Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin, I wish to explain that, owing to an administrative error, some amendments submitted by the Opposition on Monday were not tabled that evening. They were instead tabled on Tuesday and will appear with a white star on today’s amendment paper. Usually, this would mean that the Chair would not select them for debate. However, given that it was a genuine office error, I have used my discretion and selected the amendments for today’s debate.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11
Illegal working closure notices and illegal working compliance orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—“Compensation for an illegal working closure notice where order is cancelled/no compliance order is given—
‘(1) Where an illegal working closure notice is issued and—
(a) is subsequently cancelled in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act, or
(b) no illegal working compliance order is made (whether or not an application is made for such an order)
the Secretary of state shall pay compensation to the persons listed in subsection (2).”
(2) The Secretary of State shall pay compensation under subsection (1) to—
(a) the person to whom the notice was issued or, if he is dead, to his personal representatives;
(b) a person who lives on the premises (whether habitually or not);
(c) any person who has an interest in the premises.
(3) No payment of compensation under this section shall be made unless an application for such compensation has been made to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the notice is issued.
(4) But the Secretary of State may direct that an application for compensation made after the end of that period is to be treated as if it had been made within that period if the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify doing so.
(5) The question whether there is a right to compensation under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) If the Secretary of State determines that there is a right to such compensation, the amount of the compensation shall be assessed by an assessor appointed by the Secretary of State.
(7) In assessing so much of any compensation payable as is attributable to suffering, harm to reputation or similar damage, the assessor must have regard in particular to—
(a) the conduct of the person to whom the notice was given;
(b) the conduct of the immigration officer.
(8) If, having had regard to any matters falling within subsection (9)(a) or (b), the assessor considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify doing so, the assessor may determine that the amount of compensation payable is to be a nominal amount only.
(9) The total amount of compensation payable must not exceed the overall compensation limit. That limit is—
(a) £10,000 in a case in which there is no element for loss of earnings;
(b) £50,000 in any other case.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (9) so as to vary overall compensation limit.
(11) No order may be made under subsection (9) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Keir Starmer.)
To provide for statutory compensation to the person to whom an illegal working closure notice is issued and anyone living on the premises or with an interest in the premises in the event that the order is cancelled or that no application is subsequently made to a court for a compliance order, or such an application is made but the court refuses to grant it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen, for your first time on our line-by-line analysis of the Bill.
Clause 11 gives effect to schedule 2, which sets out the regime for illegal working closure notices and illegal working compliance orders. The clause and schedule provide new powers to deal with businesses that repeatedly flout the law in this area. Their use would be targeted on the most serious cases where attempts to tackle an employer’s use of illegal workers through the established civil penalty scheme or prosecution have not prevented them from continuing to behave illegally.
When immigration officers conduct an enforcement visit under existing powers to an employer’s premises, any illegal workers identified may be arrested and detained, and the employer may be liable for a civil penalty or prosecution for an offence. Despite this, the employer may continue to use illegal workers who are not apprehended at the time of the visit, or recruited subsequently. Furthermore, some businesses dissolve to evade sanctions, reopen in a new name and continue their non-compliance as before. The intention is to use this provision to break the cycle of business behaviour.
The provisions create a new power for immigration officers to close premises for up to 48 hours in certain cases where the employer has previously faced sanctions for employing illegal workers. Unless the closure notice is cancelled, an application must be made to a court for an illegal working compliance order. The compliance order may extend the closure of the premises or otherwise direct the business to perform certain steps to ensure that illegal workers are not employed or used to provide services on behalf of the business operating from the premises.
The provisions follow a similar approach to the power to close premises associated with nuisance or disorder in part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. New clause 5 has not been spoken to formally as yet, so I look forward to listening to the debate and hearing the points that will be made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
The new clause is intended to make specific provision for compensation to be paid to those affected by an illegal working closure notice served under schedule 2. Specifically, it seeks to address the situation where a closure notice has been imposed but cancelled, or where an application for a compliance order is refused by the court. The new clause seeks to establish maximum limits for compensation payable in certain circumstances, the criteria for assessing compensation claims, and time limits for submitting them.
I presume that the new clause is intended to provide additional safeguards and to encourage immigration officers to exercise caution in serving illegal working closure notices, because of the potential compensation consequences if such notices are then cancelled or compliance orders are not obtained from the courts. However, we judge that the clause is unnecessary, albeit that I stand ready to listen to the arguments that will be proffered, because the existing provisions in the Bill concerning compensation already, in our view, strike the right balance between protecting the interests of legitimate owners and occupiers of affected premises and appropriate expenditure of public finances. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing the further points that might be raised.
A closure notice may be cancelled only when employers can show that they would be excused from paying a civil penalty. In most cases, that will mean that they can show evidence that valid right to work checks are being conducted in relation to all illegal employees. It is currently operational practice that immigration officers will give the employers an opportunity to provide such evidence before taking enforcement action.
For that reason, and since the Bill expressly prevents a notice from being issued when evidence of right to work checks is provided, the Government expect few closure notices to be cancelled in the short period between issue and consideration by the court. That period is a maximum of 24 hours, except when extended to 48 hours by an immigration inspector. Therefore, it is expected that in the majority of cases premises will be closed for much less than 24 hours, so any financial loss should be kept to a minimum.
In relation to compensation cases—in other words, when cases have gone to court—when compliance orders were not made by the courts, it must be emphasised that, under the Bill, courts have discretion about whether to make such an order. There is a range of reasons why such an order is not made. For example, it may be that premises are about to be sold to an innocent third party. A court’s decision to refuse an application does not necessarily mean that immigration officers were wrong to issue a closure notice. Nor does it mean that the owner or occupier of the premises was compliant with illegal working rules. For those reasons, compensation is not automatically available when an application for a compliance order is refused by the courts.
However, in rare cases in which immigration officers make a mistake and it later turns out that illegal workers were not employed at or in connection with the business operating from the premises, paragraph 15 of schedule 2 does not prevent an affected employer, owner or occupier of the premises from applying for compensation. The Bill places responsibility for determining compensation claims on the courts, not the Secretary of State as proposed in the new clause, and it imposes no limits on the level of compensation payable. To make the Secretary of State the decision maker would lead to lengthy and costly satellite litigation, which the provision seeks to avoid.
Under the Bill, an independent court will determine both the right to and level of compensation, obviating the need for an independent assessor. Lengthy limitation periods such as the two years proposed in the new clause are normally provided when potential applicants would not be aware of the event giving rise to a claim until some time afterwards. As the Bill contains safeguards in relation to the provision of notices, that is not the case.
However, in rare cases in which the fact that the premises have been closed is not immediately apparent to a potential applicant, we regard the three-month limit currently provided in paragraph 15 for making a compensation application to be sufficient. Three months is in line with other limitation periods, such as that for judicial review and the compensation provision for closure orders in section 90 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. When the issue of compensation arises, it is important that the matter is concluded promptly in the interests of all concerned. Immigration officers will be trained to exercise appropriate caution before they use these important new powers to tackle repeat abuse of illegal working legislation.
Schedule 2 incorporates a number of important safeguards that limit the impact of closure notices before a compliance order is obtained from the court. It is important to bear in mind the context in which such orders will be served: on employers who have repeatedly flouted the law by employing illegal workers. It is right that occupiers of premises such as those employers who have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent illegal working from taking place should not be entitled to compensation. The Government have sought to strike the right balance between tackling employers who repeatedly flout illegal working legislation and protecting the interests of legitimate businesses and workers. That is reflecting in the drafting of paragraph 15.
I look forward to the debate on the new clause, but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and anything I may say after the new clause has been spoken to, hon. Members will feel able not to move it.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. The new clause would provide a statutory compensation scheme to persons to whom an illegal working closure order is issued in circumstances as described by the Minister. The purpose is not so much to urge caution on the part of immigration officers as to recognise that it is unusual to have a closure power vested in the Executive rather than in the judiciary. That power is vested in a member of the Executive with quite a draconian, albeit short, power to close down a premises for 24 or 48 hours. I accept that the chief immigration officer must go through a number of hoops to satisfy himself or herself that it is appropriate to make an order. The new clause drives at the situation in which a notice is issued and subsequently cancelled or no compliance order is made.
The obvious case where the new clause would bite is where there has been an error on the part of the chief immigration officer, and there will be errors. It is impossible for anybody to argue that there will not be errors in the issuing of closure orders. In a case in which an error has been made, a business is closed down when it should not have been. The new clause would provide compensation or a scheme for compensation to the individual who loses out as a result. I think there is no disagreement between the Minister and me that justice would demand, in the event of an error, that if someone has lost business, they ought to be compensated. I think that that is an agreed principle, but the Minister says that paragraph 15 of schedule 2 makes the new clause unnecessary.
The problem is that paragraph 15 of schedule 2 provides a power to apply to courts for compensation within three months. Putting that to one side, paragraph 15(3) sets out the circumstances in which an order may be made. Those circumstances are prescribed in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) to (d). Unless I am mistaken, the fact that the order was simply made in error is not within any of those four sub-paragraphs, which cover circumstances such as,
“not otherwise associated with the use of the premises”
or, if associated, “took reasonable steps.” Another is, “incurred financial loss”.
I accept that anybody who falls within paragraph 15(3)(a) to (d) would perfectly well be compensated. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the court doing that. It would make sense for the court to do it at the same time that it is considering the matter in the round. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong about this. I do not think that paragraph 15(3)(a) to (d) of schedule 2 covers a case in which it is accepted by all sides that a chief immigration officer has simply made a mistake by closing down a premises, and a business incurred financial loss. Unless there is a sweep-up and I have misread it, that is my understanding.
James Brokenshire
Paragraph 15(3)(d) of schedule 2 says
“that having regard to all the circumstances it is appropriate to order payment of compensation in respect of that loss.”
That may address some of the other issues that he highlights. I will let the hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on that.
