable for a seat of government. It is similar to some of our continuing overseas territories in the Atlantic today, visited occasionally by a governor because there is no permanent seat there.
This is the key group of amendments—and the crux of the entire debate is the question of consulting the people who have the most at stake. They are the only people who have ever constituted a permanent population of that archipelago and their descendants, the people defined in this Bill as the citizens of the BIOT. My noble friend Lord Lilley gave a very good example: the consultation between the Ellice Islands and the Gilbert Islands at the moment of independence. They felt that they had not enough in common to accept government from each other’s hands, so the Ellice Islands became the monarchy of Tuvalu and the Gilbert Islands became the Republic of Kiribati. The distances here, ethnically and geographically, are much wider. There is not much doubt that if we had carried out a consultation in 1965, we would have had the same outcome as in the case cited by my noble friend.
Why does that suddenly stop being true now? Why does the passage of time invalidate that claim? This is a proposal to hand the Chagossian people to a nation that has never governed them, never seen them as part of their demos, that was very happy to renounce all claims in perpetuity and trouser a cash sum in exchange for doing so, and which has continued to treat the archipelago in essentially pecuniary terms. Why not test the proposition today?
I repeat a point made by my noble friend Lord Bellingham at Second Reading. It is perfectly logistically feasible to conduct a referendum across scattered territories. Last year I voted for our absent colleague—my noble friend Lord Hague of Richmond—to be Chancellor of the University of Oxford. There was a poll that was conducted electronically across five continents, the alumni being dispersed in their tens of thousands. There was a simple enough process. You establish the right of somebody to vote, you establish their identity, you show that they genuinely are an alumnus, then you have the vote. We have established who would be eligible here, and the right of descent that conveys BIOT citizenship.
I refuse to believe that it is logistically beyond us to consult the Chagossian people. I cannot speak for everyone on this side, but I am pretty sure that if the Chagossian people voted overwhelmingly for Mauritian citizenship, opposition to this proposal would dissipate and people would accept it as a valid exercise of self-determination. There is something more than perverse about acting in the name of decolonisation when taking a people against their will and transferring them to the sovereignty of a foreign state, a country whose Prime Minister at the time of the partition said that it is a territory which they never visit and of which they know little.
When I was a Member of the European Parliament, Crawley was part of my constituency. I got to know some of the disparate groups that represent our Chagossian fellow subjects, and it is fair to say that they did not always agree on every issue—like many small communities, they had a broad diversity of opinions on a lot of subjects—but honestly, hand on heart, I do not think I ever recall meeting any Chagossian in this country who wanted to be a citizen of Mauritius. There are reasons for that. The experience of Chagossians in Mauritius was not a happy one: they were confined in slums, and they were subjected to, in their eyes, racism and discrimination. The idea that we are now placing this entire population, against their will, because of a non-binding opinion from a tribunal without jurisdiction is a truly extraordinary and shameful moment.
Lord Horam (Con)
I will follow my noble friend Lord Hannan on this subject of consultation. It really is quite shocking that there is no mention in the agreement of any consultation with the Chagossians—no mention at all. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, there is only one mention of Chagossians and it is not a right that is put into the Bill or into the agreement: it is the possibility that the Mauritian Government are free to implement a programme of resettlement. It is not something that they have to do; it is simply a permissive measure. It is really quite amazing, given the history of the treatment of the Chagossian people that we are aware of, that they do not feature at all in the agreement or in the Bill.
As we know, due to the parliamentary skill of my noble friend Lord Callanan, we now have a possibility that there will be consultation under the auspices of a Select Committee of the House of Lords. That is very good news, but it is only fair that the Government, at this early stage, set out some idea of how that consultation may proceed. It may not be a referendum but, as my noble friend Lord Lilley says, it is at least some sort of consultation. It should not be too difficult. Although there is a widespread diaspora within the Seychelles, the UK and Mauritius itself, it is a small number of people. If they have a referendum, they should be able to conduct that very easily. Proper, organised consultation done fairly speedily—we do not necessarily wish to delay all this—should be within the Government’s remit. I hope that they can say something on that subject during the course of discussion on this amendment.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, Amendments 37, 49 and 56 in this group stand in my name. These are no ordinary circumstances. As my noble friends have alluded to, a group of Chagossians, totalling more than 650, contacted me in writing and asked whether I would consider tabling some amendments and exploring them on the Floor of the Chamber.
The thought behind the amendments is crystal clear: whether the Chagossian people, who were dispersed from their homeland, should have a meaningful voice, clear legal recognition of their identity and a central place in determining the future of the Chagos Islands. Depressingly, it seems the Government have already given their answer, and it is—shamefully, in my opinion—no. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be frank in saying to the Government that I am unreservedly committed to speaking on behalf of the hundreds of Chagossians in the United Kingdom, some of whom have joined us today in the balconies above.
The Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill is a monumental tragedy of an agreement that declares Mauritius sovereign over the entire Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia—a part of the world to which Mauritius has as much of a historical claim as I do to the throne of France. It is farcical. Parliament has been asked to legislate in support of that treaty and the Government do so consciously aware of core groups that are conspicuously absent from the foundations of the treaty—the Chagossians themselves. Allow me to be clear when I say that the people most directly affected by this Bill are not, and have not been, in the room.
The amendments I present seek only to ensure that any settlement affecting the Chagos Islands reflects the rights, identity and aspirations of the Chagossian people. They do not ask for the unattainable. They want recognition, evidence and a proper assessment of what genuine peace and stability requires. Without these, the Bill risks repeating historic injustices and undermining the very legitimacy it claims to secure.
I do not gain anything from bringing such amendments before the Committee, but I am motivated by people and how they can be best served when I read through their correspondence and look those people in the eye—I have had the privilege of meeting some of them. I hope colleagues know that that is why I do this for those who cannot speak in this Chamber themselves. They need a voice.
Amendment 37, in the first instance, addresses democratic representation. It would require the Government to ensure that a Chagossian representative is appointed or elected to act as a liaison between the Chagossian community and Parliament. This is not a radical proposal or proposition. It is, in fact, the bare minimum that we could expect from a democratic state dealing with a displaced people whose fate it once determined without consultation. The onus is on us as Peers to defend all those British citizens, no matter how far away their home might be.
I am conscious that the history of the islands has been repeated throughout the different stages of the Bill, but for good reason. The impact of the forcible action taken between 1967 and 1973, overseeing the removal of the entire population of the Chagos Islands—some 1,500 to 2,000 people—has had long-lasting consequences for the families of that generation. That removal, its circumstances and its consequences are not contested facts. They are recorded in the archives of this country, acknowledged in Foreign Office documentation, examined by parliamentary committees and recognised by numerous international bodies. The result was a community scattered and broken, separated by thousands of miles in some cases. That is why it is essential that we consider the feelings of the Chagossian community now, in 2025, because the colossal failure to do so all those decades ago is the reason we are here today.
Today, the largest Chagossian community in the world resides here, in the United Kingdom. Crawley Borough Council estimates that it is home to approximately 3,500 Chagossians—around two-thirds of the total UK Chagossian population. The community is sizeable and passionate. Yet, in spite of its size, there is no formal mechanism for its representation in Parliament. There is no statutory liaison, committee or structure within Whitehall through which this community can speak with an authoritative voice.
This is untenable. It means that people who were displaced by past British policy have no guaranteed voice in shaping the policy that affects their future. How can we consciously abide this? They, the Chagossian community, remain permanently marginalised: spoken for but never spoken with, and governed but never genuinely consulted.
These are British citizens, as British as the people of Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. They are ignored and sidelined in every conceivable form of representation and consultation. Amendment 37 would remedy this democratic deficit. It would ensure that this community had a recognised representative—not imposed, not chosen by government, but selected by the community itself—to liaise directly with Parliament and ensure that their views, concerns and aspirations are considered. If we are to claim moral legitimacy in legislating over the Chagos Islands, we must begin by ensuring that they themselves are heard.
Amendment 49, concerning civic identity and self-determination, would require the Government to publish a report evaluating the credibility of any claim that the Chagossians share a civic identity with Mauritius without a self-determination vote. Additionally, it would direct that the report should consider the historical involvement of Mauritius in the removal of the Chagossian people. This amendment is necessary because the Bill and the treaty on which it rests make a crucial and untested assumption that Mauritius is the rightful and natural representative of the Chagossian people. That assumption underpins the treaty’s logic, the Bill’s purpose and the Government’s narrative.
However, that is simply not the case. It is a historical narrative that has been conjured up by those intent on pushing this forward at all costs. Those of us who understand history will know that, at the time of the 1965 Mauritian-UK negotiations, the Chagossian population was still excluded from any involvement in discussions. Even after the displacement, Chagossians did not prosper under Mauritian administration. Many experienced poverty, discrimination and lack of support, as documented by innumerable NGO reports, parliamentary inquiries and human rights organisations. We have heard testimonies from Chagossians: I was speaking to some of them even today. They describe life in Mauritius as one of hardship and neglect, not solidarity or cohesion. The lives of these people have been shaped not only by geography but by the trauma of displacement and the struggle to preserve a distinct cultural heritage in exile.
I think of the many natives still alive, some of whom wrote to me, including Jenny, Roseline, David, Christof, Marie, Louis and many more, some of whom have joined us in Parliament today. The United Nations has repeatedly stressed that the Chagossian people must be recognised as central to any settlement. In 2024 and 2025, UN human rights experts stated plainly that Chagossians had been excluded from negotiations between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and that the new agreement failed to guarantee their rights, including the right to participate meaningfully in decisions about sovereignty.
It is ironic that many of the most zealous cheerleaders of this deal are infatuated by notions of internationalism and international law, yet, when it comes to protecting the interests of British sovereign citizens, as emphasised by the UN, the call seems to fall on deaf ears. Amendment 49 simply obligates the Government to gather evidence before taking irreversible decisions.
Amendment 56 directly pertains to peace, stability and the long-term future of the US-UK defence facility on Diego Garcia by ensuring that the Government commit to the publication of a report on whether the goal of peace and legal certainty is better served by the Mauritius treaty or by
“granting self-determination and resettlement to the Chagossian people as a self-governing British Overseas Territory”.
It is not an overstatement to say that this is the central strategic question of this Bill. It seems that this Government are more concerned with the appeasement of foreign states than with the maintenance of our alliances and the protection of our sovereign British citizens.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
Order. Will the noble Lord come to a conclusion?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I am coming to a conclusion. I understand what it is like to feel ignored and sidelined; to have someone in Government tell you that your identity is second class; that you cannot really be a full British citizen. I know what it is like to have fought for your rights to represent your people when a foreign state wades in against you. I understand the struggle to be heard more than most. Parliament therefore has a responsibility to correct that course. These amendments do not ask for much.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 14 and 25. This treaty and the Bill that will enact it is bad for our country, for our security and for British taxpayers. As we have already discussed, it will leave Britain poorer, weaker and strategically exposed.
This treaty is also bad for the Chagossian people. Half a century ago, they suffered the terrible injustice of forced removal. This treaty compounds that injustice by offering no guaranteed right of return, no legally binding resettlement plan and no meaningful protection of their rights. This is truly shameful. For a Government who claim to uphold human rights, it is an extraordinary moral failure.
Dr Al Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said at Third Reading in the House of Commons that
“we cannot allow the Bill to pass without ensuring that Chagossians themselves are sovereign over their citizenship, the governance of their islands and the prospect of return”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 756.]
He is right, and I am surprised that no Liberal Democrat in this House has put down any amendment in support of a referendum. To deny the Chagossians their right of self-determination and to shape the future of their homeland is unworthy of a country that champions justice, fairness and democracy. This amendment would give them a chance, but it would also give us, a nation that prides itself on a centuries-old democratic—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I make the assumption that, in her defence, she did not read my amendment before making her statement, because the right to self-determination is there under proposed new subsection (3)(b)(ii). Can she clarify what her referendum would be? Would it include the sovereignty, the possession and the inhabitation of the military base on Diego Garcia?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I presume that a referendum would actually ask the Chagossian people what they want for their future and self-determination.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
To clarify: it is the position of the Opposition that the referendum would also be for there to able to be inhabitants on the military base?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am intervening on the noble Baroness. It is her speech.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
The Chagossian people have made it very clear what they want. They had their own opinion poll on the subject, and that has been independently verified: 99.22% of people voted for it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked what the proposition would be. It is for a resettlement on the outer atolls, under British jurisdiction and as British overseas citizens, in accordance with the plan set out in 2015, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred earlier.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
Yes, and they seem to approve what we are saying. Basically, these amendments are about asking the Chagossian people about the right to self-determination through a referendum. I have never met a Chagossian in my life, but I have received many letters from them over the past few days and feel that this is my moral duty, and I think that, in good conscience, the Government should allow them self-determination.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I particularly like Amendment 64, because it goes to the heart of the issue and is very simple and straightforward: we want a referendum. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, answered the noble Lord on the Front Bench who asked about what a referendum would mean; I concur exactly with that, and I hope that that has satisfied him.
When we are trying to get an argument for providing the people of the Chagos Islands with self-determination, sometimes it is useful to consider the arguments being put against it. There are two key arguments that the Government seem to deploy for backing the Mauritius treaty and the Bill, rather than a self-determination referendum, the provision of which would be not necessarily easy but technically possible and would include all the Chagossians not just in the UK but around the world.
The Government’s first argument would seem to be that we are excused from the need to provide the Chagossians with self-determination because we removed them from the Chagos Islands and so they can no longer be offered self-determination. So long as the Government say that it was very wrong that the Chagossians were removed, the Government seem to think that the fact that they no longer live on their islands relieves us of the moral obligation to provide them with self-determination on their future. For me, this constitutes a pretty appalling logic that lays bare not only the complete moral failure of the current Government but the deployment of a rather dreadful logic in a way that I believe really lets down the people of our country, the United Kingdom, in a very humiliating fashion.
The Chagossians themselves call this out in a very powerful statement on self-determination, which I am sure the Minister will have read, that they issued yesterday. I am going to quote from it, because I think it is really important. They say:
“In recent years there has been much repenting of colonialism within certain parts of the West, including the United Kingdom. The problem with colonialism is one of alienation. In its conventional form it is problematic because it alienates a people from the dignity of self-government of their home territory, but not from that territory. They can continue to live on the territory that is their home and nurture the hope that at some point they might be afforded the dignity of self-government. The colonialism to which we have been subjected, however, presented a far more extreme and unusual alienation because it alienated us not just from the dignity of a measure of self-government but far more problematically, from our territory, our home, by taking it from us.
If the international community is serious in its commitment to decolonise then it cannot afford to accommodate either alienation. To do so, however, in the context of re-denying”—
I emphasise this—
“the people concerned self-determination while simultaneously paying a country that played a key role in denying that people self-determination in relation to their territory on the previous occasion, more money than is required to resettle the people with the rightful claim to the territory, in order to lease one of their islands, demonstrates extreme moral disorientation.
In this context the policy of the current Government to state that what happened between 1968 and 1973 was deeply wrong but then not lift a finger to put that right, even as they demonstrate that the resources are more than available to do so, not only makes the condemnation of what happened between 1968 and 1973 completely hollow, but also necessarily has the effect of affirming the validity of what happened”.
I think every noble Lord should read that statement carefully; there is more in it.
If we put this another way, attempts by His Majesty’s Government to claim that the United Kingdom is relieved of any obligation to provide the people of the Chagos Islands self-determination in relation to their islands because they are not living there is just another way of saying that we are relieved of the responsibility for having prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation because we prosecuted the most extreme form of colonialisation. I think it is plain for all to see that, if we are justifying ourselves in not providing self-determination to the Chagossians—which we would do by at least asking people in a referendum—because we removed them from their islands, we are suggesting that removing them from their islands validates this, as if the crime of their forced removal constitutes a source of validity. Rather than providing a source of validity for not providing self-determination to the people of the Chagos Islands, I believe that this logic lays bare the complete moral failure of the current Government and the way in which it shames us as a nation.
The other argument that the Government provide against affording the Chagossians a self-determination referendum is implicit in their references to Chagossians who support the Mauritius treaty, as if the Chagossians supporting it means that providing the Chagossians self- determination is unnecessary because we already know what they want. I do not doubt that there are some Chagossians, particularly some in Mauritius, who support the Mauritius treaty. There has never been, in my opinion, a self-determination referendum in which 100% of people voted in one way. However, what is incontrovertible is that we have to engage with the fact that not only do we have some 650 Chagossians who have been involved here in the United Kingdom but the survey of over 3,000 Chagossians living in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles demonstrates over 99% opposition to being given away—just think about that—to the Republic of Mauritius and support for self-determination as a resettled British overseas territory such as Anguilla or Montserrat. That is 99%. They do not want to be given away to Mauritius; they want to stay British.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on this group. I support a number of the amendments in it, in particular those that call for a referendum for the citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory—that comes as no surprise, I am sure, given my Second Reading speech—Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt, asking for Chagossian representation to liaise with Parliament and Amendment 49, also in his name, adding a new clause for the assessment of Chagossian civic identity and self-determination.
The treatment of the Chagossians in 1965 is being exacerbated by their treatment today by this Government —I think that is a fact. We have talked at length about the lack of consultation and the great haste with which this treaty came about. That has led to claim and counterclaim about how Chagossians feel about the transfer of sovereignty. Surely the simplest way to find out the answer is to hold a referendum among those who hold BIOT citizenship. As I said at Second Reading, geography is not political destiny, especially when the closest country to Diego Garcia is not even Mauritius but the Seychelles. Given the past treatment, taking the views of the Chagossian community is now the very least that this Government should do.
Until now, Chagossians living here in the UK have been pushed aside, as I said at Second Reading, even by their Members of Parliament. That is astonishing. We are supposed to live in an open democracy where Members of Parliament are voted in to the other place and are responsive to people who live in their constituencies. It is dreadful that despite repeated requests to meet in person, they have been rejected. As I said at Second Reading, if you are a Member of Parliament and you are going to vote through a government policy, the very least you should do with your constituents is have the wherewithal to meet them and explain why you have supported the position of the Government. I do not think that is rocket science.
Lord Horam (Con)
I should just correct the noble Baroness. When Mr Henry Smith was the Conservative MP for Crawley, he listened very carefully to the people in his constituency. He was also an active member of the APPG on Chagos, of which I am a member.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Yes. I am not speaking about Henry; the noble Lord is absolutely right. I shared a platform with him at a Chagossian event a number of months ago. However, this is direct testimony from my Chagossian friends, who have been very clear about a number of MPs whom they contacted, and they were not listened to and were refused a meeting.