Keir Starmer
I will do so; that may be helpful. If the record shows that it is understood that that covers the ordinary case of an error, part of the new clause may not be necessary. It leaves a gap when the order is simply cancelled and never comes before a court. Will the Minister reassure me that in the circumstances of an order being cancelled, under schedule 2, the person incurring loss can get before the court for the compensation order? At the moment, I think the scheme is premised on the chief immigration officer applying to the court to have the order confirmed. In other words, even where the chief immigration officer does not apply to the court at all because it is recognised that it was an error—
The Chair
Order. The Minister will be able to sum up and he may be able to clarify some of those points then.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Owen, and I am guided by that, but in the circumstances, the Minister can see the point that lies behind the new clause. If there is an assurance that that is in any event covered in both circumstances—where the order is simply cancelled and no one gets before the court to confirm it, or it goes before the court and it is confirmed and the court has wide enough jurisdiction to deal with an error—I accept that the new clause is not necessary.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
As with the previous clause, we seem to be giving immigration officers too much power without the relevant training or proper judicial oversight. When he gave evidence last week, Colin Yeo was asked whether he was concerned about the powers to be given to immigration officers. He said that he was, “Very concerned”, and said of the chief inspector:
“In a couple of reports from March 2014, for example, he found that immigration officers were granted the power to enter business premises without a warrant in two thirds of cases, without justification; he also found unlawful use of power, ineffective management oversight, major variations in local practice and inadequate staff training across all grades—really serious concerns are being raised. Reports on removals and emergency travel documents are, again, very critical of Home Office management of the process and training. The idea that more powers should be given to people who are already exercising them in a very questionable way is somewhat dubious, in my view.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2015; c. 107, Q224.]
We received the Minister’s letter this morning and are grateful for that, but will he clarify “reasonable grounds” for those in the room who are not lawyers, which is probably quite a few of us? As things stand, the scope of the closure powers are far too wide.
The Bill proposes that an officer has the power to close an employer’s premises if satisfied “on reasonable grounds” that the employer is employing an “illegal worker”, as defined, and if the employer has been required to pay a civil penalty in the past three years, has an outstanding civil penalty or has been convicted of the offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker or a person whom the employer had reasonable cause to believe was not entitled to work. The initial closure may be for up to 48 hours. The immigration officer may then apply to the court for an illegal working compliance order, which can prohibit or restrict access to premises for up to two years.
Why are such measures required when criminal sanctions are available? What will ensure that the measures are not used in an oppressive manner? Yes, we need action against bad employers who flout the rules, but the consequences are potentially terrible if enforcement gets it wrong. There should at least be proper safeguards, such as judicial oversight. What about the effect on innocent workers and their families whose workplaces are shut down? The Government should think again.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for all the comments. In response to the initial points made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I refer to the provisions contained in paragraph 15 of schedule 2, as I did when he intervened, in particular sub-paragraph (3)(d) about discretion. I also draw his attention to sub-paragraph (1), which states:
“Subject to sub-paragraph (4), a person who claims to have incurred financial loss in consequence of an illegal working closure notice or an illegal working compliance order may apply to the court for compensation.”
I do not read that as someone having to go through to the order stage. In other words, a notice has been issued, but it is open to seek redress through the court under that provision.
It is also relevant to say that for a mistake to have taken place, the grounds specified in paragraphs 3 and 5 to schedule 2 would equally have not been found to have been made out. That implies that a mistake has been made. Therefore, although I pointed to paragraph 15(3)(d) to schedule 2, obviously some of the earlier provisions would be redolent—for example, paragraph 15(3)(b):
“if the applicant is the owner or occupier of the premises, that the applicant took reasonable steps to prevent that use”.
It all ties back.
Keir Starmer
May I clarify something, if possible? My concern—if this is a misreading, then it is a misreading— is that paragraph 15(1) of schedule 2 gives the power to apply for compensation, and that the circumstances in which the court may order it are in paragraph 15(3). Those are the only circumstances in which it may be ordered. I read paragraphs 15(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) as conditions that must all be satisfied. I say that because paragraph (d) is not free-standing:
“having regard to all the circumstances it is appropriate to order payment of compensation in respect of that loss.”
The word “that” can only refer back to paragraph 15(3)(c). They are not disjunctive; they are conjunctive. That might just be the way that it is drafted, but paragraph 15(3)(d) makes no sense as a free-standing provision. It must relate back to the others.
James Brokenshire
I am happy to consider the narrow point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the normal legal definitional drafting issues surrounding the use of “and” and “or”, which he will understand from all sorts of legal documents that he has undoubtedly read. I am content to look again at the provision and see whether any further clarification is needed. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, sitting alongside me, is shaking his head, but in fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am happy to reflect further on the narrow point that he has raised and consider it carefully.
I underline the general point that in those rare cases—it is for a limited period as well, just 24 or 48 hours—where a mistake is made and the issuance of a notice does not proceed to an order, any loss that may crystallise is likely to be small, because the period of closure is short. However, I do not make any judgments on that, given the nature and size of the businesses that might be involved and so on. In those circumstances, if it turns out later that illegal workers were not in fact employed at or in connection with the business operating on the premises, paragraph 15 does not prevent an affected employer, owner or occupier of the premises from applying for compensation. I hope that that is a helpful response.
The hon. and learned Gentleman drew some comparisons involving the time periods, and rightly highlighted the process and steps that must be gone through. The concept is modelled, as I have indicated, on other forms of legislation with which he will be equally familiar; I refer him to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. I can think of other circumstances, such as under licensing laws, in which temporary closure notices may be granted to the police or a licensing officer in certain circumstances. The concept of a short-term mechanism is understood.
Equally, that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about whether it is appropriate for the Executive to have such a power. Yes, it is, in the constrained way that the power is structured within the schedule. It provides an appropriate system and process, as well as judicial oversight in the fact that the court must assess, confirm and validate the power. As we have just said in the discussion on compensation, if the officer gets it wrong, compensation can be awarded through the courts.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In terms of objectives, we are on the same page in seeking to ensure that repeat-offending employers are dealt with robustly. A moment ago, in his response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, the Minister said that the orders would be used in a constrained way. Does he understand the anxiety, given that the schedule does not explain that constrained way, or can he point me to something that I am missing?
James Brokenshire
I can, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the triggers for the use of the power in paragraphs 15(3) and (5), and the reasonable grounds that would need to be satisfied. I would highlight the second condition in paragraph (5):
“the employer, or a connected person in relation to the employer...has been convicted of an offence under section 21...has, during the period of three years ending with the date on which the illegal working closure notice is issued, been required to pay a penalty under section 15 of the 2006 Act, or...has at any time been required to pay such a penalty and failed to pay it.”
In other words, it is not trying to look for first offenders. Because of the two conditions in paragraphs (3) and (5), it is trying to get at some of those businesses and employers who are not doing things properly and who have already had some form of sanction applied to them.
I mentioned phoenix companies in my opening comments. We have dealt with the concept of a connected person in paragraph 8 of schedule 2. It is important. We know of circumstances in which people will seek to try to subvert the law by creating a new company to try to get round the rules and requirements. They might say it is the first time because they are not able to pierce the corporate veil. So we have considered this measure carefully and we judge that it is appropriate to have such safeguards and that it has that element of the court being able to intervene for compensation or for confirmation of any extended period. This is an important tool to support and take action against businesses that are acting inappropriately.
I say to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that the matter is about the impact and consequences. I do not think that he would tolerate a business that employed people illegally on a serial basis, because people who are in his constituency and in this country lawfully should have the jobs, rather than the people who are not here lawfully and are staying here illegally. We are seeking a balanced approach and we judge that the manner in which this measure is constructed, and on the basis of experience in other spheres, it is appropriate in terms of the operational benefit that it provides as well as the safeguards contained within it. For those reasons, I will oppose new clause 5. I hope that hon. Members will be minded to see that clause 11 stands part of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move Government amendment 11, in schedule 2, page 58, line 20, at end insert—
‘( ) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom, but
(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.”
This amendment ensures that individuals on immigration bail who are granted permission to work in the United Kingdom are not considered illegal workers for the purposes of illegal working closure notices and compliance orders. The amendment reflects the approach to immigration bail taken elsewhere in the Bill – for example in new section 24B(8) of the Immigration Act 1971 as inserted by clause 8.
The Government amendment rectifies a technical omission in the drafting of paragraph (3) of schedule 2, which defines when illegal working takes place for the purposes of the new regime of closure notices and compliance orders. The change is necessary to ensure consistency between the definition of illegal working in schedule 2 and definitions used elsewhere, such as in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which provides for the civil penalty scheme and the offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker.
The definition also appears in the new illegal working offence in clause 8. Schedule 2 does not exclude persons who are granted immigration bail but are exceptionally permitted to work from the definition of an illegal worker. The vast majority of those on immigration bail will not be granted such permission, but that scenario may apply rarely in asylum cases in which the applicant has waited more than 12 months for a decision on their case and the delay is not attributable to them. Such persons may be permitted to engage in specified occupations in which there is a shortage of labour supply. The amendment will ensure that such persons do not constitute illegal workers for the purposes of the closure notice and compliance order scheme.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12
Offence of leasing premises
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 12, page 8, line 31, at end insert—
“(d) the landlord has commenced action under sections 33D or 33E within two months of becoming aware that the adult mentioned in subsections (2) was disqualified as a result of their immigration status.”
This amendment would provide a defence for landlords who are being prosecuted under Clause 12 if they can show they commenced eviction procedures within 2 months of becoming aware that the tenant was disqualified because of their immigration status.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 12, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
‘(6) The agent does not commit an offence under subsection (2) or (4) if the agent is also a resident of the property in subsection (1).”
This amendment aims to ensure that co-tenants (who would normally be described as house sharers), who also act as agent, cannot be held liable for their landlord’s contravention of Section 22 of the Immigration Act 2014.
Amendment 85, in clause 12, page 10, line 25, leave out paragraphs (4) to (6) and insert—
‘(4) Sections 33A to 33C do not apply in relation to a residential tenancy agreement or a renewed agreement entered into before the coming into force of section 12 of the Immigration Act 2014.”
To ensure that none of the criminal offences are committed in respect of tenancies entered into (or, in the case of renewed tenancies, first entered into) before the offences come into force and thus to ensure that there is no retrospective element to these criminal penalties.
Amendment 87, in clause 13, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
‘(6A) A landlord does not commit an offence under s 33A of this Act during the period of 28 days specified in subsection 4.”
To protect a landlord/landlady from prosecution for renting to a person without a right to rent during the period for which they are prohibited from evicting the tenant under subsection 33D(4).
Amendment 88, in clause 13, page 12, line 1, leave out section 33E.
To remove the provision which implies into any residential tenancy agreement that the landlord or landlady may terminate the tenancy if the premises are occupied by an adult who is disqualified from renting because of their immigration status.
Amendment 89, in clause 14, page 13, line 6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
To provide a court with a discretion as to whether or not it orders possession of a dwelling house on the grounds that the Secretary of State has issued a notice confirming that a person does not have a right to rent.
Keir Starmer
If it is convenient, I shall make some opening remarks about clause 12 and then take each amendment in turn. Our position is that the right to rent scheme should not be rolled out. When the scheme was first put into legislation in 2014, concerns were expressed across the House and also by landlords. I think that pretty well all the landlords—
James Brokenshire
I am interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s opening comments, because previously on the 2014 Act the Opposition said that they agreed with the principle and the approach taken in relation to the right to rent scheme, and there are parallels with the right to work scheme introduced by the last Labour Government. I am interested in why there has been a sudden U-turn in the approach taken by the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I think that the position was that the scheme should be subject to a pilot, which would be evaluated in a transparent way before the scheme was rolled out. Assurances were given—I am very happy to provide them to the Committee—by, I think, the then Minister about that evaluation before the scheme was rolled out any further. That assurance was given at the Bill stage, if memory serves me right. Opposition Members may remember that this was an issue when the Committee that considered the 2014 Bill was given an assurance by the Government that the scheme would not be rolled out any further until there was that evaluation. I understood that to be the position that underpinned the 2014 regime. I was therefore interested to read that the Prime Minister announced the roll-out before the pilot had ended. He announced the roll-out across England and Wales on, I think, 25 May.
James Brokenshire
The hon. and learned Gentleman will equally know that it was a commitment in our manifesto to proceed with the extension of the roll-out and that the date for the roll-out and the manner of that was announced only off the back of the evaluation, which was published when I made a formal announcement of this very recently.
Keir Starmer
I accept that, but the original intervention was to ask on what basis there had been a U-turn. My response to that is that the 2014 provisions proceeded on the basis that there would be a pilot and there would be no roll-out until the pilot was evaluated. [Interruption.] I will get to my remarks about the pilot in a minute. We have obviously had the opportunity to take a closer look at the evaluation that we were given, I think, last Tuesday, and I have some observations to make about it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As is often the case in this place, we seem to be straying into process versus principle. I think that I heard the Minister say that the principle we are discussing had been accepted by the Labour party during the passage of the 2014 Act. Is it simply the process that the hon. and learned Gentleman is now quibbling about, or are his remarks a reversal of that acceptance of the principle?
Keir Starmer
I am not sure that the distinction between process and principle helps here. What led to the pilot was concern from landlords as to whether the scheme was going to be workable. They were concerned that they were going to be asked to carry out checks that they did not understand, with the possibility of a penalty if they got it wrong—at least, so far as they saw it. I appreciate that that is not how the scheme works, but that was their concern.
The deeper concern, across the House and among other groups, was that in such circumstances, as a matter of principle, the scheme might lead to discrimination. The in-principle position is that if what is otherwise a good scheme brings discrimination with it, it is not a good scheme and some other scheme needs to be devised. That is the principle; it is not a process point. That is probably common ground—I do not think that anyone would want to support a scheme that was discriminatory in its effect. Therefore, whether it is, or whether that has been properly evaluated, becomes a matter of real principle, and is not one of process.
Simon Hoare
Correct me if I am wrong—the hon. and learned Gentleman has much greater understanding of these matters than I do—but nothing in the Bill in any way resiles from or seeks to revoke the cadre of legislation that deals with discrimination.
Keir Starmer
I accept that proposition, but it does not take us much further. There are different forms of discrimination. Some measures are directly discriminatory, but can be justified in certain circumstances; others are not intended to be discriminatory and do not cut across other protections against discrimination, but have a discriminatory effect. Concern about that was one reason for setting up the pilot and for making an assessment of discrimination in the evaluation.
We are dancing around the issue. Everyone accepts that if the scheme has a discriminatory effect it should not be rolled out. That was part of the reason why there was an evaluation—there were others, of course. However, that is why all the evaluations of the scheme have focused on whether it has had any discriminatory effect.
Paul Blomfield
The Prime Minister’s observations at the Conservative party conference this year on unintentional discrimination were illuminating on the point that my hon. and learned Friend is making. The Prime Minister rightly highlighted that, although there is a range of law that seeks to prevent discrimination in employment, unintended consequences nevertheless lead to real discrimination. Is it not that lesson, which the Prime Minister was seeking to draw in the context of employment, that concerns us now in the context of letting?
Keir Starmer
I agree with my hon. Friend.
There have been two evaluations of the scheme, one by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and one by the Home Office.
Keir Starmer
I will give way again, although I do not seem to be able to get beyond about a sentence at the moment.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. I hope I am not delaying the Committee, but I am trying to curtail the debate. He is right that there have been two evaluations, including one by the Home Office. I have little or no doubt that he will have noted the fourth bullet point on page five of that evaluation, which states that, despite the differences during rental inquiries, there was no evidence of discrimination. As for the other evaluation, on which he seems to be relying, my understanding on probing is that only 30 people responded to the survey, all of whom had already declared themselves opposed to the proposal.
Keir Starmer
There is no need for any show of surprise on the Government’s Benches. If Members read the transcript of my contribution on Second Reading, they will see that I qualified reliance on the JCWI evaluation by saying that I accepted that it was a small survey. This is not new. I have always accepted that qualification.
I have some remarks to make about Home Office evaluation, and I will come to them in a moment. To put the issue in context in terms of numbers, broadly speaking, one in four families in England rent in the private sector. According to the 2011 census, 16.5% of tenants in the private rented sector did not have a passport. As Richard Lambert told us last week in response to a question from the hon. Member for Norwich North about numbers, he would expect 1 million to 1.5 million new tenancies to be created each year, so a huge number of cases will be affected, before we even get to the extension or retrospective effects that we will consider later. Both the evaluations must be seen in that context. I am not making the case that the evaluation by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants involved big numbers, but it was carried out.
Simon Hoare
It is my understanding as well that not only is the sample incredibly small, and therefore not to be relied on in any sensible way, but that the question was asked of people who had already declared themselves opposed to the proposal. If one asks people who are already opposed to something, by definition they will answer in only one particular way. Not only was the sample base tiny, it was skewed and prejudiced, maybe even discriminatory against itself.
Keir Starmer
The sample was small, and the findings in that evaluation—I will move on to the Home Office evaluation in a minute—are clear: 42% of landlords said that the right to rent requirements made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport. More than 25% said that they would be less likely to rent to someone with a foreign name or foreign accent, and checks were not being carried out uniformly across all tenants. Opposition was uniform, in the sense that 69% of landlords surveyed said that they did not feel that they should be required to undertake the checks, and 77% said that they were not in favour. They were the landlords surveyed in that evaluation.
Before we move on to the Home Office evaluation, as I said, Richard Lambert told us that he anticipated 1 million to 1.5 million new tenancies a year. The Home Office sample was based on 114 responses from landlords in the pilot area, which is a very small sample, given that more than 1 million new tenancies are created each year. It is a tiny sample. In addition, 67 responses came from tenants, but 60 of those 67 were students, so it is difficult to argue that it is a representative sample. That percentage does not in any way reflect a cross-section of the sorts of tenancy that will be caught by the provisions. It is predominantly student tenants.
Paul Blomfield
To underline that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Office itself has acknowledged the inadequacy of the sample? It says in the evaluation that the survey
“should be read as primarily reflecting the views of the student community, rather than being generalisable to the wider tenant group.”
Keir Starmer
Yes, I do. Those are the Home Office’s words. It is all very well to pick holes in the JCWI evaluation on the basis that it is a small and unrepresentative sample, but when the Home Office itself says, “The sample that we used was not representative of the wider tenant community,” it raises the same questions in relation to the Home Office’s evaluation. [Interruption.]
Keir Starmer
It is also worth pointing out that the Home Office evaluation was a combination of surveys, interviews and a mystery shopping exercise, and, as such, was limited. It was carried out over a short six-month period at a quiet time in the rental market and in a part of the market that is far less competitive than London. There were a number of significant limitations to the evaluation.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for highlighting the fact that the Home Office science team did not conduct the survey on the basis of a self-selecting sample. Indeed, its shape and framework was informed by the Landlords Panel, of which there were representatives from a broad range of interest groups such as tenants, NGOs and landlords. They were involved in shaping the manner in which the evaluation was conducted. While I note the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments in questioning the basis of the evaluation, it was actually done with the approach in mind.
Keir Starmer
I obviously accept that proposition, but the Home Office itself makes comments in the evaluation about the statistical significance of the mystery shopping exercise. It says:
“Statistical significance testing was not conducted on the data due to the relatively modest number of individual mystery shops completed at a sub-group level.”
Later, it says:
“Small sample sizes inhibit the ability to draw robust conclusions”.
So the Home Office itself is saying in its evaluation, “We’re not sure about the statistical significance of part of the valuation and the sample sizes are too small to draw any robust conclusions.” In terms of putting the document forward as a comprehensive evaluation of the scheme to deal with the concerns that existed in 2014 and to satisfy a number of concerned communities and individuals that it is safe to proceed, this is a small sample with limitations that the Home Office recognises in the evaluation.
If no one is even close to the statistical significance of part of the evaluation, it is very difficult to say that any conclusions can be drawn from it at all. That goes to the central question of discrimination; it is a very thin evaluation, predominantly of students. [Interruption.] If the Minister would like to correct me, I am very happy to be corrected. When I mentioned 60 of the 67 tenants being students, no one got up to intervene so I assume that I am right. If anybody wants to argue that that is a representative sample of tenancies across England and Wales, I will happily sit down and listen to the intervention. If I am right about it, it simply is not a representative sample.