Treating our fellow Britons—that is how I see my Chagossian friends—with dignity and addressing their needs are very important. It certainly does not mean that we are challenging national security issues. The two can and should exist together. Just because we have a marvellous asset in Diego Garcia—I am not suggesting otherwise—for our national security needs and those of our friends and colleagues in the United States of America does not mean that we cannot also have a conversation with Chagossian people about their rights, aspirations and needs. The two can and should exist together.
I have already mentioned that the KPMG report of 2015 on the feasibility of the resettlement of BIOT indicated that
“there are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead”.
Of course, that is what the Government of the day should have done. They decided not to, citing cost concerns, but how cost effective and value for money does that not look today when we consider the costs of this treaty and the money that we are going to be sending to the Mauritian Government?
Despite what previous Mauritian Administrations have said, the Chagos people are a distinct people on the basis of ethnicity, culture and religion and should be afforded respect by being asked how they view the transfer of sovereignty of their homeland. If this Government turn their face, as it appears they will, against a referendum, they should pay heed to the referendum carried out by the BIOT citizens, which many friends and colleagues in the House have referred to, because that shows a staggering 99.2% of Chagossians who were polled supporting UK sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.
Chagossians have had to resort to press releases and court challenges to be heard, and it is now long past the time for the Government to step back and put in place a referendum to listen to their voices.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness said 99.2%—I got it wrong; I said only 99%. Does she think that one of the reasons, or perhaps the reason, that the Government will not even contemplate a referendum of the Chagossian people is that they know that they would get the wrong answer and therefore they would be even more morally bound to tear up this Bill and the treaty?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I pay tribute to my friends in the Chagossian community for raising their voices, which have been very loud. As I said, they have had to find other means by which to raise their voices, whether that be through court challenges or press releases.
I think the Government are well aware of how a number of Chagossians here feel about this. As my noble friend has already alluded to, we have heard that there are Mauritians who are in favour of this deal. I have no doubt that there are those from a Chagos background living in Mauritius now who are in favour of the deal—that is accepted—but I believe that the greater number of those Chagossians want to remain British citizens.
I also support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, which, as an alternative to a referendum, asks for a Chagossian representative to liaise with Parliament. I know that other later amendments coming up, including from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, look at ways to be creative about hearing the voice of Chagossians. I commend the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, on mentioning individual names. We are talking about communities but, actually, these are individuals who feel very passionately about their homeland; it is important that we remember that.
Finally, Amendment 49 seeks an assessment of Chagossian civic identity and self-determination, again seeking to underline the distinct nature of the Chagossian people. I support that amendment as well. This has been a good debate but, for me, it is really important to listen to the voices of the Chagossian people.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She speaks with great sincerity and consistency in making her arguments, and I share many of her thoughts. I said on the earlier group that I am also awaiting the conclusions of the work of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I hope that it will be able to guide us with some of our thinking on this on Report, after its consultations with the community.
Reference has been made to my honourable friends in the House of Commons, who have also for many years been consistent that we should not repeat the history of making decisions on behalf of the community without involving them. It is our long-held view that that is the basis on which we should go forward.
One of the reasons why I intervened on the noble Baroness, and had the interaction with her noble friend, was that there have been some parts of the debate, especially in the House of Commons, where seeking consideration of the right to self-determination has perhaps been used as a bit of a proxy for other considerations, to try either to prevent a treaty or to prevent the restoration of rights. As the noble Lord said on behalf of his noble friend, we seem to be talking about some form of limited sovereignty, some form of limited and partial right to self-determination.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
The proposal has come from the Chagossian population. That is what we mean by self-determination. It is not for us to lay down whether they should have full sovereignty or partial sovereignty; it is for us to listen to what they want.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I agree with that. It is a clearer proposition than we have heard—a better proposition, in my view. Actually, “better” is the wrong word; it is a more convincing proposition because of its origination. The reality of how we define self-determination and the rights of the community—and where I think the debate has bled into previously—is that it has been used without that clarification, as a different political impetus with regard to the overall desirability or otherwise of having a treaty with Mauritius.
That is where I come to it. The most vociferous of speeches that we have heard deny the reality of what happened just last year. We can talk about the denial of rights. If we are talking about referendum statistics, I agree with about 90% of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about rights in her speech. But we do not have to go back to the 1960s to look at the denial of rights. It was in January 2024 that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, restated government policy that there would be no right of resettlement, and that was while negotiations on the basis of a treaty were carrying on. If it is an argument to suggest that we wish to restore rights of resettlement and rights to self-determination, I accede to that argument. I think it should be in the acknowledgement that the previous Government and this Government refused to do so in the absence of a treaty with Mauritius.
The context that we are in now is that the first opportunity that we may have for limited right of resettlement and acknowledgement of some form of self-determination is by virtue of a treaty. The Minister knows that these Benches do not consider them to go far enough, and we want to use these stages to see how we can go further. But it is worth recognising that the only opportunity that we have for some form of resettlement is by virtue of there being a treaty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am very interested to hear all the contributions from noble Lords on this important debate on the consultation of the Chagossians, or rather the lack of consultation. There have been some powerful speeches, particularly that from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Establishing a permanent representative of the Chagossians, as he proposes in his Amendment 37, would indeed be a very powerful thing. I think everybody has agreed that we need to give them a voice. They have not been properly consulted by the Foreign Office, and I am happy to concede to the noble Lord that they were not properly consulted by previous Governments either. No legislative scrutiny will change that.
The noble Lord postulated that it was a bit like him being offered the Dauphin of France, but, given the distance from Northern Ireland to Paris and that from Mauritius to the Chagos, it would be more appropriate for him to be offered the monarchy of Azerbaijan rather than Paris. But the Foreign Office needs to consult the community properly, and that process might be helped if they had a champion of their own.
Amendment 49 speaks to an interesting question about a shared civic identity between the Chagossians and the Mauritians. I think everybody has agreed that there really is not one. This reminded me of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Biggar at Second Reading. In pure terms of identity and self-determination, it makes absolutely no sense that Mauritius and the Chagos Islands should be lumped together in this way. It all stems from some bizarre decision by British imperial administrators many years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the Chagossians.
We all know that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted, and that when I tabled an amendment to the committal Motion that would have required a consultation before the Bill could proceed, the Government, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, from the Dispatch Box, raised concerns about the practicality of any such consultation. In fact, the noble Baroness said in a meeting we held with others afterwards that 30 days was not long enough. Fair enough; it is a reasonable point. But when I asked how long was long enough, answer came there none. The Foreign Office has no interest whatever in consulting because, I suspect, despite what the Minister says about there being different opinions among the community, she knows what answer she would get. As it would find it far too difficult a question, the Foreign Office has sidestepped it completely and said that there is no self-determination right for the Chagossians in this case.
This, in my view, is not an acceptable state of affairs and we firmly believe the Government must consult the Chagossian community. It is great that the International Relations Committee is now doing so, but given the time available because the Government would not agree to extend the time for this Bill any further, there is no substitute for a proper consultation. The committee will do its best in the limited time it has.
I will return to the issue of a referendum later, but in the absence of a proper consultation with the Chagossian community in the lead-up to the UK Government’s decision to reach agreement with Mauritius, we see this as a very reasonable step to ensure that they are not left out in the cold as the future of the islands they once called home is determined as they are handed over lock, stock and barrel to a nation they know very little about.
The Government’s treatment of the Chagossians is nothing less than shameful, and I believe we have an opportunity to remedy that in some small way with these amendments. There are many other things that I could say about these amendments, but I think I will leave it at that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is worth restating—and many of the contributions this afternoon have stated this too—that this Government deeply regret the way the Chagossians were removed from the Chagos archipelago. If I can commend just one speech that we have heard in consideration of this group, it would be that from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. I found that an impactful, passionate speech that was sincerely given and heartfelt. I do not think I am going to make him happy this afternoon, but what he said was sincerely felt and I respect the way he put his argument and many of the things he said.
We remain committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. I know—and I agree with much of what has been said—that this House clearly feels very strongly about Chagossians and ensuring that their views are properly heard. We have agreed that the International Relations and Defence Committee will undertake an important piece of work looking at Chagossian views on the treaty. We are looking forward to its report and I am sure we will all read it with great interest.
Turning to the arguments we have just debated, Amendments 13 and 28—I think the noble Lord said he was degrouping Amendments 14, 25, 64 and 84—all relate in some way to holding a referendum or some sort of consultation with Chagossians on the transfer of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius. I know we have said before—there will be some repetition of argument on these issues—that in the negotiations on the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Government of Mauritius, our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. I accept that there will be those who disagree with that priority.
The Chagos archipelago has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. Therefore, on the question of self-determination for its population, the English courts have, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritius rather than of Chagossians. That feels incredibly cold and hard to read from this Dispatch Box, but that is the situation legally as determined by English courts. I do not think it helps anybody, not least the Chagossians, to somehow pretend that that is not the case. That is the situation we are in. We can regret that, we can argue about it, we can say that should not be the case; but that is the legal reality.
In a series of judgments since the 1970s, both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have also considered the related but distinct question of an alleged right of abode or other rights that are said to flow from that. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims. The transfer of sovereignty therefore does not deprive Chagossians of any existing right. This is a long-standing legal position that previous UK Governments have also adopted.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
The Minister is repeating what she said at Second Reading, and I acknowledge that that is the case. I said to her then that while the courts have taken a particular view in relation to this matter, it does not rule out Parliament taking a different view, given that we believe in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. Given the way in which this community has been treated for 60 years now, it is fair to say, do we not have a moral obligation to accord them the right to have a say? Regardless of the fact that there have been court judgments on this, can we as not parliamentarians indicate that we believe that the best way forward is to listen to their voices?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think we can. I do not think we can call it self-determination in the legally applicable sense, but I agree, and I think Parliament agrees too, that the Chagossians deserve the respect of a different kind of relationship with the UK Government, and we need to make sure that we engage with them in a respectful and meaningful way. I will get on to whether that means a referendum, but the noble Baroness makes a very strong point about the importance of listening to the voices of Chagossians themselves, however we might choose to do that. I have mentioned this being a long-standing legal position, but as I am trying to explain, we recognise the importance of these islands to the Chagossians, and we are working hard to reflect this in our wider policies, not all of which are reflected in the Bill because they do not require legislation.
Given that the treaty has been signed, however, and the Bill is reasonably well advanced, having been through the other place, I say with great sincerity that any formal consultation at this stage would not be honest or sufficiently meaningful. I think that was what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was gently trying to point out to us, because that window was open at one point. It was open when the now Opposition were in government, and they never decided to consult the Chagossians. We agree with that Government, as they were—now the Opposition—that there is no actual legal duty in this situation to do that, but it is vital to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community, including that of several groups that welcome the deal.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I do not want to get ahead of myself, because Amendment 80 is a long way away. My appeal to the Minister—I would say exactly the same to the Mauritian Government if they were here—is that, while discussions on the treaty have concluded, it is obvious that there are ongoing discussions with the Mauritian Government. It is not closed yet for there to be consideration of structures of representation that are currently not in the treaty nor the Bill. My appeal at this early stage of Committee would be for the Minister to retain an open mind on potential structures for further discussions when it comes to representation including, perhaps, a firmer position on how the Chagossian community will be able to be represented going forward.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a constructive proposition. The Government are very willing to engage in that kind of conversation and I note the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, which we will come to later in our considerations—perhaps not this evening, given our current rate of progress.
I point noble Lords to the statement by Olivier Bancoult, the leader of the largest Chagossian group, the CRG. I think it demonstrates that, while there are different views among Chagossians, there is strong support for the agreement from a significant number in the community.
I thought that Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, was really interesting. I am pretty sure this is not exactly what he intended, but in some respects it seems to be trying to replicate that which our elected Members of Parliament are there to do: to represent the views of their constituents, including, in a number of cases, Chagossians. I draw attention to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, which does an excellent job of liaising between Chagossians and Parliament.
In addition, the Government have established a Chagossian contact group, which has wide representation from Chagossian communities in the UK, but also in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere, to give Chagossians the formal role—this is what I think noble Lords seek —that can shape decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, again reminded us, he will seek to make sure that that group can be as effective as I know noble Lords want it to be. The group met for the first time on 2 September and will convene quarterly thereafter. As my noble friend Lord Coaker and I said in our letter to all Peers, we are exploring opportunities for enhancing that group, including increasing its transparency and frequency. But we are clear that any decisions about the contact group have to be made in agreement with its existing members, and the Government will engage with the group on these questions.
I forget whether we are considering Amendments 29 and 32 or whether they have been degrouped. I think we are doing those. They were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and relate to the UNGA resolutions. I do not think that would be an especially constructive exercise. The treaty expressly states that it constitutes the full and final settlement of all claims by Mauritius in relation to the Chagos Archipelago; it is hard to see how the proposed report would add to that.
In relation to Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, there has never been a claim that all Chagossians share civic identity with Mauritius. As I have said, and as has been said numerous times in this Chamber and in the other place, it is a diverse community with a wide range of views. I said at the beginning of this contribution that the Government have prioritised the needs of security and securing the base on Diego Garcia. I know there are those who disagree with that and I have heard them. That being said, it does not mean that the Government should not do the very best job that we can of engaging with the Chagossian community, and making sure that its diverse range of views are reflected as best we can, as we move forward on the functioning of the contact group, the trust fund and other issues. I commit from the Dispatch Box that this Government will do everything they can to make sure that that happens, and I hope that the noble Lord will therefore seek to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
With the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
“(2) Sections 2 to 4 may not come into force until the Secretary of State sought to re-negotiate the Treaty so that it confers a right on Chagossian people to give birth within the Chagos Archipelago.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I should like to move the amendment standing in his name. Amendments 3 and 4 are about the rights of Chagossians to bear children in the archipelago and the rights of people born in the archipelago to continued British Overseas Territories citizenship. So as not to detain your Lordships any longer than necessary, I will also speak to my own Amendment 50 in this group, which is about registering married Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens.
The Minister has just repeated that she deeply regrets the treatment of Chagossians over the decades, and I believe her. She is obviously sincere and has said that on many previous occasions. In our debate last month, she described it as appalling and morally shameful; she said that they had been badly treated over many decades. So I pose the question: what is adequate restitution for this appalling treatment, which all sides seem to agree is deeply shameful? What would constitute a way of making good a wrong in a way that is understood morally and legally? What we mean by restitution, of course, is restoring something. If you have taken something from someone, restitution means giving it back or compensating them to an equivalent value.
I am afraid that all arguments end up in the same place: the restitution sought by Chagossians for those 60 years was the right to return to the homeland from which they had been plucked and then dumped hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of miles away in strange new lands. I want the Committee to think for a moment about what a return would be like: to imagine the resettlement of the atolls around Diego Garcia, if not of the base itself, with the coconut groves coaxed back into order, their fronds trimmed; children born in the islands being taught by their elders how to husk and split the coconuts; villages on the shore, with their bright roofs rising above the takamaka and banyan trees. Imagine the old churches being reconstituted and the coral stone being used. All of that is what is being sought by our fellow subjects of Chagossian origin, as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and it is not available under any alternative plan.
Mauritius recognises a right to settle in the island for Mauritians, under whom it includes Chagossians. But what is being proposed by Mauritius is the dissolution of BIOT citizenship into Mauritian citizenship, equivalent in the Seychelles, and now the equivalent for us. This is something that is unprecedented. I do not think that we have ever done this before. Yes, of course, when we have transferred jurisdiction as a withdrawing colonial power, we have transferred citizenship: you become a Kenyan or whatever it is. But I cannot think of any precedent where you remove somebody’s citizenship and instead give them citizenship of a country to which they feel no loyalty at all. As long as this wrong endures—as long as people feel that they do not have the nationality on their passport that they feel in their hearts—there will not be any stability.
The Minister spoke in the last round about why we should not reopen what was defined by the courts as a final, full and binding settlement. Well, it will not be final. By the way, that is what Mauritius agreed to in 1965, when it was paid to renounce all of its claims; reparations are never fully final. The deprivation of Chagossians of the citizenship that they want, that they want for their children and that past Governments legislated for—we amended the Nationality Act 1981 in 2022 in order precisely to create this status—is not going to result in a full and final settlement. On the contrary, there will be as much rejection of that new dispensation from the people most directly involved as there was recently from the Mauritians of the existing status quo. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if the part of the Chagossian population that rejects the deal constitutes itself as a Government-in-exile and begins to seek recognition. The idea that we are doing all of this in order to settle something quietly so that it all goes away is going to be tested by events—I hope I am wrong about this, but I suspect not. We are going to look back and think, “Why did we not see this coming?”
There is a way of going back to what was our plan as recently as 2015: looking at the places in the archipelago that can be resettled without prejudice to the base, allowing those people then to work in the civilian jobs, which are currently done mainly by Filipinos and Sri Lankans and so on, on Diego Garcia itself. It could be that this whole rap becomes what the Falklands war was to that archipelago: the beginning of an economic renaissance as Britain begins to take an interest in its overseas possession and begins to create active economic opportunities for the people there, whether servicing the military facilities or in fishing or whatever it is. But none of that is going to happen if we simply declare that our Chagossian fellow citizens are really just misguided Mauritians and that they have no more particular right to their ancestral homelands and to the graves of their ancestors than any other Mauritian citizen. It is in your Lordships’ power to put a stop to this and not to ratify this treaty. As our national poet said:
“Prevent it, resist it, let it not be so,
Lest child, child’s children, cry against you woe!”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 45, 46, and 48. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, these are measures that would in some way perhaps help to make the Chagossian people feel that we had listened to their genuine concerns. Now, all of us who have been involved with the Chagossians have been seeing a lot of very written and spoken letters and speeches about what they went through, and why these amendments in particular would be something that could move things forward for them. In particular, 95 Chagossians have written who were born on the islands and are here. These are men and women who lived very peaceful, self-sufficient lives on the islands, including Diego Garcia, until the day they were forced on to the ships and told they would never see their homeland again.