Keir Starmer
With that, I will speak to amendment 71, which is designed to give landlords facing criminal prosecution a defence if they act to evict the illegal tenant within two months of becoming aware that the tenant is illegal. The scheme has flaws, which I have attempted to outline. It includes provisions that put landlords in an impossible and unacceptable position because they become criminals on a date when they cannot do anything about that criminality. If it is brought to a landlord’s attention that they have someone in their premises who does not have a right to rent, they are duty-bound. It would be entirely appropriate for them to begin eviction proceedings from the moment they find out about the illegal tenant, but the landlord is already criminalised. They have become a criminal; they simply have not been prosecuted and charged. I cannot see any reason or need for that. This defence simply provides for a space when a reasonable landlord, acting reasonably, would take the necessary measures to ensure that the person who did not have the right to rent was removed. It is difficult to think why that amendment should not be accepted. In other words, I cannot see a logical reason or coherent and principled argument that it is necessary to criminalise a landlord when he or she is trying to act properly, according to what he or she has just been told. Amendment 71 would deal with that situation.
It is probably convenient to deal with amendment 87 at the same time, although it is jumping the grouping, because it deals with the same provision. Landlords raised concerns that they would be committing an offence as soon as they knew a tenant was illegal, even if they were in the process of evicting them. No one can assure them that they will not be prosecuted; in any event, there is no good reason for it. Amendment 87 would provide protection during the process of serving an eviction notice. Amendment 71 would give the landlord slightly more leeway by giving them two months to act before they serve the eviction notice. I can think of no sensible reason why the amendments cannot be accepted.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Could the hon. and learned Gentleman explain this point? If a landlord had done the proper checks in the first place, surely they would be aware, if somebody had a visa, of when it was about to expire. They would be aware that potentially they have someone in the home who does not have the right to remain.
Keir Starmer
I accept that may be the case in certain circumstances, but there will be other circumstances in which the landlord will not be aware that the person no longer has the right to rent, until they are told by the Secretary of State that that is the position. That is how it is envisaged it will work. In those circumstances, it is impossible to see why a landlord, who then takes the obvious and reasonable step of doing something about it, is criminalised from that point. What is the mischief in having this defence? What is the mischief in saying that someone does not become a criminal if they immediately move to evict once they know? I cannot see any mischief in that.
There may be limited circumstances in the examples put to me, but in others the provision would be manifestly unfair and unnecessary. There is no good reason not to have the amendment.
Craig Whittaker
I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could give some examples of where that would be the case. I am at a bit of a loss to understand where the landlord would not know, had they been doing the checks as they are supposed to do by law.
Keir Starmer
The circumstance where the Secretary of State takes a decision in relation to leave will be known to the Secretary of State and the person renting but not to the landlord. There will be many circumstances where something happens that has an effect on the right or the status of the individual in this country that the landlord will not be privy to. In those circumstances, I cannot see why it could possibly be fair or right not to have a defence such as this.
Amendment 72 is designed to ensure that agents, as defined in the Immigration Act 2014, who are also tenants of the property are not criminally liable for illegal tenants. The central concern is in relation to groups of individuals who house-share. That is not uncommon for students and others. When they rent, each of them usually has a contract with the landlord, but if one individual moves out, it is not uncommon for the remaining housemates to share responsibility for recruiting a new tenant. The classic example would be the notice on the student union board that says “Room available”, which is put up by the other students who want someone to take the place of the student who left. Under the definition in the Immigration Act, they would become agents, would then be subject to the duties to carry out the necessary checks and would face criminal and civil penalties if they failed to do that in the way envisaged under the Act. Amendment 72 is aimed at that.
Amendment 85 would ensure that none of the criminal offences was committed in respect of tenancies entered into—or, in the case of renewed tenancies, first entered into—before the offences came into force and would ensure there was no retrospective element to these criminal penalties. The amendment would ensure that the scheme is forward looking and not retrospective in its effect. Landlords should understand the checks that they have to carry out and carry them out each time they issue a tenancy, but the scheme should not have retrospective effect.
Can I take amendments 88 and 89 in short form because they go to the question of eviction? Amendment 88 is intended to ensure there is no implied term in the tenancy that the tenancy automatically comes to an end, triggered by immigration status. Amendment 89 is intended to give a court discretion when deciding whether individuals should be evicted. The amendments are grouped under clause 12, but I think a substantive part of the discussion will better take place when we get to the eviction provisions, because, to some extent, they are the tail end of the discussion about eviction. Is that acceptable?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I want to start by declaring an interest. I am not sure whether it is necessary, but I am a registered landlord in Scotland. I do not actually rent out any properties, but it is worth mentioning.
We are opposed to the right to rent scheme, as we have said on many occasions. It is unfair on landlords and on tenants, particularly those who do not look, sound or seem British. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) made the point that by virtue of her name she may have some landlords fearing that they cannot rent to her, which is utterly ridiculous.
I want to make several points. Most of them have already been covered, but they are worth reiterating. It is important for the Minister to accept that it is common, especially in areas with high numbers of young professionals or near universities and colleges, for a tenant to act in that agent capacity that we heard about. It is one example where the Bill could needlessly criminalise somebody who is not by any stretch of the imagination knowingly breaking the law. I hope he will look at that.
Amendment 85 is about ensuring that none of the criminal offences is committed in respect of tenancies entered into before the offences came into force. It is sensible to accept that one, because the person was not breaking the law at the time they entered into the tenancy. I hope that amendment 87—to use a term that I really cannot stand, but I cannot think of a more appropriate term—is a no-brainer and that the Minister will listen to the Residential Landlords Association, which is calling on everyone to support the amendment.
As currently drafted, the Bill would mean that, as soon as a landlord receives a notice from the Secretary of State that the tenant does not have the right to rent, they would automatically be committing a criminal offence. That is despite the Bill requiring landlords to give tenants 28 days’ notice to leave the property under the proposed eviction procedure. The Residential Landlords Association has asked us to support amendment 87 to prevent landlords being caught between the housing legislation and the Bill. It is a case of, “Which law will I break?” Which of those laws would the Minister suggest is the better to break?
Paul Blomfield
I want to take the opportunity to look at the wider concerns behind the group of amendments and the clause itself. I want to return to the Prime Minister, who always seems a useful reference point. I thought his speech at the Conservative party conference was moving and significant. He said:
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? This is a true story.”
He went on to elaborate one example. I thought that was a telling description of how discrimination operates in the workplace, and a passionate appeal for us to take care not to create those conditions. We should be seeking to mitigate and prevent the occurrences he highlighted.
As in the workplace, so in the relationship between landlords and tenants.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about discrimination more generally. That concern would be shared across the Committee, in seeking to confront and combat discrimination in all its forms. He and I share the same stance on that. To follow the logic of what he and his hon. and learned Friend have said, does he think that the right to work checks were a mistake by the previous Labour Government? Because that appears to be where his logic is taking him.
Paul Blomfield
That is an interesting intervention from the Minister. He, I and everybody on the Committee surely share the objectives of ensuring discrimination does not take place. We could have a useful and reflective discussion on the lessons we could learn from the previous Labour Government, but I guess the Chair might rule that a diversion. It is more important that we focus on the issue before us today.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I am sorry to intervene because I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman’s oratory. Does he agree that the obligatory checks for landlords may actually reduce any discrimination that already exists in society, in that landlords could already be discriminating against people? Actually, as the mystery shopper exercise showed, it may have led to more people of ethnic-minority origin getting the accommodation. That was also a point reflected by the housing officer Mr Gabriel in the evidence session.
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention and I respect her views on these issues. We worked closely together in the previous Parliament on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills; it was a fruitful engagement. If we look at the totality of the Home Office evaluation, which I will move on to, it highlights more the risks than the benefits that she seeks to identify. If she will bear with me, perhaps we could come back to that later.
It was, I think, Mr Bone—sorry, Mr Owen. What a terrible mistake; I do apologise. It was quite telling in the witness stages of the Committee that Members were quick to discredit the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants study, saying that the area that was subject to the evaluation was small and limited. I gave some credence to the criticisms of the sample and was, therefore, expecting, when the long-awaited evaluation by the Home Office was published, that we would see a study of substantial size and depth that would enable us to draw real conclusions.
It was, therefore, a real shock when we discovered how limited that survey was, in terms of both the number of landlords and the number of tenants. About 67 or 68 tenants were surveyed and, of those, 66% were white. So the sample group in which discrimination was likely consisted of 23 people. I am not sure that that gives us a depth of understanding of the way in which discrimination operates or the issues related to it, or is sufficient to enable us to agree to the Government’s proposals on the relationship between landlords and tenants.
As my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Minister has pointed out, this was a very short pilot, at what landlords and others have pointed out was a quiet time in the rental market. The area considered is very different from the one that I represent, certainly from the capital, and is much less competitive. It is a very different sort of rental market. One would have expected that an evaluation to provide information for legislation that would affect all parts of the country might have been drawn more widely.
As we pointed out earlier, even the Home Office itself acknowledged that the sample group was not typical of the rental market as a whole—of the wider tenant group. We are dealing with some fairly flawed evidence from the Home Office. Notwithstanding that, 15% of the tenants expressed concern, even within the Home Office’s own sample, that they would be treated unfairly under the right to rent scheme, and 9% expressed concern that they would be unable to secure accommodation because they did not have the correct documentation.
One landlord expressed the view that if applicants were white and had a Brummie accent, they would not need to put them through the process. We can already see from the Home Office’s own study of how things might work the sort of impacts that are possible.
Furthermore, some of the landlords in the focus groups made it clear that they would not rent to potential tenants with limited—as opposed to permanent—leave to remain in the UK. A focus group of letting agents produced evidence that some landlords had instructed their agents not to let to non-EEA nationals or to any what they described as “foreigners”—probably the sort of people with foreign-sounding names whom the Prime Minister referenced in his speech to the Conservative party conference.
We are beginning to see, from the Home Office’s own evaluation, albeit limited and flawed, a picture of exactly how discrimination would operate. We have every reason to be concerned about the trajectory of policy. I urge the Government to think carefully before they put into legislation something that will create the traps that the Prime Minister himself identified to his colleagues at the Conservative party conference.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind the Committee that amendment 89 to clause 14 is grouped with the amendment that we are discussing and that there will be no opportunity for the shadow Minister to speak to it when we reach clause 14. He has the opportunity now.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Owen. I apologise for two things. First, when the provisional selection list was sent round, I did not spot the grouping of amendment 89. It is a protective clause, so I can see why it has been grouped in that way, although it could equally have been grouped under clause 14. Secondly, I should have dealt with amendment 89 more fully, because as I understand it we will vote on it in consideration of this clause.
The Chair
Sorry, technically, we will vote on amendment 89 when we reach consideration of clause 14, but you will not have the opportunity to speak to it then. We will simply take the vote, so please address it now.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Owen. By the end of this process, I hope to have mastered all the rules as to what happens and when. I am grateful for the advice.
Amendment 89 is intended to provide a court with the discretion as to whether it orders possession of a dwelling house on the grounds that the Secretary of State has issued a notice confirming that a person does not have a right to rent. The amendment would change “must” to “may”, therefore giving the court discretion based on the facts of the particular case before it. At the moment the court does not have discretion, so in a case with children involved, for example, who will lose their home as a result of the order that the court is about to make, the court does not have discretion not to evict the family. As drafted, that will operate as an obvious injustice.
Nearly always in eviction cases, it is sensible to give the court discretion to act in the right way on the facts before it. I can foresee a situation in which a family with children who might then fall to be assessed under the Children Act 1989—the children might even be taken into care—would be of deep concern to a court considering eviction proceedings. If a court knew that an order that it was about to make would lead to a family being split up and the children taken into care, it might well want to exercise discretion not to evict there and then. Amendment 89 would give the courts that discretion.
As drafted, eviction is mandatory—the court must evict, even families with children, whatever the impact on them or, frankly, on the local authority that might well have to pick up the duty and the tab. That is why amendment 89 is fundamentally important in the interests of justice.
James Brokenshire
I will respond to the specifics of the amendments in the group. The hon. and learned Gentleman and others have strayed more widely and I will comment later on some of their more general points, but first the specifics.
Keir Starmer
The Minister says the measures are for repeat rogue landlords, but there is nothing in the Bill that necessarily means that someone commits an offence only if they are a repeat offender; the measures apply equally to a first-time offender. Someone becomes an offender as soon as it is brought to their attention that the right to rent has ceased. That is the trigger. It may be that the enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities take a particular view, but as I understand them, the measures in the Bill as drafted apply to any landlord who receives notification at any time that someone they are renting to does not have the right to remain.
James Brokenshire
The hon. and learned Gentleman is pointing to the provisions in clause 12, and in particular the two conditions that need to be satisfied as expressed in proposed new section 33A(2) and (3) to the 2014 Act. He is right. That is why I prefaced my comments with remarks about the intent that the offence be for serial offenders and the most egregious rogue landlords. The point of the offence is that there may be very serious situations in which conditions so appalling are discovered that it is judged that an action should be brought, and it is then also discovered that the people in the property do not have the right to be in this country.
It is important to understand, in relation both to the right to rent checks and to the offence, that we seek a firmness of approach and the opportunity for joint working between immigration enforcement and local authorities to tackle the rogue and hardened sector. We judge that that will raise standards within the sector as a whole. It will ensure that property on the rental market is available to British citizens and those with the right to be in this country. Looking at the housing market, the Bill is intended to aid the situation so that British citizens are able to rent available property. The tools and mechanisms under the right to rent and the offence in clause 12 sit alongside joint working by local authorities on inspection, on confronting rogue landlords and on tackling the appalling conditions and standards that some rogue landlords operate under.
The provisions need to be seen in that context. Some of the local authorities in the initial pilot area would point to how the mechanism has aided and assisted their work, through sharing intelligence, for example, so that they are able to confront the rogue sector. One issue is how we raise standards more generally, and we can use this mechanism to do so.
Keir Starmer
The civil regime was put in place a year or so ago. It was then evaluated. Which part of the evaluation does the Minister rely on to make the case that, in addition to a civil approach, criminal sanctions are needed? Where in the evaluation is there anything that says, “This is all very well, but it will not work and we need to go further and have a criminal offence”?
James Brokenshire
It is our judgment on the tools that are necessary for immigrant enforcement. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the debate that we had on illegal working and sanctions, and how the escalation of a civil penalty regime for dealing with negligence was appropriate, but how, when someone has knowledge or reasonable cause to believe, a criminal sanction was appropriate to deal with those ingrained circumstances for those who deliberately turn a blind eye. If he looks at the language in new section 33A(3), it states:
“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”,
so this provision reflects the approach that we have previously taken in the Bill, which has been approved as we have gone through the Bill, on the different escalations. That is the basis upon which we judge that a separate criminal sanction alongside the negligence approaches in the civil scheme would operate. Again, this measure is not an attempt to catch out the unwary, but the element needs to be satisfied in the second condition attached to the offence. That is why I framed my response in the way that I did.
I want to come back to what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said. I want to emphasise the intent behind the measure. I will reflect carefully on the contributions that they have made, because the intent is not to try to catch out and to act in a deliberate way to seek effectively to say, as a consequence of the issuance of the notice, that someone is committing a criminal offence. In fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lady, and to the Committee, I will reflect on what they have said because of the intent that we have in respect of the measure, on which I have just responded. I could say that, as he knows, it is for the CPS to make those sorts of decision, but, in fairness to both Members, I will reflect further on what they have said and my intention and that of the Government as regards whom the measure is aimed at and the manner in which we seek the offence to be advanced. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.
We judge that amendment 72 is unnecessary. An agent who is a co-tenant would fall liable for prosecution only where they are the party that is responsible for any right to rent checks. This is the approach taken in the right to rent scheme and reflects the incidence of sub-letting found in the private rented sector. In such instances, a landlord may not be aware that another occupant has moved into the rented property and it is inappropriate that they should then fall liable for the offence.
The Immigration Act 2014 does provide for instances where an agent is involved: an agent acting on behalf of a landlord as a normal part of their business. In essence, that is where the responsibility has been transferred. In such instances, the landlord and agent should agree in writing where the responsibility for the right to rent checks should lie. There may be instances where a landlord is happy that a tenant may take in another occupant in a sub-letting arrangement. In such circumstances, the landlord and existing tenant should agree where the responsibility for right to rent checks should lie. So we are looking back to the operation of the original Immigration Act 2014 on where responsibility lies and that transfer of responsibility to the agent, as provided in the Act. I think hon. Members can understand the circumstances in which professional agents act on behalf of landlords, and it is understood, as part of the other checks and validation, that the agent should bear such responsibility.
Paul Blomfield
I want to be absolutely clear, because, as the Minister knows, I represent a constituency with a considerable number of students: more than any other Member in the country. I want to be clear on the position that co-tenants might be in, for example. In the ordinary run of things, if someone drops out of a house, the onus is on the co-tenants to find somebody to fill the vacancy. Does the Bill place any liability on co-tenants that might end up with them facing prosecution?
James Brokenshire
If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly and if he is referring to what might be regarded as an agency, we are looking more at the formal agency structure under the Immigration Act 2014 that I have referenced. He will know about the exceptions and provisions regarding halls of residence and the formalised arrangements involving universities and other academic institutions regarding property used for student accommodation. I will take his specific point about students, because my understanding is that that should not be the case. Given that the point about co-tenancy is quite technical and narrow, if I am unable to come back to him—we are running over into the luncheon period—during my response to the debate, I will certainly seek to do so separately.
On amendment 85, the offences do not apply retrospectively. The criminal behaviour for which a landlord may be liable to prosecution would be their behaviour in renting to someone disqualified from renting or their failure to notify the Home Office that someone is disqualified from renting after the point when the offence came into force. A landlord can be prosecuted, however, for renting to someone disqualified from renting when the tenancy agreement was entered into before the offence came into force. The burden would be on the prosecution to prove that a landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that they were renting to a disqualified person. The amendment would serve to put any rogue landlord who could establish that a tenancy started before the offence came into force beyond the reach of prosecution.
I return to my general point about the intent behind the provisions. It is about that element of knowledge involved here, hence the escalated emphasis behind this and what the prosecution would need to prove. Therefore, if an appalling landlord whose properties were in dreadful condition was renting to someone illegally, it would not necessarily be right to say, “Action should not be taken, because that tenancy did not arise in respect of the original right to rent scheme.” I appreciate that there may be differences of opinion on that, but in such an egregious situation where we might say that the tenancy did not arise until after the scheme was rolled out, I am not sure that hon. Members would feel that we were doing the right thing. Indeed, I do not think that we would necessarily be doing the right thing in such circumstances, which is why the offence is framed in the manner that it is. I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman tabled the amendment and sought to ally it firmly to the right to rent scheme, but considering such egregious cases is an important part of the approach and is why we have framed our statements about why this is necessary around repeat offenders and rogue landlords.
We have one minute left before we break for lunch, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Keir Starmer
I was not intending to intervene. I was just manoeuvring in an unusual way.
James Brokenshire
I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman made that comment. I would never have claimed that he was manoeuvring in any particular way but I am grateful for that clarification.
Turning to amendment 87, providing protection from prosecution on the face of the Bill in the circumstances set out by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not needed. Any decision to prosecute will involve careful consideration of all the circumstances, including what action, if any, a landlord has taken following receipt of a notice from the Home Office.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 12, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
‘(6) The agent does not commit an offence under subsection (2) or (4) if the agent is also a resident of the property in subsection (1).”
This amendment aims to ensure that co-tenants (who would normally be described as house sharers), who also act as agent, cannot be held liable for their landlord’s contravention of Section 22 of the Immigration Act 2014.
Amendment 85, in clause 12, page 10, line 25, leave out paragraphs (4) to (6) and insert—
‘(4) Sections 33A to 33C do not apply in relation to a residential tenancy agreement or a renewed agreement entered into before the coming into force of section 12 of the Immigration Act 2014.”
To ensure that none of the criminal offences are committed in respect of tenancies entered into (or, in the case of renewed tenancies, first entered into) before the offences come into force and thus to ensure that there is no retrospective element to these criminal penalties.
Amendment 87, in clause 13, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
‘(6A) A landlord does not commit an offence under s 33A of this Act during the period of 28 days specified in subsection 4.”