It is important that we—for the public out there who perhaps have not grasped the detail of this—just repeat some of the things that they have said and why these amendments might make a slight difference. They all tell the same story. They describe being ordered to leave their homes with only what they could carry. Some recall arriving at the jetty to see their dogs and livestock taken from them and killed before they were pushed on to the ship. Others remember family members separated, possessions thrown into the sea and the moment the islands disappeared over the horizon: as one said, “The day the world went dark”. One native islander, now in her 70s, said, “We left our islands with nothing but our clothes. They took our dogs from us, howling. We were pushed onto the boat and told we would never return. Our children and grandchildren still do not have the documents that say who we really are”. Another said, “They took my home and now they take my identity. My passport says nothing of where I come from. We want to remain British with the right to return to our islands. We do not want to become Mauritian”.
I should add that Chagossians living in Mauritius report that, more recently, Mauritian authorities have already begun to replace their recorded place of birth—changing it to simply “Mauritius”—and in some cases their birth dates. So their birthplace, their identity and their history are being administratively erased.
Amendment 45 is on passports and official documentation. Chagossians have lived for a long time without anything that really recognises their origins, because their birthplace was depopulated, renamed and reclassified: in administrative terms, their existence as a people was largely erased. This amendment ensures that Chagossians can hold passports and documents affirming their historic identity and their connection to the Chagos Archipelago and the British Indian Ocean Territory. That identity, let us not forget, was never surrendered voluntarily. It was severed by force. As another Chagossian said, “We want the papers that say who we are. We are Chagossians from the Chagos. That must not be erased”. Yet under Clauses 2 to 4, if they are passed unamended, the United Kingdom would relinquish sovereignty over every island except Diego Garcia, and the legal foundation for recognising Chagossian identity through official documentation would disappear. This amendment helps with that.
Amendment 46 is about citizenship rights for children. Exile produced a citizenship gap that now affects three generations. Had the Chagossians remained on their islands, their children would automatically hold British Overseas Territory citizenship today. But exile broke that line, leaving many Chagossian families undocumented or semi-stateless for decades. This amendment would restore what displacement interrupted: automatic BOTC and BIOT citizenship for children born in the United Kingdom to Chagossian parents. As another native Chagossian wrote, “My children were born here but they do not have the citizenship I would have given them if I had been allowed to live in my home. This is injustice continuing to the next generation”.
Amendment 48 is on the retention of BOTC passports. Many Chagossians still hold a BOTC passport showing that they have a connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory. These are probably among their most treasured possessions because, for many, they are the only official recognition that they belong to those islands. If BIOT is dissolved for all islands except Diego Garcia, these passports will not be renewable and Chagossian identity will disappear again on paper. Ms Colin, one of the Chagossians, wrote, “Do not take our passports from us again. We lost our homes. Must we also lose our true identity?” This amendment would prevent that second erasure.
The legal position is even more troubling, although I have gone on a great deal about the moral one, which I think is hugely important. Nothing in the treaty with Mauritius, international law or the British Nationality Act requires these nationality rights to be removed. The Government are removing them by choice, not necessity. In Section 17H of the British Nationality Act 1981, inserted in 2022, a person with a Chagossian ancestor has the right to be registered as a BOTC and therefore as a British citizen. The connection that matters in law is historic, whether the ancestor was born in the British Indian Ocean Territory or the islands designated as BIOT in 1965. Whether BIOT exists today is irrelevant. Its abolition does not legally require the abolition of Chagossian nationality rights. Only repealing Section 17H does that, and this Bill repeals it.
This has never happened before. There is no precedent in British nationality law for stripping a people of British nationality status when their territory is transferred. In every previous case, from Kenya in 1963 to Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983, people lost British territorial citizenship only because they gained a new citizenship of their own independent territory. Chagossians have no such citizenship to inherit. Had the transfer of the islands occurred after the registration window opened in 2022, the handover would have had no impact on Chagossian nationality rights. Their status and their ability to transmit it to their children would have remained intact.
The Government’s justification that BOTC is tied to a continuing connection with a British territory is incompatible with the very reason Section 17H was created. The purpose of that section was historical restitution, recognising that exile unjustly prevented Chagossians passing citizenship to their children. That injustice has not been remedied simply because the territory is being transferred.
The International Court of Justice made it clear in 2019 that the people of a non-self-governing territory must be consulted and that their freely expressed and genuine will must determine their future. That did not happen in 1965, and it is not happening now. Mauritius speaks of completing decolonialisation, yet ignores the fundamental principle of decolonialisation, which is the right of the people of the territory concerned to self-determination. The people of the Chagos Archipelago, the only people ever to live there, have not been consulted. They have not been given a referendum. They have expressed overwhelmingly that they do not wish their identity, their citizenship rights or their homeland to be handed over without their consent. As one native islander, Mr Joseph Elyse, wrote:
“We want to be recognised as a people before it is too late. Every year more of us natives pass away. We want our rights returned while we are still alive”.
These amendments do not seek advantage; they seek restoration. They would not create extraordinary rights; they would correct extraordinary wrongs. They would ensure that a people removed from their territory in circumstances now acknowledged by everyone as unjust is not erased again through the disappearance of its legal status, documentation and citizenship.
Many of the 95 surviving native islanders were children when they were taken from their homes. Some have died without justice. Those who remain ask for something profoundly simple: “Let the world know who we are, let our children have what was taken from us and let us be Chagossians in law as well as memory”. This House should honour that request. I therefore commend Amendments 45, 46 and 48 to the Committee, and urge noble Lords to support them.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for moving Amendment 3 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. We all hope his family member gets well soon. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her very powerful speech.
These amendments all touch on the impact that the Bill will have on the citizenship rights of Chagossians. Clause 4 will limit the rights of those descended from Chagos Islanders to gain British citizenship, in several ways. My amendments in this group also seek to challenge the Government’s approach. It should be noted that settlement in the UK is not what many Chagossians want. Many want to return to the archipelago, and this is something that Ministers have discussed previously. That said, British citizenship should be an option for the Chagossians given the responsibility that I think everybody here believes that we owe them thanks to our historic links and, I am afraid, our record of mistreating their community.
My Amendment 7 would prevent the citizenship provisions coming into effect with the treaty, allowing more time for the Government to consider their approach in domestic law alongside the treaty. It might also allow for greater consultation of the Chagossian community, who are ultimately the people who will be affected by Clause 4. In her reply can the Minister confirm whether the Government have had any conversations with Chagossians about the effect of Clause 4? Can she confirm whether substantive discussions on citizenship rights have been held with the Chagossian contact group, which she claims to have met on a couple of occasions? What was the outcome of those discussions? I would also like to know whether Ministers have made any changes to their plans on citizenship rights as a result of some of the concerns raised by the Chagossian community.
My Amendment 39 probes the limitation of citizenship rights by birth year. Will the Minister please explain why 2027 has been chosen as the cut-off date? What opportunity will there be for the Chagossian community to make a case for its extension, should circumstances require it? Another important issue with any cut-off date for applications is communication. Have Ministers given any consideration to the procedure that should be followed to ensure that eligible Chagossians are contacted about their rights?
I have tabled Amendment 40 to probe the requirement that a person must not have previously held British citizenship to be eligible under the changes made by Clause 4. We can understand why it would not be appropriate for a person who has had their citizenship revoked not to be eligible, but why should a person who has given up their citizenship voluntarily be barred by this clause? I hope the Minister will be able to address these questions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their speeches. A host of amendments, as we have heard, have been tabled in relation to citizenship rights. Some of them come from a bit of a misunderstanding of what Clause 4 does. I hope that I can explain the detail of what the Bill will mean. If it is not enough, I am very happy to write a letter and put it in the Library, because it is detailed and a little bit complicated. If that would be helpful, that is something I am happy to do. Let me have a go at explaining it all properly this evening and that may suffice.
Clause 4 makes provisions related to British nationality as a consequence of the dissolution of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These provisions are essential to ensure that the existing entitlements the Chagossians have to British citizenship remain unchanged. This clause also amends the British Nationality Act 1981 to reflect that BIOT will no longer be a British Overseas Territory, and as a result no future claims to British Overseas Territory citizenship can be made on the basis of a connection to BIOT.
This will not result in any change to the existing British nationality status that any Chagossian currently holds; this remains protected. Any Chagossian who currently holds British Overseas Territory citizenship retains it. Current routes to British citizenship will also continue to exist with their original expiry dates for application. This clause is vital in order to protect Chagossians’ rights to continue to obtain British citizenship. Seeking to delete the clause would be to play politics with this right.
I turn to the amendments tabled. Amendment 4 is a good example of an amendment that I would gently say is somewhat misconceived in its intent. Chagossians born on the Chagos Archipelago already automatically hold British Overseas Territory citizenship and British citizenship. This amendment would therefore seek to require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation that would apply to anyone of any nationality born on the Chagos Archipelago once it is no longer a British territory.
The Government are clear that, as BIOT will no longer be an overseas territory, it will no longer be possible to make a new claim for British Overseas Territory citizenship. Instead, the Bill preserves Chagossians’ ability to claim British citizenship. Whether a Chagossian has British Overseas Territory citizenship or not will have no bearing on their ability to claim British citizenship under their bespoke citizenship route.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
China Espionage: Government Security Response
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions, and the Government’s actions to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and wider state actors.
Before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ‘Tidesurge’ who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship’s company, and to their families back at home. This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice that members of the Armed Forces make in the service of our country.
Earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to Members of this House, Members of the other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we are doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert, and for your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert, and to get in touch with the Parliamentary Security Department if they have any immediate concerns.
Our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK Government. MI5 has stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers—often masked through the use of cover companies or external headhunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this; parliamentary staff, economists, think tank employees, geopolitical consultants and government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture.
Let me speak plainly: this activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this Government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we have seen from China, with cyber operations by Chinese state-affiliated actors targeting parliamentary emails in 2021, attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022, and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including by working with our allies and partners.
The world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago, and while some things have changed, some things remain the same. In the various roles I have held since then, I have always believed in the importance of being clear-eyed about the nature of the threats that we face and the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This Government’s first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account.
On 6 November, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly relating to the UK’s Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. Today, I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures that we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by state actors more widely. Supported by Ministers from across government and co-ordinated by myself, we are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan. I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.
First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to the Government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include proposed measures to safeguard against covert political funding. This will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. I can confirm that we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-type tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security, and an extension to the maximum penalties for election interference offences.
Secondly, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns, co-ordinated through the defending democracy task force and working with the parliamentary security authorities. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity, building on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October. This will include tailored security briefings for the devolved Governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.
Thirdly, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at this Government’s disposal to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies, organisations and individuals being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority, building on its ‘Think Before You Link’ campaign, will strengthen its engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.
As Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly to keep the UK safe day and night. Noting China’s low threshold for information gathering, this Government are providing the resources needed to protect our national interests. I can announce that the Government have committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology that our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure that sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor.
I can also announce that this Government have completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China from all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year through the integrated security fund to build the UK’s resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build Counter Terrorism Policing’s ability to enforce the National Security Act and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority’s work supporting our most critical businesses to protect their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority’s work is an important reminder that China poses threats not just to our democratic institutions, but to other sectors. Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular.
The first sector is education, which is one of the UK’s most important global assets, in part due to the UK’s steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today’s uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states such as China are attempting to influence their independent research and interfere with activity on campus. Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the Office for Students recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms that their staff and students enjoy. As part of our ongoing commitment to work collectively to address these risks, I can announce that Ministers will host a closed event with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference and signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Secondly, on advanced manufacturing, the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new economic security advisory service to help businesses navigate economic security issues, such as espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging with businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector and, as it matures to support other sectors of the economy, it will provide a new digital offer and assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating His Majesty’s Government’s support.
In October, I told the House that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for wide-scale cyberespionage operations. We stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold. Earlier this year, the NCSC, with international allies, called out three technology companies based in China for their global malicious cybercampaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will help make critical sectors of the economy and the public sector a harder target for cyberattacks, including malicious cyberactivity emanating from China’s territory. The Government will continue to take further action against China-based actors involved in malicious cyberactivity against the UK and our allies. This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Let me assure honourable Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary.
Our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation, trading around the world with countries that share our way of life, and with those that do not. China is the world’s second-largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. It is in our long-term strategic interests to continue to engage with China. We must co-operate on areas where our interests align—climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, and serious and organised crime, to name just a few—but we will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere with, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will take all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today. I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken: disrupting and deterring China’s espionage activity, wherever it takes place, updating our security powers to keep pace with the threat, helping those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and working with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.
Our strategy is not just to co-operate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests, and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place, with her own tone and emphasis.
Recent political and media attention has focused on the failed prosecution of two British men accused of spying for China—one of whom worked in the Houses of Parliament. The circumstances of that case remain opaque and the consequences unresolved.
Looking beyond that case, it is clear China presents a substantial threat to this country and our interests on multiple fronts. The Government’s own 2025 national security strategy recognises that China has
“the ability to undermine our security”
and that,
“instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years”.
Publicly documented cases of the intimidation of UK-based Hong Kong activists, attempts to meddle in the United Kingdom Parliament and cyberattacks are just some of the threats that China poses to us; the Government need to be clear and robust in response. We also need to be proactive in order to prevent such malign actions from taking place in the first place.
Chatham House has made it clear that:
“China presents an intelligence challenge of unprecedented scale and ambition. It is not only the world’s largest authoritarian regime but an economic and technological superpower”,
with the ability to undertake substantial operations in many theatres across the world.
The Government have spoken in their Statement today about a response to Chinese espionage and the removal of Chinese equipment from sensitive sites, but what about a response to the risks posed by the development of a Chinese embassy—or more particularly, a Chinese intelligence facility—in the immediate vicinity of some of the most sensitive communications channels in the country? That also requires to be addressed.
It is clear that we need to be far more proactive in how we deal with this threat, so we are not reduced to responding to events and to malign interference once it has occurred. We need to be able to stop it happening in the first place. We are facing a world in which the influence of China is set to increase, alongside the scale of the threat that it poses to us, and prevention will be a much better approach in the long term.
After completing its China audit earlier this year, the Government committed to strengthening China expertise within the national security system. That is a welcome commitment which goes some way in recognising the threat. However, experts are clear that capability needs to extend far beyond a relatively small circle of officials.
The Government must invest far more in helping politicians, civil servants, businesses, universities and the wider public to understand how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to advance its interests and how the United Kingdom should respond. I welcome that the Minister in the other place set out some steps that the Government are taking to do this, but there should be a far wider campaign to raise public awareness and to provide information to people in academia, politics, industry and other parts of our economy and country, so that they can identify threats and take action proactively.
There have been many recent cases which have highlighted where this approach would have been beneficial. In the past few weeks, Professor Michelle Shipworth of University College London compared China’s influence on teaching to “termites eating a house”. She related how Chinese MSc students, and then her own superiors at University College’s Bartlett School of Environment, tried to get her to cut out references to abuses of human rights in China from a module she teaches on critical thinking in data analysis.
Indeed, the collapsed prosecution case I mentioned earlier involved a person who was a staffer in this very building. Academics, politicians, civil servants and we in your Lordships’ House are now on the front line. This has been identified by the security services. The director-general of MI5 warned in 2022 that China poses a “whole-of-system challenge”, that demands
“a profound whole-of-system response”.
This has to be an ongoing effort, facilitated by the Government, to ensure that threats are now identified and mitigated before they can fully manifest.
I have painted a gloomy picture, and with good cause, but we have some substantial advantages in the face of this challenge. It is obvious that, while China brings a wealth of resources to its intelligence campaigns, many of its attempts to influence politics and public life in the United Kingdom, and indeed other democracies, are not terribly sophisticated. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party has few ideological supporters in the United Kingdom, therefore limited ground on which to thrive.
If British officials, politicians, academics, businesspeople and the wider public are more aware of that party’s tactics, they will be better able to resist them. However, this is reliant on the Government’s strategy on this question broadening out to include all of those who are now on the front line and not merely containing this within counterintelligence circles. This cannot be a one-time response to a flurry of news reports or a failed prosecution; this has to come in the form of a new culture of security which is aware of, alive to and preventative of the subversive and malign action that China wishes to take against us.
I therefore want to ask the Minister some questions on this point. What plans do the Government have to work with partners in Europe and Asia to collect expertise and resources in order to expand public awareness about China? In particular, what lessons are the Government learning from Taiwan, which is facing probably the greatest barrage of espionage and influence campaigns from China? What help can it give us to deal with this?
What work are the Government doing to help people in this country identify and be aware of the risks that China poses to them as individuals, as well as to us as a collective? Will the Government publish a long-term approach to engaging with China, and will they make clear both to Beijing and to the British public what our red lines actually are and how we will ensure that they are enforced?
The British people need to be aware of the threats and of the actions that the Government are taking to protect them. I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to answer these points.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidesurge lost off the coast of Ireland.
This is my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back to his place—he has been missed.
I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, which we broadly welcome. It seems to represent a change of gear, certainly from the approach of the previous Government. The ISC report on China in 2023 concluded that China had been able to
“penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy”.
At last, this seems to be being taken seriously. However, clearly, with such a deep threat, there is an awful lot that needs to be done, and some of that is reflected in this Statement.
Any Statement like this begs questions that cannot be answered, so I am going to try to ask questions that can be publicly asked. I start with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, around the failed prosecution of the two spies. There are many questions on this. Will the Government launch an independent inquiry into the collapse of that case and ensure that there are lessons learned from this appalling failure of national security?
In the other place, the Minister fully recognised that the Government know that China
“poses a series of threats to UK national security”,
yet when it comes to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, yet again the Minister said that “no decision” on China has been made. What more has to be done for China to qualify to be put on this register? Given the reluctance to enact FIRS, what guidance is now being given to MPs, Select Committees and researchers on contacts with representatives of the Chinese Government and other Governments?
The Statement also specifically calls for co-operation with China on scientific research. Such engagement is extremely fraught. A huge amount of guidance and focus needs to be brought to this so that universities can safely engage in any co-operation. Clearly, they have raised the flag on this and there is an awful lot of work to do.
The Statement talks about a “low threshold” of what information is considered valuable, so are there plans to discuss how or whether to tighten the vetting and ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff, and how they access and deliver sensitive information? The Statement also says that the Government will
“strengthen the legislative tools available … to disrupt the threat”.
Is this solely going to be the cybersecurity and resilience Bill, or is there another piece of legislation looming for this? It would be useful to know. When will the elections Bill be introduced? We really welcome it and remind your Lordships that this is not specifically a China problem. With Russia waging a hybrid war against us, the sooner we can get this Bill out and discussed the better.