To protect a landlord/landlady from prosecution for renting to a person without a right to rent during the period for which they are prohibited from evicting the tenant under subsection 33D(4).
Amendment 88, in clause 13, page 12, line 1, leave out section 33E.
To remove the provision which implies into any residential tenancy agreement that the landlord or landlady may terminate the tenancy if the premises are occupied by an adult who is disqualified from renting because of their immigration status.
Amendment 89, in clause 14, page 13, line 6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
To provide a court with a discretion as to whether or not it orders possession of a dwelling house on the grounds that the Secretary of State has issued a notice confirming that a person does not have a right to rent.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Just before lunch, I was responding to the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and I had reached amendment 88. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised a point about co-tenants, and I said that I would reflect over the luncheon period and see whether I could respond to him. Where a landlord takes on a tenant and accepts rent from them, that landlord takes responsibility for carrying out the checks. That is the fundamental starting point. The tenant is responsible for right to rent checks only if they sub-let, unless they agree otherwise with the landlord. Only where an agent is acting in the course of a business under section 25(2)(a) of the Immigration Act 2014 can an offence arise. That was the point I was trying to elucidate, without the agency provisions in the 2014 Act in front of me.
To take the hon. Gentleman’s example of students, in the circumstances that he outlined they would not be acting as an agent in the course of their business, so the provisions would not apply. The provisions could operate only if there was a formal sub-letting arrangement, which is, I believe, different from the arrangement that he was describing. The luncheon adjournment has enabled me to respond to his question, and I hope that that answer is helpful.
I turn to amendment 88. New section 33E was introduced to provide a means by which a landlord could pursue eviction where a tenancy is not an assured shorthold tenancy—in other words, a common-law tenancy—even if that was not set out in a tenancy agreement by making it an implied term. Removing that would create uncertainty for landlords about when they could terminate the tenancy if they discovered that they were renting to an illegal immigrant. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment would create difficulty and uncertainty for landlords and tenants, and we judge it to be unnecessary.
On amendment 89, the clause makes it clear that action could be taken only after the Home Office served a notice or notices on a landlord. Those will be issued only when the Home Office is clear that the occupiers are illegal immigrants, that they do not have the right to rent and that there is no bar to their leaving the United Kingdom. I suspect that we may have further discussion on clause 14 later on, but for now I will say that in conducting its duties, the Home Office would have to consider its responsibilities in relation to children when determining whether a notice should be issued. It is our judgment, therefore, that the system contains that safeguard and check, but I have no doubt that we will discuss that in more detail when we come on to the provisions concerning the operation of the eviction arrangements, because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister can clear up something that I am a bit curious about. My hon. and learned Friend touched on a local authority’s duties under the Children Act 1989. If a family are evicted, will they be entitled to local authority help under homelessness legislation as well?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady makes her point, and I have no doubt that we will discuss that further when we reach part 5 and clause 34 on support for certain categories of migrants. There are duties around homelessness, and there will be relevant factors such as whether there are barriers to removal and whether someone is co-operating with their removal. If I may, rather than going into the details now—they are relevant; I do not seek to avoid debating them, but I think that they stray more into later issues—I am looking forward to debating the matter when we reach those points.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This intervention is simply to make sure that I understand what the Minister has just said. The Home Office is required to take into account children when it makes any of its decisions, and I understand that. However, does it follow from that that it would not serve a notice on a landlord if there were children in the family? The difficulty that amendment 89 is getting at is that once the landlord has the notice, the eviction process follows, so the only way in which the Home Secretary would be able to consider children would be by not serving a notice on the landlord. Is that what he means?
James Brokenshire
That is what I mean. The point is that children may be involved through the family returns process, and therefore, it may be appropriate in those circumstances to serve the notice, but the Home Secretary, or those who would draw up the notices and consider each individual case, would have to weigh up and carefully consider all those issues. Our overriding responsibility is to take into account the interests of children under other legislation. That is the point I am making. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about the process, but there is that preliminary step and check that the Home Office would have to consider. However, it may be appropriate to serve a notice, for example, as I say, when children are involved in a family return and are viewed in that overall framework.
Many cases will not get to court as the landlord can offer to transfer the tenancy to the remaining legal tenants, or to enter into a new tenancy with them. The measures also contain a discretionary power for the court to transfer the tenancy rather than award possession on the mandatory ground if the judge thinks it is appropriate to do so.
The mandatory ground for possession recognises that the Home Office notice is a clear statement of immigration status; it is not necessary or helpful for a court to enter into its own additional assessment of the reasonableness of making a possession order, which would be the effect of making this a discretionary ground. I look forward, however, to further discussion on the specific eviction provisions when we reach our consideration of the relevant clauses.
I want to take a slight step back to the issue of discrimination, which we touched on before the luncheon period. Sadly, it remains a fact that there is discrimination in this country, in a number of different forms. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central made important points on the manner in which we should seek to confront that and on the fact that it is unacceptable. There is common ground across the Committee on those general points.
The question I posed to the hon. Gentleman—I note that he thought it was not necessarily relevant—was on the logic of where I thought his comments were going. If he says, for example, that a check on the right to work is not acceptable, because of the issues that he was elucidating, he is entitled to hold that view. Equally, I was checking with him whether that was where his logic was taking him. He can obviously speak for himself; I would not wish in any way to impute something or put words into his mouth.
The point I make is that there is a policy objective, as I have indicated, in seeking to ensure that when properties are on the rental market, they should primarily be for people—we would argue that the regulations and process behind right to rent is intended to achieve this—who have the absolute and clear right to be in this country, recognising the shortages of property and the need for prioritisation. Similarly, there are arguments as to how that might either encourage people not to come to this country or to encourage their removal as part of an overall removal framework. So there are different policy objectives in that. The third element is, as I indicated before lunch, how the information that can be garnered through right to rent checks, and collaboration between immigration enforcement and local authorities can have a direct benefit in challenging rogue landlords and raising standards in letting property. We see all those objectives in the concept behind the original right to rent scheme. That is added to with the extra criminal offence in the clause, albeit with the enhanced test that needs to be applied in parallel with and reflecting the points that we discussed previously about illegal working. A suite of mechanisms is in place to raise standards within the property sector, as well as in other sectors.
The sad reality is that discrimination happens in the workplace and when renting a property. Indeed, the Home Office study showed that there was no distinction between the two test areas—the area where the right to rent scheme was in its first phase and the area where the right to rent scheme was not in existence. That for me is what things come down to. Yes, of course we should be confronting discrimination, hence we have specific guidance on the operation of the right to rent scheme to ensure that it is not operated in a discriminatory way. The guidance underlines the sanctions that can be brought against those who are shown to be discriminating. That is right and it is why other legislative measures are in place to underline it.
Given the Home Office study, however, and the blend of evidence—it was not one single thing but a host of elements that led to the comments in the evaluation, whether surveys, mystery shopper exercises, focus groups or direct engagement—our conclusion was that the initial phase of the right to rent scheme had operated effectively and appropriately and that there was no hard evidence that the scheme contributed or added to discrimination. That is our standpoint and the reason why we have made our judgment. I appreciate that I am straying slightly beyond the ambit of the Bill, speaking more to the 2014 Act than to the specifics of the proposed offence that we are debating, but there is some linkage, which is why I thought it appropriate to respond to some of what was said in the initial debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Brokenshire
I have provoked a stream of interventions. I will start on that side and work my way around.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Start at the left and move to the right—
James Brokenshire
I would have said “to the right”, but I did not think it was necessarily appropriate.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister is looking at things very differently from how I see them.
The Minister made a good point about discrimination—it will be harder for landlords, for example, to discriminate, because people will be able to say, “But I have ticked the check list and I have the passport or whatever.” However, it is hard to prove discrimination. If five people are going after one place—it is rarely only five—what would the potential tenants who are discriminated against do? They will not take the landlord to court. They might have evidence in their mind that they have been discriminated against, but what will they do with it? How successful would any case be?
That was not my main point, which is—
The Chair
Order. Interventions have to be shorter than this. Let the Minister deal with the first point, have a breather and then come back to the second one.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady makes some important points about discrimination. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has an important role to play and there are remedies potentially available under the Equalities Act 2010, but I suggest that that is part of a broader debate about how we continue to confront discrimination in all its forms by providing appropriate remedies. That is a slightly different debate from the one that we are having in Committee about right to rent checks and the criminal sanction that we are debating in this group of amendments.
I will move across and take an intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for inviting me to intervene, in response to our earlier discussion. Nobody would dispute that we are at one on seeking to avoid direct or indirect discrimination. We therefore need to take care of the consequences of any legislation we put in place.
I want to test the Minister with my earlier remarks again. Is he really satisfied that the evaluation provides us with sufficient comfort that such discrimination will not take place? The Home Office’s own commentary on the evaluation states that
“the tenants survey… should be read as primarily reflecting the views of the student community, rather than being generalisable to the wider tenant group.”
The Home Office has therefore said that we cannot draw lessons from this about the private rented sector as a whole. The Home Office has also said in relation to mystery shopping that
“statistical significance testing was not conducted on the data due to the relatively modest number of individual mystery shops completed at a sub-group level.”
It goes on to say:
“Small sample sizes inhibit the ability to draw robust conclusions”.
Does the Minister accept that there is cause for reflection about whether this provision gives us sufficiently robust assurance that there will not be discriminatory impacts?
James Brokenshire
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the tenant surveys, if we had simply done online surveys, there might be an issue, but there were also 10 separate focus groups that involved landlords, letting agents and tenants. If we were trying to base this on a single source of evidence, he might view it in that way, but the evaluation was based on multiple sources of evidence.
As the analysis highlights, there were multiple research methods, including online surveys, interviews and focus groups, as well as mystery shoppers and other steps. The evaluation did not find evidence of discrimination as a result of the scheme. Because multiple methods were used and in view of the results of the findings, the evaluation does not give me pause for thought. Rather, it indicates to me that the first phase of the scheme has produced the results that we hoped for and expected, and that we can move on to national roll-out.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I want to explore this a little. Does the Minister not accept the evidence that we heard from David Smith of the Residential Landlords Association? He said that landlords would become risk averse and that, as a result, we would see discrimination against people whom landlords perceive as non-British? Often, there will not be evidence of discrimination, because it is far more subtle than that. People who are discriminated against often do not come forward to say so, and landlords themselves are not going to say, “Yes, we’re being risk averse. We’re discriminating.” Is it worth the risk of introducing this part of the legislation, or is it better not to introduce it at all?