The removal of technology from sensitive sites is good news, but does the Minister accept that, beyond the locations mentioned, there is much to be done to remove Chinese-manufactured electronic components that put our national infrastructure at risk? Who is accountable for spearheading a programme for technology that has been manufactured by friends and not by China, which we know from this Statement does not have our best interests at heart? We should start with the electricity grid and power generation as a focus.
The economic security advisory service for business is a welcome idea. To which department will it report, and how will it fit in with other processes, such as the National Security and Investment Act?
Chinese dissidents and Hong Kongers are having bounties levied on them, including here in the UK. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will sanction those officials responsible for levying these bounties and provide a much clearer legislative protection against transnational repression?
Predictably, I will raise China’s new super-embassy, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, did. Given everything in this Statement, it should be unthinkable that the application succeeds. Under no circumstance should a hub for the network of spies that the Government have set out in this Statement be built. When will the Government rule out this embassy?
Finally, can the Minister update your Lordships on planned visits by Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister to the People’s Republic of China?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points and questions on this very serious matter, and the tone in which they participated. As noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, matters of espionage, particularly those that relate to Parliament, are of the utmost importance to us in both Houses and to the whole nation. They merit careful consideration by government, decisive action by Ministers and appropriate scrutiny by Parliament.
When it comes to China, we have been clear that we will co-operate where we can but always challenge when we must, which is why today’s message to all noble Lords from the Lord Speaker was so important. Our action today is about challenging behaviour by China that this Government will simply not tolerate. We know the high cost of inaction when it comes to national security measures. This comprehensive package will help us tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that China presents. Its impact will be immediate and we will not hesitate to further strengthen our protections as the threat evolves.
I will now seek to address a number of the specific questions raised. I will also reflect on Hansard should there be any points that I miss. Noble Lords will appreciate that a number of points I will talk about concern national security, so if I do not necessarily respond I will speak to both noble Lords outside the Chamber about some of those issues. Before that, I also add my genuine joy at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. When I discussed with him the issues that we are about to discuss, I did not really think we would be discussing them in your Lordships’ House so quickly, but I am delighted he is here—probably to give me a hard time.
I am going to answer the specifics that have been raised broadly in order, but I think it would be helpful to detail some more of our plans. Regarding the Chinese embassy, which both noble Lords raised, it will not surprise your Lordships’ House that I will repeat the same statement that was made in the other place today and that I have made before. A final decision on the Chinese application for a new embassy will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This is a quasi-judicial decision so I cannot comment on it in more detail. To reassure noble Lords, though, national security is the first duty of government and it has been the core priority throughout this process.
On the threat posed by China, which was raised by both noble Lords but specifically by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, this Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyberattacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institution to transnational repression of Hong Kongers. Yet we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities, as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s third-largest trading partner. Not engaging is no choice at all. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the foreign influence registration scheme came into being in terms of its operational action only on 1 July. No decision has yet been made relating to specifying China on the enhanced tier. The Government have a range of capabilities to manage and mitigate threats emanating from foreign states. FIRS is one tool out of many, and we will keep decisions on when to use these tools under continuous review. Any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way in due course. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, including but not limited to security considerations. It is important that we get this right.
On the points around critical national infrastructure, which both noble Lords raised, last week the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology introduced the cyber security and resilience Bill to Parliament in the latest step towards strengthening our cyber defences across society. The Bill will increase UK defences against cyberattacks, better protecting services that the public rely on to go about their normal lives—to switch on lights, to turn on the taps, to save water, and to know that the NHS is there to support them. It is clear that the definition of critical national infrastructure under the forthcoming legislation will be amended to make sure that many of these areas are captured.
I turn to some of the other points, including those about a national campaign of awareness. There has been a great deal in the national media about issues pertaining to China, not least the reports leading the news today because of this security alert. The noble and learned Lord makes an important point about ensuring that the people on the front line have the tools available to them. It is, in part, about making sure that everyone receives the information that is relevant to them, which is why Members of your Lordships’ House received specific information today.
We will continue to make sure that the people who need the information receive it. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made a point about the tools available to universities. We are hosting a private and closed round table for vice-chancellors, and universities and other entities will receive ongoing information through the Office for Students going forward.
There were several other questions, just a few of which I will answer very quickly; I am aware that I am over time. On our plans to work with allies and partners, conversations with them are ongoing, especially with our Five Eyes partners, with which we undertook a significant chunk of the China audit.
On publishing a long-term approach to engaging with China, we need to look at all the issues in the round. Our national security strategy and our SDR both reference China. We will continue to update your Lordships’ House as and when events change and through the normal course of our actions.
There will be an elections Bill when parliamentary time allows. I expect that to be sooner rather than later.
On security vetting, we will continue to work with parliamentary authorities. It is very important at this point to make it clear that planned visits will continue and engagement with the Chinese state will continue. That is incredibly important. Even 12 days ago, the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Chinese state our views on the issues we have discussed today. Conversations need to continue. We need to ensure that where we can co-operate, we do so, and where we can challenge, we will.
The collapse of the Official Secrets Act case is currently under investigation by the JCNSS and the ISC, and we look forward to receiving their advice.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will try not to outlive the welcome that the Minister extended to me and the nice words expressed by so many colleagues from all sides of the House. I hope that she will forgive me if I press her further on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and the point about academics that was raised earlier.
It comes as no surprise to those seven parliamentarians —of whom I am one—who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party to hear warnings about CCP operatives spying and laying the groundwork for subversive long-term relationships with parliamentarians. But those sanctions are nothing compared with the imprisonment of hundreds of pro-democracy advocates, such as Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, or the atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims. They are nothing compared with the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair, received during our inquiry into transnational repression and published in our report of 30 July. For instance, we cited the bounties of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on the heads of UK residents, including the courageous 20 year-old Chloe Cheung.
I have raised the intimidation of academics, such as Professor Michelle Shipworth, who was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as well as the case of Professor Laura Murphy, which was in the newspapers recently. Laura Murphy works at Sheffield Hallam University, and she gave evidence to our Joint Committee on Human Rights in our inquiry on supply chain transparency and modern-day slavery. Both of those academics have experienced intimidation as a consequence. When the Minister has her meeting with university vice-chancellors, I hope she will emphasise the dangers of becoming far too dependent on money pouring into our universities, which then starts to call the tune.
During our hearings, we received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We found:
“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR”—
transnational repression—
“campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK. Its omission from the enhanced tier risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS”.
We recommend that
“the Government specify China under the enhanced tier of FIRS”.
In the light of these most recent revelations, I hope that the Minister will go back and talk to the honourable Dan Jarvis, who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, to try to speed up that consideration. It is high time that we did so, and it is high time that we reduced our dependency and enhanced our resilience.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To reassure the noble Lord, I am still delighted that he is back. He raised some very important points. I cannot go any further at this point on the enhanced tier of the FIRS, but the noble Lord will be very aware that, before I joined the Government, I ran Index on Censorship, so the issues related to Jimmy Lai—I have met Sebastien Lai—and the issues about Xinjiang and transnational repression are ones that I campaigned on for many years.
I will be clear on some of the specifics that have been raised. I have to be very careful when discussing Sheffield Hallam, because ongoing legal processes are happening there. I recognise the admirable and tireless work of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the centre at the heart of this. Her work to progress social justice and human rights, including as a patron of the Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University, is at the heart of the allegations. Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government have made this clear to Beijing after learning of the case of Sheffield Hallam and other recent cases. The new Office for Students guidance makes it explicitly clear that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom.
The noble Lord knows better than I about some of the actions we have taken in tackling transnational aggression in the UK and the ongoing support that we are giving to Jimmy Lai and the Lai family. We will continue to do so. The genuine anguish that that family is currently experiencing because of this case is simply unacceptable. I reassure the noble Lord that even while he was off, we continued to do our work, and my right honourable friend Foreign Secretary raised the case of Jimmy Lai with her counterpart on 6 November. I will write to him on the other points he raised.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I welcome the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, most of it, if not more, was covered in our 2023 report on China. The reason China has got a foothold here has to be looked back on very clearly, including whether the golden era for UK-China relations during the coalition Government allowed it to get a foothold in a whole host of areas.
Obviously, my main concern is academia, where universities—because of the decisions on the funding of universities—have now become dependent on the drug that is Chinese student finance. I urge the Minister that, if we are going to tackle that—not just the reliance of individual university institutions on Chinese finance but the intimidation of individuals who attend them—we need to take a very robust approach to it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for all the work he has been doing on this, both through the ISC and beforehand. He has talked to me a great deal on this issue, and I am grateful for it. I completely agree with some of his assessments regarding the importance of academia and making sure that universities both understand their responsibilities to academic freedom and have the tools to combat some of the challenges that they currently face. It is one of the reasons we are arranging a closed meeting for all vice-chancellors, which will be led by the DfE but will have the relevant officials in the room to make sure that they know what is happening and what support they can get, as well as the expectations that we have of them as the caretakers of our academic freedom values.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like most speakers so far, I welcome the Minister’s tone in this matter. It is a change of tone, because in the past, so often, the Government have used word “co-operate” followed by the word “challenge”, and “co-operate” has been used as a way of degrading the level of challenge. I hope that this will be sorted out.
I very much support what has been said about universities. Having pursued Cambridge University—Jesus College, Cambridge, in particular—I found an absolute reluctance to publicly or even privately admit any error at all in this, after years of struggle about this, which goes on. I still do not hear any serious public statements on these matters by the governors, the vice- chancellors and so on. It is very cautious. I am glad that the closed meeting will take place, but it needs to be publicly discussed.
On the threat to individuals, Chloe Cheung has been mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I too welcome back. I know Chloe Cheung, and I have spoken to her. She has shown me photographs of the goons who follow her in this country. I strongly ask—and she is just one example—how much protection is the British state able to afford to these people? They are in real danger in this country—physical danger and, of course, psychological threat.
In the Statement, the Government express their desire to
“degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies”.
I am not quite accusing the bank I am going to mention of being a proxy cover company, but I would point out the enormous level of vested interest in China in this way, which leads to weakness. Britain’s biggest bank, HSBC, is a major sinner in this respect. HSBC famously closed down three accounts of the League of Social Democrats in Hong Kong. Without wishing to be too personal, it is not wildly encouraging to hear that George Osborne, he of the golden era, is a candidate to be the new chairman of HSBC. If he was chairman, I do not imagine that we would get a very rigorous attempt to clamp down on Chinese illegitimate activity. I ask the Government whether even huge organisations, such as HSBC, should be more carefully monitored.
Finally, UK-China Transparency is working on some stuff which suggests, because serious organised crime is mentioned as an area of co-operation, that it might also be an area of challenge, because it seems that China is involved in co-operation with serious organised crime in this country. This needs to be properly investigated.
The overall point I would ask the Government to answer—and I will be very pleased if the Minister answers this—is that all these problems are identified, but what is the key to it all? Do the Government agree with the proposition that what we have from China is what is sometimes called a whole-system approach but is better described as totalitarianism? That is always operated by the power in all areas of Chinese life—business, academia and everything—of the Chinese Communist Party.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I am not sure I will be able to answer all his questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and come back to him. He may appreciate which ones I might not want to answer. With regard to the fundamental question, which is about totalitarianism—that is, authoritarian versus democratic systems—which is at the heart of this, the national security strategy sets out the intent of:
“Authoritarian states … to out-compete liberal democracies”,
including “competition from China” and its
“assertion of state power that encompasses economic, industrial, science and technology policy”.
We firmly recognise that the UK and China have significant differences, including on economic values and freedoms, Hong Kong, support for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and matters of national security. We engage confidently and pragmatically with China, including robustly raising these differences.
The noble Lord highlighted my language earlier. We are clear that we will co-operate with China where we can but will challenge where we must. That will continue to be the case, including on transnational repression. I want to be very clear. The UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK and take protection of individual rights, freedoms and safety very seriously. Counter- terrorism police will continue to offer training to all police forces where they believe that this will be happening. On the other points, I revert to the noble Lord.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, referring to the failed case of activity by China, my understanding is that the timing of the alleged offences came under the ambit, if that is the right term, of the 1911 Act. That Act has been broadly disapproved of by all parties. The Law Commission drafted a better Bill. All Governments were slow to find time to enact this Bill, but it was enacted under the last Government in, I think, 2022.
In the present threat situation, is the new Act considered to be satisfactory for this area of crime, which is not about stealing plans labelled “Top Secret” but about picking up attitudes, distancing, influencing and so on? Can the Minister assure us that this piece of legislation is satisfactorily in place? Can she expand a little on what new legislation is expected to be enacted in the light of today’s Statement?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Official Secrets Act is considered to be somewhat out of date: 1911 suggests that maybe the world has moved on slightly. The National Security Act came into force in 2023. It strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for those states which seek to conduct hostile acts. It also provides the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern-day state threats. The Act passed with cross-party support in your Lordships’ House and it is important that on matters of national security we embrace cross-party. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that national security remains at the heart of what we do.
With regard to future legislation, there are two pieces of legislation coming before your Lordships’ House that will touch on these issues. The elections Bill is forthcoming and the new cyber resilience Bill was introduced in the other place last week and will be in front of your Lordships’ House in due course. Having said that, these are matters of national security. We will continue to monitor and to reflect on current legislation to make sure that our security services and everybody within this space has the legal framework in which they need to operate to ensure that we can do what we need to do when we need to do it.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
“(2) Sections 2 and 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties outlined in sections (Equality Impact Assessment) and (Implications of treaty on United Kingdom defence spending and United States of America) are discharged.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
The financial aspects of this Bill are the easiest for people not involved to understand. It does seem bizarre that at a time when we are borrowing money and scratching around for savings, we are raising taxes here in order to fund tax cuts in Mauritius. I do not want to detain noble Lords, so I will not go over the figures again. We had an expert disquisition from my noble friend Lady Noakes at Second Reading.
Even if we were to accept the Government’s figures, we still face an immense imbalance in where the money is going. I come back to the point that we were making just before dinner, about the wrong that everyone accepts was done to the Chagossians and what restitution would look like. The Minister said they had been very badly treated. Well, badly treated or otherwise, their compensation, if we measure it purely in financial terms, comes to a one-off £40 million settlement for good—whereas, even on the figures offered by the Government, we are paying Mauritius £101 million every year for the next 99 years. Who is the wronged party here? How is it that having done this harm to population A by moving them, we then reward the population that is in fact making permanent their exile and deepening their sense of grievance?
Never mind whether it is £3.1 billion, £35 billion or somewhere in between, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Altrincham made the point that this is money being sent out of the country. We can argue about whether there is merit in Governments spending cash here to stimulate growth. I personally am of the camp that says it does not work. It is better to leave that money directed by people who are attached to it; they spend it more wisely and the growth impact is much higher. But I will allow that there is some impact in stimulating the domestic economy, even when a Government spend money badly. There is none at all when you just take a sum of money and send it several thousand miles away, which is what is being proposed here.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, are about impact assessments, particularly on the financial consequences for the United States, as well as for us. I just want to tackle the view that this is a great deal for the US—that, however inconvenient it is for us, we are left with the bill and the US gets to keep the base. Every pound that we send to Mauritius to lease the property that we currently own is a pound that we are not spending on defence. It is a pound taken away from NATO and from the western alliance. That is just the immediate and direct cost of what happens when you take a freehold and then decide to pay for it as a leasehold.
There is then, it seems to me, an underexplored indirect cost: how have we now incentivised future Mauritian Governments to monetise this territory? If they can get this sum of money out of us, why not lease other parts of the archipelago to other powers? The Minister has said, of course, that in the treaty they are not allowed to for military purposes. The treaty says they cannot use these things for defence purposes, but I wonder: down the line, if Mauritius was indeed incentivised to make more money and leased an island for supposedly civilian purposes, then very gradually it was turned in a secret way by an unfriendly power into a more direct military installation, is that something realistically that is then going to trigger a military reaction from us?
It seems to me that the only way of ensuring that we do not have unfriendly neighbours in the Chagos Archipelago is not to have these islands being leased out in the first place, and the best way of preventing the islands being leased out is to hang on to them ourselves.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord referred to £40 million. I assume he is referring to the trust fund that is going to be set up.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
However, as he is fully aware, that is totally in the hands of the Mauritian Government. No Chagossian from here can access that money. Is that not something that should be considered?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that important correction. This would not be the first time this has happened. The sums that were disbursed to Mauritius in the 1970s, supposedly to be spent on the welfare of the Îlois exile community, were hung on to. They were disbursed very late, and their value had been significantly eroded by inflation in the meantime. Indeed, given that record, there is little wonder that there should be bad feeling from a lot of Chagossians towards the Mauritian Government.
Unusually in this House, the noble Baroness and I were on the same side in the 2016 referendum, so we are familiar with the argument that here is a little bit of your money back; we are spending it for you, and you should be grateful. It was an unconvincing argument to the British people in 2016, and I think it will be an unconvincing argument to the British people and to the Chagossian portion of the British family in 2025. I beg to move.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I will refer to Amendment 24 in my name. I thank the Minister for her gracious remarks earlier in the debate. I can assure the Committee that I will not detain it as long this time. The amendment asks a simple and poignant question. Should the British taxpayer be compelled to fund a treaty that actively undermines our position on the international stage and erodes British sovereignty? I believe the answer is as simple as the question: no.
Article 11 of the treaty places the United Kingdom under financial obligations to Mauritius, including annual payments linked directly to the transfer of sovereignty. We are being asked to underwrite, year after year, a settlement that has not been endorsed by the people most deeply affected. In 2008 the Foreign Affairs Committee noted the “profound poverty” experienced by many Chagossians resettled in Mauritius. The United Kingdom Government have recognised the “hardship and suffering” caused by their displacement in the preceding years.
At a time when families across the United Kingdom are struggling with the cost of living, when public services are stretched and defence spending is under pressure, the Government are willing, and obliged under this treaty, to transfer British funds overseas in exchange for the honour of relinquishing sovereignty over a territory that hosts one of the most strategically important military bases in the world. Why would we pay for an island that we already own?
Without the inclusion of this amendment, we will be in the extraordinary position of financing, on an annual basis, a settlement that ultimately advances arguments that have repeatedly undermined British sovereignty. That is why this amendment is undeniably crucial. It protects not only the taxpayer but the constitutional integrity of this country, as well as relegating the overindulgent aspirations of the Mauritian Government, depriving them of even more British taxpayers’ money.
Let us also consider the native islanders—the Chagos people. Have we ever paused to consider how they might feel as this Parliament considers whether we should pay a foreign Government to take control of a territory in which they have never had a stake, all while ignoring the cry of the Chagos community in the UK?
Beyond that, there is also the question of accountability. Once these payments begin, Parliament loses direct control over how they are to be spent. There is no binding mechanism in the treaty to ensure that the native community will be benefited by these payments in a meaningful way. This arrangement risks repeating the injustice of the past, where funds provided in earlier decades did not reach the displaced communities in Mauritius who were living in poverty. Surely, we must learn from that history and not repeat it. That is essential.
I therefore believe we should not rush into binding financial commitments when so many broader questions remain unresolved—about self-determination, defence co-operation, the protection of strategic assets, and long-term political stability in a region where global competition is increasing and where the UK needs to be assertive and confident. The British taxpayer should not foot the bill for decisions that diminish our sovereignty and overlook the rights of sovereign British citizens. For these reasons, I commend my amendment to the House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, and I want to speak to my Amendment 23. Before I go into that, the noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord McCrea, have put very clearly just how ridiculous it is that we have a territory that is ours and now we are paying to give it away. The whole thing is just such nonsense. I understand, as we all do, the security implications of Diego Garcia, but it is just inexplicable how this could not have been handled differently. Some noble Lords listening to the debate might well be feeling that this is definitely going to end in tears.
It is also very disappointing, particularly for the Chagossians who have sat here all evening—while we had a break as well—to see so few people here. There is one Back-Bencher from the Labour side, one Cross-Bencher, no Lib Dems at all now apart from the Front Bench, and a number—there should have been a few more—from the Conservative side. I am disappointed by that, and a lot of people should feel a little ashamed that those Chagossians have sat here all evening, listening to their future being decided with so few people listening.
My amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the financial implications of the treaty for the United States of America and the United Kingdom, including the effect on NATO spending and the risk of global instability from uncontrolled leasing of islands. One of the main arguments the Government have advanced for the Bill before us—and for the treaty, which will be ratified if this Bill gets Royal Assent—is that the Americans strongly support the treaty and believe it provides the legal certainty they desire. The purpose of Amendment 23 in my name is to probe the downsides, as well as any potential upsides, to ensure that His Majesty’s Government can fully advise the Trump Administration of both.
There are three critical respects in which I do not believe that the Bill and the treaty are in the interests of the United States. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are profoundly contrary to the interests of the United States. It is plain, as we saw from the debate earlier, that the treaty will not be able to provide legal certainty, because it is contrary to international law on self-determination and the Ellice Islands precedent. The legal issue is not going to go away, because we will be signing a treaty if this Bill goes through. However, the points that I want to focus on relate to the costs and international peace and stability.
First, we have to make the point about the cost. This represents a huge sum that, if given to the Republic of Mauritius, cannot be spent on UK defence. The key point is that we must assess the benefit arising from the United States not having to pay for the lease of the islands in light of the fact that, under the current arrangements, we do not charge them anything to lease the islands either, and we do not charge ourselves for the islands because, of course, they are held under UK sovereignty.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, not least because my Amendment 59 comes from a similar position to her Amendment 23, in that it is a probing amendment. Indeed, looking across the range of amendments in this group, there is a considerable similarity between them; they all come from a similar spirit.
The amendments in this group, including mine, reflect two particular anxieties and concerns with the Bill. First, there are the overall financial implications and the concerns that have been raised in relation to them. My amendment specifically looks at the financial implications for defence. Secondly, given that a number of the amendments seek for the Government to produce an assessment or report, there is a concern that we want to get clarity and full transparency from the Government on a range of financial matters. My amendment deals with both those concerns.
On the issue of finance, we have already debated the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius, which is proposed by the treaty and the Bill. A number of us have expressed our deep opposition to that, but this is not simply a case of handing over sovereignty to Mauritius. We are not simply giving sovereignty to Mauritius; we are paying Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. That, in and of itself, shows one of the problems with the Bill.
We have seen in black and white the figures for the various payments that there will be, and the range of different assessments of what this deal will cost the taxpayer overall over its lifetime. The Government put it at the lowest level, with a GDP deflator, at around £3.4 billion. I think the cash terms are around £13 billion. The Opposition have indicated their assessment, with inflation, at £35 billion. I know that, in another place, one of the other parties not represented in this House gave an assessment that it would end up being around £50 billion, so there is a very wide range of cost.
However, one thing we can say with a level of certainty, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is that this is money flowing out of this country that cannot directly benefit this country. If we make a presumption, which I will come to in a moment, that this is, in effect, defence spending then it is not simply money that cannot be used for the overall benefit of the UK; in defence terms, it is an opportunity cost. It is not simply something that is additional to the Bill, but money that cannot be spent on other things.
Across the lifetime of this deal, whether we assess it at £3.4 billion, £35 billion or whatever figure you place on it, there will be real terms consequences for defence. It may seem a relatively small amount compared with what we will spend on defence over that period, but I will give a few examples from a defence point of view. The Type 26 frigate programme comes to about £8 billion, the “Queen Elizabeth” class carriers cost about £6.2 billion in total, and a single F35 fighter costs about £80 million. All those things are being taken away. Whatever money is assessed as the current value of our contribution to Mauritius via this deal is money that cannot be spent in this country.
Finally, this again comes to the point about trying to seek a level of transparency. There is a level of dispute over how much we are spending and how we assess it, but there is also a lack of clarity about the budgets that money comes from. I think there are three possibilities. Is this money, in general, coming out of the Foreign Office budget? Is it more particularly, under that category, money that will be deducted from what would otherwise be overseas aid, or is it coming from the defence budget? The purpose of my amendment is to probe that and try to gain some clarity and transparency from the Government about not simply how much we are spending but where it is coming from.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister for her patience in hosting this Committee. I will comment on my Amendment 52 and the other amendments in this group with specific reference to the financial agreement, where there seems to be ambiguity regarding the cost of this project. There clearly has been some ambiguity in the supervision of the contract, which may be because of the prerogative and lack of parliamentary participation, but this is a very large financial commitment to slip through under the prerogative and it is reasonable that we take a hard look at the contract itself in Parliament. That is why my amendment suggests that it goes back to the House of Commons.
The contract provides for two kinds of payments. It provides for 13 years of fixed payments of £2.3 billion. That is the easiest part of the contract to understand. If noble Lords wish to think of it in present value terms they might be a bit less than £2.3 billion, but those payments are nevertheless fixed and there is a schedule for when they are paid, albeit the Government appear to have offered the Republic of Mauritius the possibility of accelerating those payments.
Those payments take us to year 13. At year 14, the contract is linked to inflation. From here on, the payments are not just unknown but uncapped. That is a remarkable thing for the Government to offer. From year 14, the payments increase with inflation. No one knows what that will be; it could be very large. Therein lies the ambiguity in the approach to how much money is at stake: it is because the Government are offering the Republic of Mauritius the remarkably valuable asset of exposure to UK inflation from years 14 to 99. This is an almost unheard of contract. Incidentally, it is the same kind of financing error that His Majesty’s Treasury has made in linking so much of our gilt issuance to inflation. This itself has been the financial constraint on the Chancellor in recent months because of our exposure to the linkers, which have all moved up with inflation. It is an error that the Treasury has made before, so why is this contract linked to inflation?
I will take a look at what that actually means. The important numbers are the actual numbers that will be paid—nominal numbers—so let us not worry about the inflation adjusted and present value calculation. The actual numbers are those that will have to be funded by taxpayers in the future. If we go from year 14 and imagine a world of 2% inflation for the rest of the century, the Government will have to fund the Republic of Mauritius another £28 billion. At 3%, they will be funding £50 billion. At 4%, it will be £90 billion and at 5% it will be £174 billion.
Where do we go with these numbers? What do they really mean? How can we be comfortable with this kind of exposure? The first answer is that it is a very unusual kind of contract; it has no cap to it and provides enormous exposure to the UK over time. But in terms of just rough numbers, what does that mean? Trading in UK inflation through the gilt market indicates that, for the next 30 years, UK inflation will be around 3%, so it may be at the lower end. But if you look at other examples of where UK inflation has been over the last 100 years, there really are no suggestions that it is below 5%; it is more like 6% or 7%. Remember, it was over 10% only a couple of years ago and over 20% in the 1970s. Rolling forward at 100 years above 5% is probably a reasonable place to be.
Let us take it to be in the 3% zone, which would be very low and benign for the Government. If we then take one of the present-value calculations, we find that there are no scenarios in which this contract is worth less than £15 billion—and at £15 billion it is still uncapped: it is not as if it has been hedged, financed out or closed out in agreement with Mauritius. It still leaves the Government with all the exposure, so it is a remarkable contract in that form.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 53 in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening. It is clearly a probing amendment to give the Committee an opportunity to consider the implications for the UK of another possibility affecting Article 11, the economic partnership of the treaty. That possibility is that, within the 100 years-plus of the treaty, the Diego Garcia military base might become unusable, due to natural causes or because of a sea level rise triggered by global warming. While the loss of use would have military consequences, due to the wording of the treaty the UK’s financial obligations to Mauritius would appear not to be affected.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the treaty makes some valiant assumptions about the steadfastness of relationships between the countries concerned. That aside, it would be helpful to understand why, if only as a precautionary principle, no mention of this possibility —the functional failure of the base—or how it might be handled is covered in the treaty. I assume that the possibility was considered by His Majesty’s Government and the United States in their preparations for negotiation. Can the Minister confirm this? Was it decided, based on historical records, that the risk of an earthquake, tsunami or other natural cause was so remote that these need not be considered?
Indeed, in his response in the debate on 30 June, the Minister mentioned that, like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic. While not wishing to speculate on future erosion, he said that scientific surveys had concluded that the overall natural land area of the island had decreased by less than one per cent over the last 50 years. But what about sea level rise? There is a widespread presumption that sea levels will rise in the future. The amount of rise, its timing and spread in the world’s oceans is still speculative, but, based on realistic IPCC global warming projections, estimates for the Chagos atoll indicate rises that would impact on the functioning of the Diego Garcia base. They suggest that, within 100 years of the treaty, the runway and hard standings will not be covered, but some of the domestic and fuel storage areas could become submerged, either intermittently by diurnal tides or on a permanent basis. There could also be difficulties with quayside berthing and the present availability of fresh water. This is but a résumé of findings that were sent to FCDO officials in January, before the treaty was signed in May this year.
Maybe the United States, having done its own assessment, believes that it will be possible gradually to strengthen the sea defences as necessary to maintain the base’s operational capabilities. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what assessments the United States has made of sea levels. Looking at the wording of the treaty, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there will be the opportunity to attempt to resolve any issue about payment by the arrangements for settling disputes contained in it. But, whatever arrangement might be accepted by both parties today, it does not follow that the same consensus might be possible later, due to changes in the individuals and their perceptions then. There seems therefore to be good reason to have an agreement with Mauritius now, before ratifying the treaty, on how the eventuality of the base becoming unusable would affect Article 11.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to commend the noble and gallant Lord on his amendment. It is an incredibly sensible amendment that should not be contentious because, if there are difficulties arising out of natural causes or disaster, it would be unthinkable for His Majesty’s Government to have to continue to pay large sums of money to the Government of Mauritius. I hope that that will be taken on board.
Secondly, I will refer to the treaty, which, at Article 11, talks about the economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. There are three parts to that. The first is the annual sum that has to be paid: there has been lots of conversations around what that is and what it might amount to. The second is the trust fund, which the Minister knows I take a particular interest in and which we will discuss in the eighth group of amendments. The third is the multiyear funding as part of a development framework for projects to be undertaken by the Mauritius Government across 25 years. We have heard very little about this multiyear funding. I wonder whether the Minister could elucidate that and give us some details in relation to what that is and what it is thought to be. In the treaty, it says that the amounts, payments and modality for all those three issues will be agreed separately. So it is important for the House to have some clarity in relation to that and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I was going to say that this has been an excellent debate, but it has not really been much of a debate seeing as nobody from the Labour side has bothered to get up and try to defend the Government’s actions on this matter. Not even the Foreign Office trade union crowd on the Cross Benches have come along to justify the Government’s actions on this. I note from the media reports that apparently the Mauritian AG is in London for discussions, no doubt to celebrate his brilliantly successful negotiation. He will probably find that the Foreign Office has given him another £100 million today for his trouble in coming over here in the first place.
It would not be right for me to begin my contributions without mentioning the excellent forensic speeches of my noble friends Lord Altrincham and Lady Noakes at Second Reading. It seemed to me very convincing that the Government have increasingly got their numbers wrong. I look forward to the noble Baroness attempting to explain her financial figures again.
I am sure that some noble Lords will argue—maybe the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will—that this agreement has been made and there is nothing we can do about it. They might say that it is an unfortunate oversight, but we cannot change the agreement. However, the treaty, as we have discussed previously, has not yet been ratified; it is not final. The Government could still change their approach. It is unlikely, and it would take political will, but everything is possible.
Now that we know that the treaty is not inevitable and that the overall cost expected when the agreement was reached was wrong, I hope Ministers will take the opportunity to reconsider. In any other walk of life, a decision-maker faced with a significantly higher cost than expected would reassess their position. Why are Ministers failing to take that responsible approach with taxpayers’ money? The Chancellor will get up next week and tell us that the country is bust, and that we need to raise taxes and cut spending, but the FCDO seems to take no account of the extra costs when negotiating this agreement.
My Amendment 22 would require a review of the overall financial cost of the agreement. With such uncertainty about the overall costs, I think this is an entirely reasonable amendment that would give greater transparency to taxpayers on how much of their money will be sent to Mauritius, over time, as we have said before, to fund tax cuts over there. We pay more tax over here, but the Mauritians will be able to cut their taxes with the money that we are very generously sending to them.
As I said, on value for money we are being told to expect spending cuts at the Budget on 26 November. Before the Government cut a single extra service for the British people, Ministers should first consider cutting their surrender deal with the Mauritian Government. In my view, most of the British public would be aghast when presented with the fact that the Government have surrendered territory to a foreign state and simultaneously somehow found themselves paying for the privilege. This is a clear failure to deliver value for money to taxpayers.
My Amendment 70 would require the Government to make a statement explaining why they believe that each payment to Mauritius represents value for money. My Amendment 75 would require the publication of a schedule of expected payments to Mauritius along with their dates. The Government should not resist measures which increase transparency on the financial elements of the agreement.
I gave a wry smile when the noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked the Minister for the breakdown of the costs of this agreement between the MoD budget and the FCDO budget. I hope he has more success than I have in asking this question, because I have asked it five times and she has refused to tell me how much is being paid out of the different budgets. One was beginning to suspect that she does not even know how much money we are handing over on behalf of this deal.
I additionally ask the Minister what powers Ministers have to ensure that the money we hand over to Mauritius is spent as agreed. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, particularly highlighted the trust fund supposedly set up for the benefit of Chagossians, but how they spend it is entirely within the control of Mauritius. There have been well-documented corruption cases in Mauritius; how do we know how that money will be spent? I think we should be told or Ministers should at least seek to find out.
Finally, Amendment 74 relates to a slightly separate question on the part of the UK-Mauritius agreement relating to the employment of Mauritians on the Diego Garcia military base. I tabled it to ask the noble Baroness some specific questions on the practical effect of the article of this agreement. Can she confirm whether this article means Mauritians will be prioritised for employment on the Diego Garcia military base over, for example, British citizens or Chagossians? Who ultimately would their employer be? This also speaks to value for money. Can the Minister confirm whether her department has made any assessment of the impact of the provisions relating to the employment of Mauritians and how much that will contribute to the cost of running the base?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am not sure that diplomacy is quite the thing for the noble Lord to aspire to. We will move to discussing the amendments that deal with the financial issues and the payments to be made under the treaty. Inevitably in Committee, other issues will be raised as part of the discussions, including those around the trust fund and the way it is managed, as well as security. These are important questions but, if it is okay with noble Lords, it is probably better to deal with them when we reach the appropriate group, so that we can get into sufficient depth when we deal with those specific amendments.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
I was stressing the point that the agreement is about the Chagos Archipelago, but we are interested in Diego Garcia. If Diego Garcia is not available, the treaty requires us to continue to pay Mauritius for the 100 years or whatever it is. We would then be paying for something we do not even have, let alone have the use of. It would seem sensible to have some arrangement in the treaty to cope with this. I am surprised there is not one. If not, how will it be handled?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do not expect to be confronted with this situation in the case of Diego Garcia. I am sure there will be adaptations to mitigate this, as there already have been. In the event that sea levels rise to the extent that they would need to in order to make the base unusable, the entire planet would be facing very real threat. That would confront us in very many locations, including Montserrat, St Helena and Ascension. This would probably be the least of our problems.
Out of respect for the noble and gallant Lord and his genuine concern—it is not an unreasonable question— I will reflect on this and try to come back to him with a more thorough response, because I can see that he cares about this and wants to know that the Government have given this the proper consideration that he would expect. I undertake to do that. Luckily, this is the first day of Committee and we have the opportunity to allow ourselves further conversations on these issues.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My concern is that we would have to continue to pay under the present agreement, even though there was not a base available.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand fully the nature of the noble and gallant Lord’s concern. He has explained it well and repeatedly, and I have committed to come back to him with a further response. I do not think I can do any more than that tonight.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I fully respect the noble and gallant Lord’s position on the base not being available due to natural disasters—or, as we called it when I was a solicitor, an act of God—but what happens if the base becomes simply unusable because of an act of aggression by a bad actor in 50 years’ time, which we have no sight of at this moment? The point is that if it becomes unusable for whatever reason, whether by act of God or an act of aggression, will we still continue to pay for a base that we cannot use?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I simply cannot answer that because it would depend so much on the circumstances and on who would be culpable. I do not know. I will think about that and come back to the noble Baroness. It is very difficult to respond to hypotheticals. I could create a few hypotheticals that answer those specific questions but I do not think that would necessarily get us anywhere. She is probably after something a little more concrete than that. I will give that some further thought and see whether I can come back to her with something more satisfactory. I guess, ultimately, that if there is some unavailability we have the option of breaching the terms of the agreement through non-payment, which would end the agreement. However, I will look into our legal position in that situation and make sure we have some clarity so that we can consider this further if we need to.