James Brokenshire
In fairness to the hon. Lady, she focuses on an important point that reflects a comment made on Second Reading by the Scottish National party Member—unfortunately, I cannot remember her constituency name off the top of my head.
James Brokenshire
Glasgow North East—how could I forget? The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said that because of her name, property not might be rented to her. A similar point is now being adduced by the hon. Member for South Shields. The point is that, sadly, discrimination would happen anyway if the landlord was not minded to rent for that reason. It is nothing to do with the scheme itself, which is simply about identifying individuals. If we are talking about a name, a racist and discriminatory landlord would, sadly, act that way anyway. That is my point. We have the right to work check and we wish to extend the right to rent check. But I think the hon. Member for Glasgow North East had another point to make.
Anne McLaughlin
The point I wanted to make has been made, but possibly has not been understood by the Minister. Yes, there are people who will discriminate anyway, but the Residential Landlords Association has said that its members were fearful that they would be forced, for fear of committing a criminal offence, to go the other way and behave in what they called a racist way. There are people who already behave in that way; we are referring to people who do not want to do so, but who say that fear of the law or not understanding what is required under the law will make them behave in that way.
James Brokenshire
That is why the offence is framed as it is. It is not about negligence but about conscious or deliberate turning of a blind eye. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it is not set at that lower level.
Keir Starmer
I want to press the Minister on the point about assurance raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. The Minister pointed to the focus groups, but we heard evidence from Richard Lambert, the chief executive of the National Landlords Association, who has huge experience in the field. He said:
“We would have said, ideally, a year to 18 months because most tenancies last more than six months. In order to understand how this process works, you have to give it that length of time so you can see tenancies coming to an end, and limited right to remain coming to an end and you can see how that renews. It also took place at what is probably the slowest time of the year so, inevitably, there were not going to be a lot of tenancies turning over.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 63, Q139.]
He went on to mention the point about university students. He was saying that if we want to evaluate the policy we have to do so over a longer period. He absolutely knows what he is talking about. What does the Minister have to say to Richard Lambert, and how comforted is he by the evaluation, with the deficiencies that we say we have identified?
James Brokenshire
I do not accept the point about deficiencies. The evaluation speaks for itself. The evaluation’s overall framing—the terms and the different natures of the multiple methods that we used—was constructed alongside the landlords panel, which has representatives from a number of landlord groups, from charities and voluntary sector organisations, and from the university sector. I recall discussions with all those groups, taking them through the way in which the evaluation was constructed. That construction led to the results we have before us. It reflected points made to us. The evaluation was not deliberately constructed so as to find a favourable response—the rigour of Home Office science would have ensured that that was not the case. That is how I would respond. We judged that there should be a six-month period. We had the input of various different groups to assist us in framing the evaluation’s terms and the manner of its conducting. In my judgment, the evaluation can be relied on so we have decided to extend the right to rent scheme further beyond its first phase.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his generosity in taking a number of interventions. This is an important issue that we need to bottom out. I accept his last point about the evaluation. We may have a slightly different view on it, but he feels that we could rely on the conclusions of the evaluation. May I, then, draw attention to the comments on page 24 of the evaluation, which does accept the risk of discrimination? He referred earlier to focus groups, and that risk was identified in those groups. The document refers to
“attitudes towards potential tenants with time-limited leave”
to remain,
“with one apparent instance of a tenancy being refused for this reason”.
It also refers to
“a preference for tenants whose right to rent was seen as easy to check”
and
“a preference for ‘lower risk’ tenants…for whom landlords felt they did not need to carry out a Right to Rent check.”
Those references are from the Minister’s own evaluation, pointing to precisely the risks that we are identifying, so if he is relying on his evaluation, is not the conclusion that the provisions of the legislation will lead to discrimination? That is what the Home Office evaluation says.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman points to a single comment. I say to him that that underlines to me the further need, as we implement further, to underline the guidance that is there and the different steps that were taken. Equally, I point him to the mystery shopper work, and not just the numbers, because it was a blend of the quantitative and the qualitative. There are two elements to this. That is why, when we look at this in the round, the steps that were taken and the multiple different approaches that were taken in the evaluation were right and important.
On the mystery shopper work, what is interesting is that it says, importantly, that none of the BME mystery shoppers felt discriminated against as a potential renter in the 166 paired encounters that took place during the research project. BME mystery shoppers received a more positive reception to their rental inquiries from agents and landlords than their white counterparts across both phase 1 and comparator locations. BME shoppers were in fact more likely to be offered a property viewing in the phase 1 locations.
It is the mixture of the different evidence that leads to the conclusions set out in the evaluation. But do there remain issues about discrimination? Yes, and I have already said that. That is as relevant in one area as it is in another, sadly, and we need to continue to confront it. I suspect that I have strayed, Mr Bone, into some of the later debates. I know that there is a debate coming up on an amendment that the Opposition tabled. We may have got into a lot of the detail of that debate already, but it underlines to me why our judgment is that we should proceed—why this criminal offence is appropriate.
In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
Before we hear from Mr Starmer, I just point out that the interventions are quite long. I know that this is a difficult Bill and sometimes they have to be long. I will be understanding on that, but we are on occasion straying slightly wide of what we should be debating, so I hope that, as we move through the Bill, we will be a bit more concise. The courtesy shown by the Minister to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East was very kind, because I can remember an occasion when he was sitting there many years ago and was called the hon. Member for “Brockenshire”.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure how to follow that, so I will not even try.
I will respond reasonably swiftly, because there has been much discussion on the various amendments. I can take amendments 71 and 87 together. As I said, they would provide a defence to landlords who are otherwise automatically criminalised. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the points that have been made, but understandably there is a very strong feeling about this issue in the landlord community. Although this is to foreshadow a debate that we will have, if Government amendments 12 and 18 are passed, that will only increase the anxiety of landlords. For that reason, I will press for a vote on amendments 71 and 87.
On amendment 72, the Minister gave some assurance about how the scheme would work and kindly over lunch provided further assurances about agencies. In those circumstances, I will not press that amendment to a vote. The same goes for amendments 85 and 88, which I will not press to a vote.
The Minister has given some assurance on amendment 89 about the way the Home Office makes decisions when deciding whether to serve a notice on a landlord, but without the amendment there would not be the check that would otherwise come from the court exercising discretion. The degree of assurance that has been given is not enough, in our view. We will want to press amendments, 71, 87 and 89 to a vote.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Charlie Elphicke)
Is there not a vote?
The Chair
No, there are no more votes yet, because we have not reached the amendments. To explain to new Members—and apparently to some older ones: we discuss amendments grouped together when relevant, but we can vote on them only when we reach them in our consideration of the Bill.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 12, page 10, line 26, leave out “33C (offences: landlords and agents)” and insert “33E (offences and eviction)”
Transitional measures in the Immigration Act 2014 limited the right to rent scheme to tenancy agreements entered into after the right to rent scheme had been commenced. This amendment clarifies that these transitional measures do not apply to sections 33D and 33E inserted by the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13 and 14, and 17 to 21.
James Brokenshire
As always, Mr Bone, I thank you for the clear guidance you give in chairing the Committee.
Amendment 12 would prevent the transitional provisions in the Immigration Act 2014 from applying to the new clauses on evictions and offences. Amendment 18 would make it clear that the measures on landlords obtaining possession of their properties would apply regardless of when the occupancy or tenancy agreement was entered into. Amendments 13 and 14, and 17 to 20, would provide that any reference to a landlord under the Bill would mean any landlord, where there are joint landlords; and amendment 21 is a minor drafting change, the better to reflect the terminology in the Rent Act 1977. I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman may want to make some comments.
Keir Starmer
In relation to amendment 12, the Minister has no doubt seen the letter written to him by the Residential Landlords Association on 23 October, which says:
“The effect of amendment 12 will be that all existing tenancies in the private rented sector will now be covered.”
It then spells out what it sees to be the consequences of that:
“The threat of substantial fines or potential imprisonment will cause a great deal of concern for all law-abiding landlords who constitute the vast majority. They will want to be completely certain that those residing in their rental properties are legally entitled to do so. The only way of doing this, and to avoid accusations of discrimination, will be to check the documentation of all their tenants, whether they are UK nationals or not.”
The Residential Landlords Association is concerned that the likely response to the provision is that all law-abiding landlords will want to carry out checks for themselves on date X, when it comes into force. It then spells out the implications of that. First, the provision will place a huge burden on landlords—particularly those with multiple properties, who will have to contact each and every tenant to carry out the check. Secondly, it is concerned that
“the structures in place to provide support to landlords, unless properly resourced, will not cope.”
It references a response to a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It says that the Minister
“indicated that there are just 2 full time equivalent members of staff handling incoming calls to the landlord helpline.”
It then points out the potential for chaos. It cites the 2011 census figures, which show that
“16.5% of tenants in private rented housing do not hold any passport”.
The Residential Landlords Association’s big concern is that if amendment 12 is agreed to, many, if not the vast majority, of landlords will want to carry out checks on the day that the provision comes into force. That is a huge national exercise, way beyond anything that happened in the pilot or anything that would constitute the exercise if only future tenancies were included.
The Residential Landlords Association raises the concern that the provision will lead to some unjustified convictions where documentation is not easily to hand. As it says, 16.5% of those in the rented sector do not have passports. It also points out that many landlords, having done the checks, will feel compelled to report to the Home Office anybody they feel is of concern to them, which could be many thousands of individuals. It asks for two things—first, a simple, readily identifiable document that it can use; and, secondly, for the Government to outline what plans they have to increase the resources available.