On the issue of the split and how the money will be found, the noble Lord opposite—in his usual charming way—suggests that we have not really thought about this. Some of the money will come from the FCDO and some from the MoD. It is all government money; it is all taxpayers’ money. I really do not understand the preoccupation with this. That split will be fair. We are very used to paying for things jointly. We do it all the time on various things. This is not an unusual situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Will the Minister tell us how much? There is a difference between the money that is spent from her aid budget in the FCDO and the money spent from the MoD. If it is such a simple, straightforward issue that she keeps brushing the question aside then why not just give us the figures? How much of it is coming from the MoD budget and how much of it is coming from the ODA budget, which is, of course, capped?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not capped, actually. Not all ODA money is spent by the FCDO. The MoD spends ODA as well. Not all money spent by the FCDO is ODA. You can spend ODA only on certain activities in certain places. My reading of the OECD rules is that I do not think the DAC would allow us to spend ODA for the purpose of paying for a military base. That does not mean we could not spend ODA in Mauritius if we wanted to—we have a very small programme there at the moment. I hope that helps. The noble Lord may wish to go away and read up on the DAC rules, which might assist him in answering this question.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was not asking for an explanation of how the different split works between Foreign Office money and ODA money; I was simply asking her how much of the Bill is spent from the Foreign Office budget and how much of it is spent from the MoD budget. I do not see what is so difficult about answering a simple question.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
But the noble Lord did ask me about ODA.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That was part of the question: how much is coming out of the ODA budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not coming out of the ODA budget—that is my point—but that does not mean it is not coming out of the FCDO budget, which is different. Does that help the noble Lord?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know how much will be from the FCDO and how much will be from the MoD. It is not ODA, which is the bit I am responsible for. I do not fully understand—perhaps the noble Lord could tell me—why it makes a difference to him how much comes from the FCDO and how much comes from the MoD. I might be better able to assist him if he wishes to explain why this is important. It is not ODA, if that is his concern.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is an interesting clarification that I have not heard before. Is she telling us, then, that none of the money funding this agreement comes out of the ODA budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
You cannot pay for a military base out of your development budget.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not given way; I have had enough of this. The noble Lord should probably write to me and explain his question, because we are clearly not getting very far with this. If the noble Baroness on the Back Bench wants to have a go and puts it in a different way, I would be very happy to try to answer.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The Minister wants this in writing, but unless I am particularly stupid, I thought it was a very simple question.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The question was: how much is going to be from the ODA budget? I have answered that, and I do not know how to answer that any more clearly. As for how much comes from the FCDO and how much from the MoD, the Treasury will allocate us different amounts of money for different things. I do not quite understand why that makes a difference to the noble Lord—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I know the Minister was not attracted by the charms of the Front Bench, so I will try slightly differently. I suppose what we are trying to establish first of all is the percentage breakdown between the FCDO and the MoD. It matters because if this is not additional money, there will be a level of opportunity cost. If, for example, we are eating into the MoD budget, that money could be spent on other things. I think, from what I have gathered from what the Minister has said, that the bulk of the money would come from the MoD because of restrictions, but it would be useful to have percentage terms.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Okay, I will see whether we can get that. I do not know that that will be consistent over time, and I do not know whether the Treasury will want to be making that clear from now on. The MoD is deciding to buy itself some capability with this money. It is a significant investment, but it is not beyond the realms of what the MoD would spend on a capability such as this. That is my understanding. Exactly how much comes from each department will be published as we go along, because these things are published in the ordinary run of things.
The confusion in my mind comes from the interchangeable use of “ODA” and “FCDO”, and they are clearly different things. I look after the ODA budget, but the FCDO spends an awful lot more than just ODA. The MoD spends the ODA, too, as does DESNZ, the Department of Health, Defra and many other departments. Does this help noble Lords? Are we getting somewhere?
On Amendments 70, 74 and 75, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I repeat that Parliament has already agreed the principles of the treaty and has not decided to vote against ratification. Any requirement for further approval from Parliament for the payments ignores the thorough and correct process that the treaty and Bill have already gone through and risks undermining the treaty, since non-payment by the UK is a ground for termination.
Regarding Amendment 74, I reassure noble Lords that there are no impacts on the cost of running the base from Article 10. This article pertains to the normal contractual arrangements, with any preference being to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with existing policies, requirements, laws and regulations.
Finally, regarding Amendment 75, I remind noble Lords that an annual payment to Mauritius is a fundamental part of the agreement, and this principle, and the amounts of those payments, were published in full on the day of treaty signature. I hope that in the light of this, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I asked the Minister a specific question about whether His Majesty’s Government knew about India and Mauritius. Did they know or not?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course we knew. My understanding is that this pre-dated negotiations and refers to something on the island of Mauritius itself. if I am wrong about that, I will correct the record and inform the noble Baroness.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
With the Committee’s permission, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago should the Agreement be terminated.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 6 is linked to Amendment 79 in this group. Amendment 6 would link the Bill’s effect to the treaty. If we were to make this amendment, the moment the treaty ceased to have effect, so would this legislation. Amendment 79 would require the Government to publish a statement of their understanding of the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago, should the underlying treaty be terminated.
The reason behind these amendments is that the wording of Clause 2, which would stand on the statute book even if the treaty itself were revoked, is clear only that:
“His Majesty is no longer sovereign over”
the Chagos Archipelago. However, it does not state that Mauritius would be sovereign over the archipelago. The Hong Kong Act was worded similarly and did not grant China sovereignty; it merely revoked Her Majesty’s sovereignty. This means that the only document establishing Mauritian sovereignty over the islands is the UK-Mauritius agreement. If that agreement were terminated, what would be the status of the islands? That is the question that we are putting to the Government.
Interestingly, it is not the case that we could not state in the Bill that Mauritius has sovereignty. There is precedent for that, and it would perhaps state the position more clearly. If noble Lords cast their minds back to the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty of 1890—which saw Britain cede sovereignty of Heligoland, a series of islands in the North Sea off Schleswig-Holstein—they will remember that that was in exchange for a free hand in respect of the independent Sultanate of Zanzibar. The Anglo-German Agreement Act 1890, which gave effect to that treaty, stated specifically, in the Schedule, that
“the sovereignty over the Island of Heligoland, together with its dependencies, is ceded by Her Britannic Majesty to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany”.
Can the Minister explain why the Bill follows the example of the 1985 Act and not the clearer precedent of the 1890 Act?
My noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendment 12 seeks to deliver clarity that the UK can regain sovereignty. That would be a better outcome than an explicit statement that Mauritius will have sovereignty in perpetuity. Whatever the Government’s position on the legal status of the archipelago under this legislation, I believe that, either way, we deserve some clarity.
My Amendment 77 also seeks to resolve a lack of legislative clarity that arises from the fact that the Bill is implementing the more detailed treaty. The treaty provides for the creation of a joint commission, but we have precious little detail on the commission. My amendment would require the UK Government to set out the process that they intend to follow, alongside the Government of Mauritius, to establish the commission. I am sure that the Government will resist the amendment, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for the Minister at least to set out the Government’s expectations of the process that will be followed. Can the Minister say where, when and how often the commission is expected to meet? Who is expected to be appointed to represent the UK Government on it? Will they be a political appointment or a civil servant, and how will they be appointed? I assume that we will have a senior representative, but if the Minister could tell us who or what it might be, that would aid the Committee in its consideration of the Bill.
These are all very important questions that should be answered before we proceed with the Bill. So far, the Government have sought to avoid debate, resisted consultation and prevented transparency, but I hope the Minister can do better in her response to the amendments in this group. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 7 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in my name and in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
At Second Reading, I raised the broad issue of the royal prerogative, and the Minister is aware of my, perhaps inquisitive, interest in that. That broad power is in Clause 3, and the specific reference to His Majesty’s power to make Orders in Council comes in at Clause 5, particularly in Clause 5(1)(a). That is powerful. For the benefit of the Chamber, I repeat what that says:
“His Majesty may by Order in Council … make any provision that appears to His Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.
The following paragraph goes on to explain that that can be a
“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision in relation to … this Act, or … an Order under paragraph (a)”.
I want to thank the Minister for her letter, which she very kindly sent to me yesterday. In it, she alludes to this particular issue and says that “Clause 5 of the Bill creates a new statutory power for His Majesty to make such provision by Orders in Council as he considers appropriate as a result of the treaty”. This led to my Amendment 89, because I am just trying to seek clarification of this power. In particular, I want to establish whether that power can be used by His Majesty, for example, to withdraw the United Kingdom as a party to the treaty and withhold any payment due to Mauritius if Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty.
This is not a lengthy matter for discussion. In responding, I would ask the Minister, if she opposes my amendment, and I anticipate that she may, to be specific about the ground of objection. It may be that she says, “I don’t want the Secretary of State being mixed up in anything like this, it’s just unnecessary and tiresome and he’s got enough on his plate without being burdened with all that”. On the other hand, she might consider that this is an incompetent use of the royal prerogative. I would be interested in understanding that better.
It would be more alarming if the Minister said that she does not consider that, if Mauritius violates any terms of the treaty, the UK will be able to withdraw and cease payment. It is rather along the lines of the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who is not in his place. There is a basic issue about whether the thing is working or not. In his case, the thing is not working because the base has disappeared under the ocean. In the dim and distant past in contract law there was something called “frustration of the contract”: if the underlying purpose disappeared, the contract evaporated. The Minister has undertaken to investigate that further and we shall await that.
I really want to understand, if Mauritius violates the treaty, what practical solution is available to the UK: whether it is paying the money, coming out of the treaty or taking whatever other remedial action is necessary. I shall look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in relation to Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the process for the establishment of the joint commission. This is critically important because, while the treaty does talk about the process of setting up the joint commission in Annex 3, there is no determination as to whether that person, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, will be a Member of Parliament, will be accountable to Parliament or will be a civil servant. It would be very helpful if we had more detail in relation to that matter.
It brings me back to my days studying constitutional law at Queen’s University, Belfast, when Professor Brigid Hadfield used to lecture us about the mischief behind the law. She would say, “Read the debate in Parliament to find out what the mischief was”. I was just thinking of her there when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. It would be really useful to find out what the Government’s position is in relation to this joint commission, because it could be a very critical part of the post-agreement scenario, where there is accountability to this place. I would really welcome clarity in relation to that matter.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to address Amendments 11 and 12 in my name, which both relate to the terms of the lease. Over the years, I have often heard leaseholders wish they had, or propose to acquire, the freehold. They feel that, as leaseholders, they are in a very inferior position and that the freeholder has the whip hand and, of course, at the end of the lease, the freeholder, like as not, gets everything back and leaseholders potentially lose everything. This is the first time I have ever heard of someone wanting to swap a freehold for a leasehold and, at the same time, claiming that they will be more secure as a result. Of course, they will not—and even less secure, given the terms of this agreement. Amendment 11 relates to whether or not the lease is renewable.
The lease is dealt with in Article 13 of the treaty, which says that it has a duration of 99 years. What happens at the end of 99 years? Is it automatically renewable? No. Under Article 13.5, the UK has a right to first refusal for a further 40 years on the same terms as offered to any third state. There we have it. Mauritius can offer the UK-US base to a third state in 99 years’ time and force the UK and USA to outbid some other bidder—it might be China, India, Iran or any other country with interests in the Indian Ocean around it, such as Saudi Arabia. There are lots of countries that can afford and might like to have this base. We would have to outbid them to retain what had been maintained and invested in for the previous 99 years. I have no reason to suppose that it would not be as valuable in the future then as it is now.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Probably to get some more money. Indeed, we should have dealt with that in the previous session on money. How much more money is he asking for? One understands there are debates in Mauritius saying they have done so well that they should now reopen discussions and get a little more.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, wants a serious response to that last comment. I will respond to the noble Lord’s point that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Yes, this is true, but if the asset is legally contested to the extent that a close ally is no longer investing in it, and third-party friends and allies are possibly unwilling to support its operability, I would say that possession of that asset is worth a lot less than one that has legal certainty, the investment of the United States and the ability to operate it, because third parties will not be questioning the legal basis on which it is held. But we have been through this at some length already.
I turn to the amendments in the group concerning various mechanisms surrounding termination and the extension of the treaty. We will deal with the issue of sovereignty and termination in a subsequent group. On Amendments 6, 12, 79 and 89 about the implications of terminating the treaty, I should remind the House that there are extremely limited grounds for termination once the treaty is in force, both of which are within the UK’s control. The first would be if we did not pay the sums due under Article 11. Secondly, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, it would be in the case of an armed attack, or threat of one by the United Kingdom on Mauritius, or one directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia. This base is, of course, to be operated by the United Kingdom and the United States together.
It is in our interests that the grounds for termination are limited in this way. It means that Mauritius is unable unilaterally to terminate the agreement except in very specific circumstances. These amendments would therefore force us to reopen negotiations on an area in which we have already secured the strongest terms, and which have also been endorsed by our US allies. It is also highly unrealistic that Mauritius would agree to a reversion to British sovereignty in the event of termination. It is important that we understand and are clear about that.
On Amendment 11, Article 13 already sets out the basis on which we can extend the duration of the treaty, including our right of first refusal. The treaty will last for an initial 99 years and may be extended for a further 40 years and beyond, by agreement between the UK and Mauritius. Even if no agreement were reached, the UK would have the right to first refusal on the use of Diego Garcia. If exercised, this would prevent the use of the base by any other party. I was asked—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but it may have been another noble Lord—how exactly this would work and on what terms. I will get a full answer on this specific point. For today, I am relying on the right of first refusal. I will come back to noble Lords and clarify exactly what is meant by this.
I welcome the interest shown by Amendment 77 in the establishment of the joint commission. Its precise structure is still being developed and will continue to be a point of negotiation between the UK, Mauritius and the US. This includes the development of terms of reference as to how the joint commission will function. However, the following principles have already been agreed, as set out in Annexe 3 to the treaty. I think these answer some of the points that were put, although, because we are still negotiating, it is useful to get the responses, understanding and views of noble Lords on some of these things. The joint commission shall consist of one senior representative from each party as co-chairs, and four additional representatives from each party. The US shall have the right to introduce items for discussion in the joint commission and to designate a representative to attend meetings and provide views and advice. The joint commission shall meet at least twice a year, or more frequently on the request of either party. All decisions of the joint commission shall be taken with the agreement of both parties.
While I welcome the opinions of noble Lords on the best means of keeping the House informed on the development of the joint commission, I do not think that a statutory obligation to publish a statement would be the most appropriate means of doing so, although I will think about this a little more.
On this issue of prerogative and the law on Diego Garcia, this applies only to the law on Diego Garcia. We did have quite a complex exchange about this in one of our briefing conversations and it does not apply to the operation of the treaty, so it would not concern non-payment or any of those other issues. It is only about the law as it applies to Diego Garcia. I hope that that is helpful and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As usual, my noble friend Lord Lilley made an excellent contribution to the debate, and I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not think she has answered all the questions that we asked, or certainly that I asked—I know that she answered some, but not all. She set out the legal position on the commission, as it is in the treaty, but she has not provided any more details on who will be its members, how they will do the appointments et cetera. I would be grateful if she would write to us with the details of that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would never deliberately not answer a question from the noble Lord. I have set out what has been agreed so far, and I have explained that the commission is subject to negotiation and that I will commit to updating the House. I do not quite understand the niggle in the noble Lord’s voice.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not being niggly; I am just repeating the questions that I asked. Who will be the members of the commission? How will they be appointed? Those are the questions that I asked. She set out the numbers, which we could see from the original agreement, but she has not provided the further details that we asked for. I did say that she had answered some of the questions but not all of them.
The long-term legal status of the archipelago is supposedly the driving motivation behind the Government’s decision to seek this agreement with Mauritius, so I think the questions that have been posed are entirely reasonable to seek clarity on the status of what would happen should the treaty be revoked.
I also think we need clarity on the UK’s right to withdraw from the treaty and withhold payments in line with the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Goldie. I think that that is all the information we are going to get out of the Minister tonight so, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius will establish a right for Chagossians to return and reside in the Chagos Islands, and(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A(b), the Secretary of State must table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the contents of the report.(2C) In this section “Chagossians” are defined as those eligible for British citizenship under section 4 of the Act, and their descendants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that the Government must undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations. The Government must subsequently table a substantive motion in the House of Commons on the content of that report.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Amendment 10 deals with the issue of resettlement. This is a very sensitive issue, one that Chagossians feel very deeply about. But Article 6 of the agreement, which is entitled “Resettlement of Chagossians”, fails to give any right to Chagossians to resettle. The wording of Article 6 is:
“In the exercise of its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia. Such resettlement shall be implemented in conformity with the terms of this Agreement and the laws of Mauritius”.
Let us be clear: there is no right for Chagossians to resettle; there is no obligation on Mauritius to resettle the Chagossians. Mauritius is simply free to do resettlement but it does not specify that that resettlement has to be by Chagossians. It could resettle it with Mauritians—just as, when I used to work in Indonesia, it resettled Javans on the various islands such as Borneo and Sumatra. All we are doing is saying that Mauritius can do what it likes—it can do or not do anything that is to the benefit of the Chagossians, or it can give away their former lands and islands to other people—and we will effectively sanctify that through our agreement to Article 6.
Back in 2015, the British Government looked at the possibility of resettlement and asked KPMG to do a study of how much it would cost and how feasible it was. A year later, KPMG came out with a report which stated that resettlement was possible. It would cost certain sums depending how much resettlement was done. If there was a pilot community of 150 people, that would cost in those days £63 million—in current money, that would be about £80 million to £90 million. If there was a medium-sized settlement of 500 people, that would cost about £200 million in today’s money, and if there was a large community of 1,500 people, which is more than the population of Chagos in 1965, that would cost in today’s money £570 million. That is a large sum, but it is much smaller than the sums we have committed to pay Mauritius over the life of this deal. They are largely one-off sums, whereas we are talking of paying Mauritius initially an average of £110 million, inflation adjusted, plus some lump sums and some bringing forward of money in the early period.
We could certainly start a pilot community of Chagossians back in the Chagos Islands for a fraction of what we are otherwise committed to spend on this agreement, so I understand why Chagossians feel really let down and sold out that we are prepared to pay so much money to Mauritius and to designate none of that to their potential resettlement. We pretend to by having this Article entitled “Resettlement of Chagossians”, but it gives no guarantee that the money will be spent in this way.
The study by KPMG looked into the practicalities. The reason it costs money is that we will have to rebuild facilities. On some of the islands there was a church, a hospital, buildings and so on that have fallen into rack and ruin. They would have to be re-established, and there would have to be transport facilities for the envisaged resettled communities to link up with each other and the outside world, but I again point out that these are not huge sums. This is not impossible. It is something that many in the Chagossian community, in the UK, in Mauritius even more, in the Seychelles and elsewhere would like to undertake, but they are not going to be able to undertake it unless Mauritius says so, and one gets the feeling that Mauritius is not terribly well disposed to the idea, otherwise it would not have negotiated such harsh terms in Article 6, which imposes no obligation on it to do so.
I ask Ministers to think again about this and to go back to the Mauritians and say, “I’m sorry, we have”—as they will have done by then—“consulted the Chagossians. We found how eager many of them are to resettle. Many more are eager to have the right of return to visit the graves of their ancestors, the places where they were born and the churches where they worshipped, and we feel they should be given that right, and if we’re going to settle a trust fund on you, we want to be sure it’s going to be used for those purposes as well as perhaps a chunk of the money we’re paying you in rent”. I hope the Minister will look at that in a positive way, given her evident sympathy for the Chagossians, and tell us that there is going to be a little hint of some more positive news that we can give the Chagossian community. I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, in this group. On resettlement, what we have in the treaty may be described as less than useless. I say that because, to a certain extent, it confers a right that is already there, but it underlines it in such a way and denies others that right. The treaty explicitly says that there is a right for Mauritius to resettle people.
If we have handed over sovereignty to Mauritius, people implicitly have a right to resettle on the other islands anyway but, actually, it very much underlines that Mauritius is completely in control; it is completely in the driving seat. There is a lack of reference to the Chagossians: yes, Mauritius may choose to allow some Chagossians back, but it may choose also to deny them. There is no specific right for the Chagossians.
If, as has been mentioned across the Chamber, we are to try to rectify some of the many ills that we have done to the Chagossian people over the years, having at least some level of right of return is the bare minimum that we should be looking for here. The concern is that, from the point of view of Mauritius, the implication will be that, if it is to allow back some Chagossians, they will be the hand-picked Chagossians who have played ball with the Mauritian Government. If you are a good boy or a good girl, yes, you may be allowed back. If, however, you have been part of the awkward squad, you may have a much lesser chance of being resettled on the Chagos Islands than, for example, Chinese contractors. That is the problem.
These amendments would at least take a step towards trying to ameliorate and rectify that situation. If we cannot give the Chagossians an opportunity or a right, which is completely missing in the treaty and missing in the Bill, we are not giving them anything.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I just want to add my voice to those of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Weir. If the Chagos Islands had remained inhabited, this issue of sovereignty would not have arisen. They would have been in the same category as Gibraltar, the Falklands or any other territory with a permanent population that had expressed its right to self-determination.
Now, you could argue that that would solve our problem in terms of the base. Equally, you could argue that it is the obvious way of making restitution; it is the way of giving back what was taken. But if you flip that around and look at it from the point of view of Mauritius, is that not precisely why you would not want to have a Chagossian population—or an exclusively Chagossian population—in a doughnut in the outer atolls around Diego Garcia?
The last thing you would want is to risk a Chagossian secessionist movement, where the people who had returned to their ancestral homes had made it very clear that they felt no loyalty to the state of Mauritius and that—in most cases, with a few exceptions, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said—they did not want to be part of it. Therefore, you would have every incentive to settle the place with your own citizens, or with others, so that they were at least a majority.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, for his remarks. Picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I have a subsequent amendment on the supplementary list, so we may get to it at some point but it is not on today’s list—does the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, agree with me that what makes this lack of provision for resettlement of the Chagossians worse is that we actually have a blueprint, albeit not necessarily perfect, of how this can be achieved, through the KPMG report in 2015? It is not as though we are doing this against a vacuum. We are not only ignoring the right of Chagossians to return but completely ignoring the pathway through which this can happen.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. If you see this purely in fiscal terms, depending on whether we take the Government’s or my noble friend Lady Noakes’s figures, it is an obviously disastrous thing to spend either six times or 60 times as much as in the KPMG report, simply to give to another country.
We keep hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that growth is her priority and so on. Here is a very good way of making a saving: by not giving money away for territory that we already have but, instead, using a much smaller fraction of that sum to make restitution to the people who were removed. It ticks every box.
I mentioned earlier that the Falkland Islands were saved, paradoxically, by the experience of war because it led to investment, it led to fishing and hydrocarbons being exploited around the coasts, and it led to employment opportunities and better transport links. If we had a settled Chagossian population around the base, they would be the obvious people to work as the contractors on the base. Instead of having to import all these Filipinos from Singapore by air, we would have a population there doing the non-military, non-sensitive jobs.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think Article 6, “Resettlement of Chagossians”, is the most misnamed article in this treaty. It tells us that,
“Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia”.
I am thankful to live in a democracy where I am free to do all manner of things; sometimes I choose not to do all manner of things for various reasons. I am quite sure Mauritius will take the same view in relation to resettlement of Chagossians on the outer islands.
There is no right of resettlement or return in the treaty. I have a later amendment, on the Second Marshalled List, which deals with this. According to the treaty, there is no right of return or no right of resettlement—we need to be very clear on that. I think that is morally wrong. The language in this Bill deals with what I think is a failure of negotiation, to be honest, because I do not think it would have been beyond the wit of man to have had at the very least a right of return, if not a right of resettlement, in the treaty. With the Mauritian AG here in London, what better time to have a discussion about the right of return and the right of resettlement for the Chagossian people?
Amendment 72, in the alternative, seeks to have some accountability for the current aspiration in the treaty—in other words, after it is implemented—to look back and see what is happening in relation to the right of resettlement. That will give some transparency to why the wording in the treaty has been chosen and, again, get to the purpose of the article.
In conclusion, I strongly support both these amendments. It is wrong not to have a right of return and a right of resettlement in the treaty and the way in which it is presented in the treaty is wrong also.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for leading on this group. The Chagossian community overwhelmingly wants to see a scheme for the resettlement of the archipelago, reversing the forced removal of the islanders in the late 1960s. As we know, many Chagossians living in Mauritius feel that they are treated, even now, as second-class citizens, and this should not be an acceptable situation. We will probe the treatment of the Chagossians in Mauritius more fully when we debate amendments relating to the trust fund.
Many Chagossians still want, understandably, to return to their homeland. The treaty is clear, sadly, that Mauritius shall be free to arrange for resettlement of Chagossians on all the islands of the archipelago except Diego Garcia, but it is not clear in the treaty what this might look like; nor is it clear how likely resettlement actually is in practice. My Amendment 72 is very simple. It merely requires the Government to publish the findings of a review of all discussions between the UK and Mauritius in respect of the resettlement of the islands. The resettlement under the treaty would be for the islands other than Diego Garcia, so this is not something that should undermine the operations of the base. Given that, we cannot see why the Government would be unwilling to share details of their discussions with the Mauritians on resettlement.
Can the Minister please set out clearly how often resettlement was discussed with the Mauritian Government during the negotiations ahead of the treaty, and what her department’s assessment is of the likelihood that Mauritius will establish a scheme for the resettlement of the islands? Would the UK support a resettlement effort financially? Could some of the existing funds that we are giving to Mauritius be used for resettlement? If not, what is the estimated risk that the Mauritian Government would refuse to undertake a resettlement on cost grounds?
In essence, our question to the Government is: what does this treaty mean for the Chagossian community’s hope of resettlement? If, in the Foreign Office’s view, this treaty effectively kills any hope of resettlement, does the Minister not accept that the Government should manage the expectations of the Chagossians and be very clear and transparent with them that that is what they have agreed? We want to end the lack of transparency around the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to do that today.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that transparency and frankness with the Chagossian community is vital, which is why I have resisted some of the discussions around consultations and referendums. To give the impression that a consultation or referendum can elicit change to a treaty that has already been negotiated in a state-to-state negotiation is wrong. On the noble Lord’s question about how often we have discussed resettlement, it has been discussed throughout and repeatedly—of course it has. It is a very important part of the negotiation that we have had with the Government of Mauritius.
We are coming to some amendments on the operation of the trust fund in the next group, but some news will come from Mauritius shortly on exactly how that will operate. I think that will be reassuring for noble Lords and I hope that we get it very soon so that we can include it in our considerations.
I would point out that resettlement now is non-existent. It has not been possible. They have not even been having heritage visits since Covid; the previous Government did not get round to sorting them out. Having said that, it is good that the Conservative Party is now turning some attention to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, “But consider if the islands had not been depopulated”. In response, I point out that if the islands had not been depopulated then there would not be a base and we would not have a treaty. They probably would have been returned to Mauritius, as part of decolonisation, and be Mauritian now anyway. I am at a bit of a loss—but the noble Lord is going to tell me now what he was getting at.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Forgive me, but I am not sure that is quite true. I do not think the Americans wanted the entire archipelago voided of population; they were satisfied with having Diego Garcia. The Minister and I were not born then, but our predecessors went ahead and volunteered the complete evacuation, which was the beginning of all our problems.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
But that is what happened, and it cannot be undone. We are in a situation where there is clearly no prospect of resettlement now on Diego Garcia—I am glad that that has not explicitly come up in debate—but there is the possibility of resettlement on the other islands and the prospect of visits to Diego Garcia in a way that has not happened for some years.
Specifically on the amendments in this group, I do not think that Amendments 10 and 72 are necessary, but I should explain why. Under the terms of the agreement, Mauritius is already free to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. It will be for Mauritius to decide whether it takes that forward. We have already committed to making a ministerial Statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement. The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill. We know that would be considerable, because of the KPMG report.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Our Governments over the past 30 or 40 years refused to allow the Chagossians to go back. Why does the Minister think the Mauritian Government will ever allow them? What if they say, “Absolutely no”. Have we any say? Can we do anything?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is for the Mauritian Government to make that decision. I understand the noble Baroness’s scepticism, especially given our reluctance to undertake this. To serve citizens living in such a remote place with so few services is a considerable thing to do, which is why we are very careful and mindful of the warnings that we have heard about not wanting to give false hope or a false impression, or to make this sound straightforward. That guides us all in our discussions. It is, of course, an incredibly difficult prospect and very expensive. There is the trust fund. I do not know how that would operate and whether it would enable some of this to happen. This is for the Government of Mauritius to determine; we are completely clear about that. The noble Baroness might not wish that to be so, but I point out that the UK Government, for over 50 years, have made it absolutely clear that we would not facilitate return to the islands, for security and financial reasons.
On Amendment 72, it is important that negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on this matter—which I completely accept is sensitive—can take place in confidence. Publishing the records of confidential negotiations such as this would be damaging to trust in the UK keeping matters confidential in the future. That relates not just to our negotiations with Mauritius; it would obviously relate to the prospect of our negotiations with other states on other equally or more sensitive matters. With that, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
Before the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stands up, I want to make a statement. Noble Lords will be aware that grouping processes are well established. The deadline of 5 pm is always communicated to all Peers when the groupings are sent out. Late degrouping is discouraged, I am afraid. For this group, the groupings were sent out at 11 am with a deadline of 5 pm and no changes were made. The changes sought by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, were requested shortly before 6 pm. There is nothing procedural to stop the noble Lord degrouping the amendments for separate debate during proceedings today—I am sure he is doing so—but it is inconvenient for the Minister, who might not be able to respond to some of his degrouping.
Amendment 14
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has ensured that there has been a referendum of the Chagossian people on the question of sovereignty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his statement, but the Chief Whip’s Office was informed last night of my intention to degroup these amendments. In fact, it wrote to me and to my noble friend Lord Lilley to ask if I agreed with grouping his amendment with this degrouped amendment. Clearly, there was an expectation from the office that it would do that and then, sometime during the day, that expectation was changed. The noble Lord would have a case if the Chief Whip’s Office had been given no notice whatever and did not know anything about it, but clearly it does. As the Deputy Chairman of Committees indicated, notice has been given and there was an expectation that this would take place.
To go on to the issues in consequence—
Lord Leong (Lab)
I just want to clarify that I have a note here saying that the Chief Whip decided this afternoon. Given how late the change was made, it could not be reflected in Today’s List, which had already been published. I informed the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the degrouping just 10 minutes ago.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Thank you. I think the noble Lord has just confirmed that the Chief Whip decided this afternoon, but the Chief Whip’s office was informed last night. If that was the case, why did the Chief Whip’s office email my noble friend Lord Lilley and me this morning asking whether we were in agreement with his amendment being incorporated in my degrouping? Clearly, there was an expectation that that would happen. The Chief Whip decided this afternoon that he did not want to do that, and it is his right to do that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has also acknowledged, it is my right on the Floor of the House to degroup the amendment, which is what I am doing. It seems to me to be a bit of a silly and pointless debate.
I am tempted to quote the late Lady Thatcher in a discussion on referendums, when she argued that they are a practice to be referred to only on constitutional issues. I think that still holds as a good rule of thumb. Where there is a chance that a model of governance is fundamentally altered, politicians may take a direct democratic approach. Despite our reservations, the Chagos Archipelago is about to undergo the most foundational change in its terms of governance. We are giving away sovereignty over the islands in what is another step in a long story of Britain, sadly, failing the Chagossians, the vast majority of whom in a survey released today do not want Mauritius to be in control of their sovereignty. We would not cede sovereignty over a part of these islands to another state without consultation, and it is unlikely that it would happen without a referendum. So why does this principle not hold for the Chagossians? That is the question we are putting to the Government with these amendments.
I am sure that the Government have not applied different principles to different peoples out of pure negligence. The reason the Government will not agree to a referendum on this trajectory-altering decision is because, at heart, they know that this is a dud deal. The Government know they are selling the Chagossian people down the river, all to continue their policy of blind adherence to the opinions of the Attorney-General and international lawyers. They know that they have not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this is what is best for both the British and Chagossian populations. They know that, if given the choice, the Chagossian people would almost certainly choose for the archipelago to remain British.
A poll conducted by the Friends of the British Overseas Territories and endorsed by Whitestone Insight found that 99% of the 3,389 Chagossians who responded to the poll were in favour of the archipelago remaining British. It is simple: the Chagossian community overwhelmingly opposes this Bill, and that is why the Government have not consulted it properly—because they do not want to receive an answer that they do not like. That is why the Government will also, I suspect, resist a referendum on the Chagossians.
It is also puzzling that other noble Lords—sadly, not many of them are in the Chamber at this late hour—have not tabled their own amendments on a referendum. Certain members of the Foreign Office contingent that normally sits over there were in favour of two referendums on our EU membership, but it seems that they are not in favour of even a single one for the Chagossians.
The Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesman, Al Pinkerton, was very clear on his party’s support for a referendum. He said that the Liberal Democrats stood for Chagossian sovereignty over their own citizenship and protection of their rights. He said that
“this Bill fails the Chagossian people”
because it continues the injustice of taking decisions about the Chagos Islands
“without the consent of those most affected”.
The referendums that we are proposing would actually ask for the consent of those most affected. This was, he said, to be remedied through
“a referendum of the Chagossian people themselves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 756.]
I was sad to see that there was no Liberal Democrat amendment on a referendum. That prompted me to put my amendments down for debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley for also tabling his own amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He absolutely put his amendment down. At first, I thought I would do him the courtesy of listening to how effective he was going to be in making his argument. So far, I am finding out that, the more briefly he speaks, the more persuasive he is.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is not my fault if the Liberal Democrats do not want to be consistent on this.
The point is that colleagues of the noble Lords to my left have argued in the other place for a referendum, but the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House have done nothing. The noble Lord has tabled just two amendments, only one of which is consequential. When we debated ratification, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, withdrew his amendments to the Motion without a Division. I think that speaks a thousand volumes. It seems that it falls to my noble friends on these Benches to stand up for the Chagossians and ask for the referendum that they rightly deserve. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment. My own amendment also calls for a referendum. The Government have given priority to the Mauritians—and, indeed, to some extent, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice—maintaining what they think of as territorial integrity over the right to self-determination. That should not be the case. Under international law, the right of a group within a decolonised area to self-determination has priority over so-called territorial integrity. It is very regrettable that that has not yet been conceded.
When we come to vote on this subject on Report, as no doubt we will, I very much hope that this will be an area where there is widespread support across the House. I very much hope that the Liberal Democrats will support a vote requiring a referendum among the Chagossian people over the right to self-determination. We are told that they did so in the Commons. In fact, they were so moved by it and thought it such an important issue that they voted against the whole Bill at Third Reading.
So far, the amendments the Liberal Democrats have tabled cannot be said to be amendments that would require a referendum. Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would require that
“a Minister of the Crown must engage with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius with a view to establishing a Joint Parliamentary Commission”.
We are getting “could”, “may” and “might” added together.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I will speak to the noble Lord’s amendment first, because I am informing the House about it, and then he can tell me where I am wrong.
Amendment 80 would require that, having engaged with the Mauritian authorities to set up this joint commission, and having perhaps persuaded them to do so:
“The Minister of the Crown must further propose that the Commission’s responsibilities include … evaluating the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including … the right of return”
and
“the right to self-determination”.
We would therefore have to seek the Mauritians’ agreement on setting up a commission and then propose to that commission that it does something to evaluate the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, which would include the right of return and to self-determination. However, this amendment, if we were to accept it, contains absolutely no requirement for the House to support a referendum. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that this convoluted chain of events would lead to such a recommendation.
The final sentence of the amendment reads:
“If the Commission described in subsection (1) is established, within five years of the commencement of the Treaty”,
et cetera. The commission is not envisioned to even get going for several years, and the amendment is probably realistic to recognise this. I am looking forward to a serious Liberal amendment, or their support for serious amendments from me and my noble friend that would require a referendum. I give way to the noble Lord, now that he knows more about what his amendment says.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for intervening when he was moving his amendment. I am flattered by being so courted by the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley. Historians will be aware that the Rough Wooing was not entirely successful in my Border area. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that I am sure he will be able to clarify. He is aware that the House of Commons voted on Amendment 9 for a referendum. Tabled by my colleagues, it would have required the Government to seek to
“undertake negotiations with Mauritius on a Chagossian right of return and on a referendum”
for Chagossians on self-determination. Parliament has voted on this already. The Division was 319 votes against and 83 in favour. The Conservatives did not support it. Why?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord that. I read the debate and it was not clear that there was much focus on the Liberal amendment. He has read out part of it; it covered lots of other things and they probably thought it was a bit wishy-washy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I do not think that is quite acceptable. Amendment 9 was voted on, and it included everything that the noble Lord asked of me. Why did the Conservatives not support it?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I do not know. I am not an official representative of the Conservative Party. I am flattered that the noble Lord thinks I control the Conservative Party in the Commons and in this place. I do not do either. I have not had any ministerial role since about 2000. I may give the impression of having power and influence beyond that which I really do, and I am flattered that he should think so.
I would like to see the Liberal Democrats support us. We know that, if they do, we will win, but they seem unlikely to do so. It is clear that they have done a deal with the Government. They will never defeat the Government on issues of substance because, if they do, they will not get as many peerages as they want next time. Let us be quite clear about this. It is as shoddy as that underneath this, I suspect. I hope I am wrong—I may well be. I often am.
It would be a wonderful thing, and we may be able to achieve something for the Chagossians in the shape of getting an amendment on Report—not now, because we are in Committee—which has the support of a majority in this House. If we carry it out, the odds are that the Chagossian people will declare that they do not want to be incorporated in Mauritius and would prefer to remain citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory and British subjects. In that case, we should honour and support their decision when it is taken. I look forward to a Damascene conversion by the Liberal party to this amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are almost having another debate on the referendum, which I spoke to on the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, earlier. The referendum is probably one of the most important aspects of the Bill, because it is fair and needed and the Chagossians really want it. I am not really interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about what happened on the amendment on a referendum in the other place, because it was not in the manifesto. As far as I am concerned, we in this Committee should be able to make up our own minds and should certainly not be stopped from moving amendments to the Bill just because the other place has decided something.
It is so just so antidemocratic. I am amazed that the Labour Back-Benchers are going along with this. They are not here—does that mean that they do not actually support the Bill but are having to be loyal? It is a shocking Bill. As the noble Lord said at the beginning, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at Second Reading, this must rate as the worst Bill that Labour have brought forward—which is quite difficult, as there have been so many awful Bills. They just cannot justify it.
These amendments tonight are very important, and I hope that, when we come back on Report, many more Members will have actually read what has gone on in this debate and recognised that to support a referendum is the right thing to do.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their comments on this. I feel that we have discussed the issue of a referendum fairly comprehensively, as the noble Baroness suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed the finger at the Lib Dems and accused them of inconsistency. I do not always see eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, nor with the Liberal Democrats, but if you want consistency on this issue, I do not think you could do much better than the noble Lord or his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who has championed the rights of the Chagossians for very many years. I have frankly never heard a peep out of the noble Lord opposite or from many of his colleagues on this topic, the rights of Chagossians, resettlement or anything else to do with the Chagos Islands. If we are after consistency, then the Liberal Democrats have, to be fair, been pretty consistent on this issue for very many years now.
On the issue of a referendum, I remind the Committee that negotiations on the treaty were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. The Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population nor has ever been self-governing. No question of self-determination for its population can therefore arise. This has been tested in the English courts, as we said in our earlier debate, in a series of judgments since the 1970s. The transfer of sovereignty does not deprive the Chagossians of any existing right.
A time for a referendum or some formal legal basis of a consultation would have been prior to this point, maybe even prior to or during some of the 11 rounds of negotiation undertaken by the previous Government. This is despite the fact that they clearly now think that there is absolutely no legal risk to the security of the islands. It is really important that we do not allow the Chagossian community to have the impression that a consultation or a referendum held now would in any way be able to affect a treaty that has already been agreed by two Governments and that we have been instructed to ratify by votes in both Houses. The Bill has also been through all its processes in the other place.
With that, I hope the noble Lord decides to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Minister will not be surprised that I am not convinced by her arguments. I am sure this is something that we will return to at later stages of the Bill but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is now 10.48 pm. There are not many Members remaining in the Chamber. The next group of amendments is very long and relates to a very important issue, so I invite the Government to resume the House at this stage.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, we are very happy to continue. As I said earlier, the degrouping was done very late. I have been instructed that we have to carry on until the next group.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I note that, in the supplementary Marshalled List of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has two amendments which pertain to the environment. It would be much better if those were attached to the next grouping. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this is a good point to adjourn.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, following on from that, these amendments coming up are on really important environmental issues that the government party says it cares about very much. I know that there may well have been some agreement, but we Back-Benchers who are not in any political party do not get asked about our agreements on anything, so I would formally like to propose that this House do now resume.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, degrouping after groups have been published goes against what is clearly in the Companion. It is to be discouraged, as a consequence of the Procedure Committee clearly outlining in 2022 why it is, in effect, a discourtesy to the House. This has happened. Sometimes there are consequences to these discourtesies, which is why the Companion indicates that they should be discouraged, and that is when colleagues are under the understanding that reaching certain target groups will be adhered to. It is up to all colleagues to offer due respect to other colleagues who take part in these groupings, but I have been watching the clock on a number of occasions when colleagues have gone far beyond what is considered a courtesy to the Committee in the Companion. There are consequences to how we conduct our debates; one is that we should adhere to our understanding and consider the next group.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I actually move that this House do now resume.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has moved that the House do now resume. I will take advice as to whether it is debateable. It is debateable, in which case the Motion now stands before the Committee.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I wish to oppose the noble Baroness in the suggestion, because I think we have made some good progress this evening and had some good debates. We are about to discuss some very important issues around the marine protected area. I am here and ready to do that, despite the bizarre late degrouping for no apparent reason, when we had a repeat of an earlier debate. I think it would be good to make some progress this evening.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would want his two amendments grouped with the other marine protected area amendments. Unfortunately, he is not here. It would be good to have all those amendments grouped together, so that we could have a thorough exposition of the environment, instead of part of it tonight and part of it next Tuesday. I would have preferred it if my Amendment 20A was grouped with the right of Chagossians to return, which was already debated but, because it was not, it now has to wait until next week. So I think there is an argument to have the next group next week, so that all the marine environment amendments can be heard together.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, the Question has been put that the House do now resume. I must now put that Question. I think on a show of voices the Not-Contents have it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, would it be helpful if I move that the House do now adjourn?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Obviously, we are not going to have a vote now, but it would be helpful for those of us who are non-aligned in this House to have more communication than we have had to date in relation to these matters. There seem to be quite a few of us.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Perhaps I might say to the noble Baroness that communication with regard to the degrouping was not equally applied to all, so I have sympathy with her. Perhaps if we continue with this group now, we might conclude this evening in an amicable way.
Amendment 15
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has published its plan to ensure the long term protection of the Chagos Marine Protected Area.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 15 I will speak also to Amendments 16, 66 and 73, which are also in my name in this group.
The treaty is clear that Mauritius shall have the duty to conserve and protect the environment, in particular in respect of the marine protected area. It also commits the UK to provide support and assistance to Mauritius in the establishment and management of its marine protected area in the Chagos Archipelago.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60, 65 and 68 on the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species, protection against illegal fishing and, generally, marine conservation. Chagossians support these amendments and want to see His Majesty’s Government implementing them.
First, I will deal with the protection and preservation of native and migratory bird species. Amendment 60 not only represents an environmental concern but a kind of power that, as the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands, they wish to be able to exercise themselves. It sets out the kind of responsible stewardship they want to provide to their own homeland, but the Bill, in Clauses 2 to 4, extinguishes their right to self-government in the islands from which they were forcibly removed by a Labour Government.
The Chagos Archipelago is one of the most important sea bird sanctuaries on earth. It supports some of the largest and least disturbed tropical sea bird colonies remaining anywhere in the world. Scientific surveys by the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Zoological Society and the Chagos Conservation Trust confirm that it holds globally significant populations of species that are in decline elsewhere.
I could go through and name a number of the breeds that are very rare: red-footed boobies breed in very large numbers and tens of thousands of brown noddies, white terns, sooty terns and wedge-tailed shearwaters are nesting successfully nesting on the uninhabited islands that remain free of invasive predators.
Sea birds are not simply wildlife; they are the ecological engine of the entire archipelago. Guano from the large sea bird colonies enriches coastal waters, increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels that in turn fuel reef productivity. Peer-reviewed research published in Nature shows that reef fish biomass adjacent to healthy seabird colonies can be up to five times higher than the reefs where seabirds have been lost. Protecting seabirds is therefore central to protecting the coral reefs, the lagoon ecosystems and the wider marine food web.
These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented threats to the species of global conservation concern, coming from rats, which can wipe out entire colonies. Light pollution disorientates fledglings. Human disturbance can cause nesting failure. There is a whole range of things. The amendment seeks to create a clear duty to safeguard this irreplaceable natural heritage. It is the kind of environmental care and responsible stewardship that the Chagossians themselves wish to bring to their homeland if they are allowed back and to have self-determination. If this Bill passes in its current form, we will transfer the Chagos Islands to the Republic of Mauritius, a country that is 1,337 miles away and does not even have the capacity, as I said earlier, to reach the islands without assistance from India. We will deny the Chagossian people the opportunity to govern these vital ecological assets. That shows what is at stake. The Chagossian people are asking what needs to be done and what they will lose if we proceed with Clauses 2 to 4. We should not be denying them this as far as the amendment on birds is concerned.
Amendment 65 seeks to introduce a waste management and coastal protection system for the Chagos archipelago. Again, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with this because the ecological consequences are serious and well documented—the risk of ghost nets ensnaring endangered green and hawksbill turtles as well as red-footed boobies, which I have already mentioned, brown noddies and reef sharks. When these nets become caught on the reef crest, they break the coral colonies and accelerate degradation.
It is a most significant protected marine area, covering more than 640,000 square kilometres, including a very large share of the remaining high-quality coral reefs in the Indian Ocean. Seabird-driven nutrient cycles, which sustain high fish biomass on adjacent reefs, are disrupted when plastics and fishing gear interfere with nesting colonies. The Chagossian people know this better than anyone. They have told us that keeping their coastline clean is a matter of identity, stewardship and duty. They want to remove the waste that arrives from other nations and prevent further debris entering their waters. That is an essential part, to them, of caring for their homeland. This amendment is not merely about waste but about justice. It is about whether this House, currently denying the Chagossian people any act of self-determination, will also deny them the ability to protect the beaches, reefs and nesting grounds of their homeland. I hope that this amendment will be supported by noble Lords.
Amendment 68 concerns protection against illegal fishing. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a system of patrols and monitoring to prevent illegal fishing within Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected areas. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a clear system of patrols and monitoring within the Chagos territorial waters and the surrounding marine protected areas. It is exactly what the Chagossian community have said they would want to do for themselves if Clauses 2 to 4 of this Bill were not going through and the United Kingdom was relinquishing sovereignty. The evidence of illegal fishing in these waters is real and well documented. The Chagos marine protected area spans more than 640,000 square kilometres, an area the size of France. It is formally designated as a fully no-take zone, yet its remoteness has made it a target for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Satellite monitoring, vessel tracking systems and analysis by global monitoring groups such as Global Fishing Watch have on multiple occasions detected foreign longliners operating close to, and in some instances within, the BIOT waters.
Enforcement records maintained by the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration confirm that vessels have been intercepted while illegally targeting tuna, sharks and other species. Past patrols have confiscated shark fins, prohibited gear and long lines, providing clear physical evidence of illegal extraction.
The ecological consequences are profound. Illegal fishing undermines the conservation objectives of one of the world’s most important marine protected areas. Every scientific assessment of Chagos ecosystems concludes that maintaining strong enforcement is essential to preserve its uniquely intact reefs, fish biomass and biodiversity.
There are still many people in the Chagossian community who, from their history and heritage, understand this intimately. They have said that protecting the fish stocks is as important to them as protecting their beaches and nesting sites. They want to be able to participate in patrols to support monitoring and to take responsibility for safeguarding the marine life that their parents and grandparents depended on. They see illegal fishing as a threat not only to biodiversity but to their future ability to sustain themselves when they go back to their islands.
Also, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—we have been discussing the advice that it gave—Article 61 requires coastal states to conserve living resources. Article 62 obliges them to ensure proper management and enforcement. Article 73 grants the authority and responsibility to board, inspect, arrest and detain vessels engaged in illegal fishing. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has confirmed that these articles require states to maintain monitoring, to regulate and, crucially, to enforce. At present, there is no statutory duty in domestic law requiring the UK to maintain patrols or monitoring in the BIOT. This amendment would fill that gap and bring legislation into proper alignment with other international obligations, which noble Lords are very keen always to comply with.
The Government may argue that Mauritius can meet these responsibilities after transfer, but the United Kingdom remains the coastal and administrating power today and its treaty obligations exist today. They cannot be satisfied by assuming that another state will meet them.
These are very sensible amendments which, if passed, would at least give the Chagossians the feeling that the United Kingdom cared about the islands overall, about the fishing, the bird life and about the marine life generally. I hope that noble Lords, when they look carefully at this, will actually agree to these amendments. If not, we will bring them back on Report.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I had not intended to speak on these amendments because there are other far more qualified people who I thought would do so. I served on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee when it produced the report in July 2023 on the biodiversity agreement in Montreal. As I recall, that commitment, the Montreal treaty, requires Britain to protect 30% of its marine areas by 2030; it was called the 30 by 30 agreement. We were very proud, and I think it was mentioned in that report, that the largest single area of sea that was being protected was the British Indian Ocean Territory’s sea. We accepted tacitly that it was Britain’s responsibility to protect that, that it was a very important area of biodiversity for the world as a whole, and that it was our responsibility.
It now seems that we have handed that over to Mauritius, but Mauritius has no means of policing that area. It has no boats or aeroplanes that could cover that distance and that area. I doubt whether we had permanent boats stationed there, but if there were problems we could. We have the capacity to send both sea- and airborne reconnaissance aircraft to make sure that things are being properly respected.
I wonder, therefore, whether this treaty which we are now legislating to implement is not in contravention of our commitments under the Montreal biodiversity treaty. Are we abandoning commitments we made there and leaving them, in effect, unpoliced?
Another treaty was passed which we did not investigate and which was investigated by another committee of this House. I cannot even remember the name of the treaty but it was about areas of the sea which are outside national jurisdiction. It would seem that this now covers the BIOT—or does it? I hope the Minister will tell us which of these two treaties it is covered by. Is it covered by the old one, which we had responsibility for but have now given up, despite our international obligations under international law, which are normally sacrosanct, or is it under another treaty, which means that it is now dealt with as if it is beyond national jurisdiction?
These are clearly very important matters. It is a shame that we are discussing them at this time of night when people far better informed than I, who could bring their expertise and knowledge to bear, are not here. Since they are not here, I am raising these questions and hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to respond. As I understand it, details about the Mauritian marine protected area were published only last week, or it may have been the week before. There will be a new treaty which will be lodged at the UN in a similar way to ours. It will not be a BBNJ issue. I think we will be considering it in this House next week, when we can get into it in a little more detail now that the noble Lord is back into these issues after a bit of a break. Because this would not be biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, it would be the responsibility of the Mauritians and covered by the new treaty. I can talk about that a bit more now.
Amendments 15 and 66 would prevent Clauses 2 to 4 coming into force until the UK Government had published a report on how it intended to preserve the Chagos Marine Protected Area. The MPA will be for the Mauritian Government to implement. They have already announced the creation of the MPA, which they will create once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the marine protected area. Low levels of artisanal subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians will be allowed in certain limited areas and will be compatible with nature conservation. The UK will continue to support Mauritius in the establishment of this marine protected area and in protecting the globally significant ecosystems of the Chagos Archipelago.
On Amendments 38 and 65, while I appreciate and understand the noble Baroness’s commitment to sustaining the unique and pristine environment around the archipelago, recycling and waste management systems on the outer islands would be for Mauritius to deliver. On Diego Garcia itself, waste management is currently undertaken by the US and monitored by the UK to ensure compliance with environmental standards. This will continue following the entry into force of the agreement, with no identified need to change current processes.
On Amendment 60, while Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, the UK will continue to provide support to protect migratory bird species. Within the agreement, under the international organisations’ exchange of letters, the UK and Mauritius will, for instance, agree separate arrangements to maintain the listed Ramsar wetlands site on Diego Garcia, which provides a unique protected habitat for migratory birds. Further protections will be a matter for Mauritius.
On Amendments 16 and 68, Mauritius will be responsible for the environment throughout the Chagos Archipelago, including enforcement. On 3 November, the Mauritian Government announced the creation of the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area. They have confirmed already that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. They will, however, allow low levels of artisanal subsistence fishing for resettled Chagossians in certain limited areas, which will be compatible with nature conservation.
The UK has agreed to co-operate with Mauritius on maritime security and provide assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA as part of the Diego Garcia treaty. The terms of this co-operation and assistance will be agreed in a separate process that is already under way.
Amendment 73 is completely unnecessary. We have been clear on this. The UK has not and will not make any financial payment to the Mauritian Government to establish a new MPA in the waters surrounding the Chagos Archipelago. The UK has agreed to provide support and assistance in the establishment and management of the MPA as part of the Diego Garcia treaty, protecting the vital military base on Diego Garcia, and the terms of this support and assistance will be agreed in a separate process that is already under way.
Amendment 76 is no longer required. On 3 November, Mauritius, as I have said, announced the creation of its MPA once the treaty enters into force. Similarly, the points about artisanal fishing apply to that amendment as well. With that, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers, but I think the debate reflects the complexity of the environmental provisions. As my noble friend said, it is a shame that we could not have had it at a more reasonable time, when there could have been more participants in the debate, but the Government clearly do not wish to do that.
This is not a niche issue: protecting the unique and biodiverse environment on and around the islands is of international significance. The Chagossians, the scientific community and many others want to see the Chagos Islands’ unique ecosystem protected, and it would be an abrogation of the Government’s responsibilities if they were to press ahead with this deal without first securing the appropriate assurances from Mauritius.
I am obviously delighted that Mauritius has announced the marine protected area—I am sure we are all really pleased to see that—but I think the key point was the one raised by my noble friend, which is the matter of enforcement. Mauritius is a small island, it has very few resources and it is thousands of miles away from the Chagos Islands. The waters surrounding the Chagos are rich in fishing and biodiversity and I am sure that, in a few years’ time, we will probably see them being exploited, not for any lack of willingness on the part of the Mauritians but simply because they are completely unable to enforce the provisions. That would be a shame for one of the most unique environments in the world. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.