There are very big concerns in the relevant sector about how the provision will work. There is a trigger date and, if the Residential Landlords Association’s analysis is right, landlords will not feel comfortable sitting back and waiting until each tenancy comes to an end. They will feel compelled to carry out the necessary checks. As it also points out, if a landlord is served with notice by the Secretary of State in relation to an existing tenant—a tenant whom they were not required to check on at the outset, which knocks out one of the points made in an intervention this morning—they become criminal from that date onwards, notwithstanding the fact that when they took on the tenant they were not required to carry out a check, and until they got the notice from the Secretary of State they would not have known that there was anything wrong with the tenant’s status. If ever there was a glaring example of why the vote on the defence that has just been taken was wrong, this is it. A landlord who has had a tenant for many years and was not obliged to carry out a check, can potentially receive a notice from the Secretary of State, which will be the first the landlord knows that there is anything wrong with the tenant’s status, and immediately become a criminal, with no defence.
The Residential Landlords Association has raised serious concerns that require, at the very least, a high level of reassurance. How does the Minister see things operating in practice? Is he saying to law-abiding landlords that they should sit back and not bother checking? Is the message that, notwithstanding the provisions, they are perfectly entitled not to check? That would give them a level of reassurance. If they feel that they ought to check, will there be adequate resources to enable them to do so properly? They are deeply concerned. Does the Minister see any merit in their concern that once they are notified by the Secretary of State they become criminals? On the face of it, that would be unjust and unfair.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I want to make an extremely short point in support of the clause. There is a strong argument for having new offences to target rogue landlords and agents who deliberately try to exploit others and who, in doing so, reduce the extent of housing stock for those who do have the legal right to be in this country.
Will the Minister help me on a point of detail? On page 6 of the explanatory notes, paragraph 13 states that the intention is
“to target those rogue landlords and agents who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with the right to rent scheme or fail to evict individuals who they know or have reasonable cause to believe are disqualified from renting as a result of their immigration status.”
Will the Minister explain how the nature of a repeated misdemeanour comes through in the Bill? Repeated failure to comply is a strong argument for ensuring that we have adequate legislation to combat such practices.
James Brokenshire
I appreciate the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras raising the concerns of the relevant landlord body. A number of things flow from the provisions. I do not accept that the clause will trigger some form of requirement to check retrospectively. As I highlighted in an earlier contribution, the point is that the offence under what would be new section 33A of the Immigration Act 2014 will be triggered on two conditions: first, that the premises are occupied by an adult who is disqualified; and secondly, that the landlord knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the premises are occupied in such a way.
We come back to the previous debate on the distinction between nuisance and the higher standard that will be applied for the new offence. I do not share the Residential Landlords Association’s view and will certainly respond to it in clear terms. I know that the RLA has consistently voiced concerns about the right to rent check scheme and how this matter might present itself in the west midlands. I welcome the contribution it continues to make through its support and input to our landlord panel, but I must underline that its interpretation of the provisions in the Bill extends them in a way that is not intended.
Keir Starmer
I want to clarify this. I accept that there is no requirement to check—that is not in the Bill and I do not suggest that it is. Is the Minister saying that because landlords would have to have knowledge or reasonable cause to believe, they should not ask any questions? In other words, “Don’t ask. Don’t put yourself in a position to know and you’re perfectly safe.” Is that the message to landlords? They are concerned that they should ask so that they are regularised and within the law. I have already made the point about there being no defence if they are served. Is the Minister saying to landlords, “Sit back. Don’t ask. Don’t find out, and you won’t be caught by the knowledge provision”? That is an odd message to send.
James Brokenshire
I take the hon. and learned Gentleman back to the second condition. If a landlord has reasonable cause to believe, it may trigger that requirement. If, in some way, a landlord has turned a deliberate blind eye, or if they have somehow rented property to someone whom they know or suspect to be in the country illegally, it would potentially trigger the offence under proposed new section 33A(3). The two mechanisms will apply. From an enforcement standpoint, it is right that the legislation is framed in that manner. As he accepted earlier, the legislation will also address those egregious situations in which someone is renting out property in an appalling condition to people who are effectively in the country illegally. In essence, such landlords are exploiting them, which is why the offence should apply in those circumstances. That is the intention behind the clause, and it is why it is right for the offence to be framed in this way.
I will write back to the Residential Landlords Association to underline the sense, purpose and nature of this clause and how it will operate in the manner highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. The right to rent scheme has come in, and there have been serial breaches, which in many ways reflects our earlier debate on the closure notices and on rooting out rogue landlords in some of these serious and egregious cases. The Residential Landlords Association shares that intention, and I will respond to it in that fashion.
Keir Starmer
The Minister’s approach is based on the premise that, historically, landlords would have checked, whereas in truth they did not. I can understand the situation, because there have always been checks. A landlord may have been sailing close to the wind or never have been the sort of landlord to be trapped by this or any other scheme, but their concern is surely that they have never had to go through this process before. They have never asked these questions, so they do not know one way or the other. Is the answer to them, “Stay ignorant and you are safe”?
James Brokenshire
I come back to the two points that I have already raised with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no requirement to carry out additional checks. This is an offence that will have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt in the normal way and satisfy the two conditions. I have highlighted the test that needs to be satisfied on the second condition. That is the standpoint from which I take it, and it is how we continue to judge that this is an appropriate mechanism to combat the rogue issues that I have highlighted.
I spoke about the notice triggering process in our previous debate and in response to other hon. Members. I will reflect on what has been said in this debate and in the previous debate, but I draw parallels with the provisions on illegal working. An employer will potentially be committing an offence once they are fixed with knowledge about their employee’s immigration status, but obviously they can remedy the situation, so there are parallels to be drawn with that regime. I have told hon. Members that I will reflect on those comments, and I will do so.
Paul Blomfield
I am struck by the Minister’s difficulty in answering my hon. and learned Friend’s question, which illustrates the potential grey area for landlords. Given that we are now creating an offence for which landlords could be imprisoned, will he outline in some detail what guidance he intends to give them to ensure that they respond sensibly and appropriately?
James Brokenshire
I will certainly respond to the Residential Landlords Association on the points that it raised. As I indicated, the intent and purpose behind the clause is that the offence is targeted, as the explanatory notes say, against those who are committing serial breaches of the right to rent scheme as well as at some of the egregious cases that I highlighted. Landlords conduct some checks; they might not be focused specifically on a tenant’s rights to be in the country or who they are renting their property to. Many use agents to conduct credit and other checks.
There is a sense that landlords in the rented sector will be vigilant. They have been or will be doing those general checks. The offence is only if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that someone in their rented property does not have the right to be in the country. We are setting a relatively high bar. We will give that clarity to the Residential Landlords Association and more generally to underline that that is the test that is being applied. I hope that, with those comments, the Committee will accept the Government amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 12, page 11, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Before implementing measures under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the likely impact of the measures and lay it before each House of Parliament.
(4) A report under subsection (3) must include:
(a) The likely impact of measures contained within this Section on individuals who have a protected characteristic as defined in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
(b) The likely impact of measures contained within this Section on British Citizens who do not hold a Passport or UK Driving Licence.”
This amendment would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before Parliament on the likely impact of Clause 12 on (a) minority groups and (b) British citizens without passports or driving licences before the provisions came into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 86, in clause 13, page 11, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) confirm that no occupier of the premises is under 18 years of age.”
To provide protection to families with children from summary eviction under these provisions.
Amendment 70, in clause 54, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 12 shall not come into force before 1 January 2018.”
This amendment would defer the implementation of Clause 12 until January 2018.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Bone. With your permission, I will take amendments 73 and 86 together. I think amendment 70 is in the name of the Minister. I can deal with these quickly. Amendment 73 is intended to require the Home Secretary to lay a report before Parliament on the likely impact of clause 12 on minority groups and British citizens without passports or driving licences before the provisions come into force. The amendment was tabled because of our analysis of the paucity of the evaluation and the sustained concerns about indirect discrimination.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but the amendment paper that I have says that amendment 70 is in Keir Starmer’s name.
Keir Starmer
My apologies. I was searching for it last night, and now I have found it. I gratefully adopt it, and put it back in its rightful place. Thank you, Mr Bone. I will master these procedures, if nothing else.
To a large extent, we have had the debate on why we say amendment 73 is necessary. It is an impact assessment premised, we say, on the lack of an evaluation that can give the right degree of assurance and satisfaction in relation to indirect discrimination. Amendment 86 is intended to safeguard children’s rights. It is an amendment to clause 13, which we will debate in greater detail, so I will not devote a great deal of time to it now.
The concern about clause 13 is that the process, once it starts, is that the Secretary of State serves notice on a landlord, and the landlord may terminate a tenancy when in receipt of a notice; that notice is then treated as notice to quit, and is enforceable as if it were an order of the High Court. We will debate that in some detail because it is an interesting innovation. The amendment is a limited strike at that measure, because if we are to have such a draconian scheme and children are involved, the process ought to include a safeguard and protection for children—it has almost no safeguards in it. I am sure that we can explore that.
Amendment 70 would defer the start date to 2018 to allow more time to give assurance to landlords and ensure that the scheme can be rolled out in a way that is fair and proportionate and does not lead to discrimination in any shape or form.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I would like to discuss some of the wider issues with regard to clause 12 and the right to rent. I will speak specifically to amendment 86, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and I have signed.
Right to rent as it stands is a dog’s breakfast, the implementation of which has been rushed, without any serious consideration or analysis of the west midlands pilot scheme. Therefore, the extensions of the right to rent provisions in the 2014 Act have no factual or evidential basis. Indeed, the only real evidence that we have suggests that the provisions have already caused discrimination and have not achieved their aims. That is not only my opinion, but that of a wide range of people from across many different groups and sectors. Giving evidence last week, Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, said of the right to rent that,
“there has only been a very modest pilot of that programme in the west midlands. It has not been expanded nationally and here we are, post-general election, with an augmentation of that regime to impose criminal sanctions on landlords and to provide for summary eviction of people who lack a right to rent without protection of the court. We struggle to see what evidence base there is for strengthening a regime that has barely been born.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2015; c. 106, Q223.]
Landlords and agents are united in opposition to being conscripted into a new second tier of immigration agents. The Committee sat for four eye-opening oral evidence sessions, during which parts of the Bill took a verbal battering. Richard Lambert, who has been mentioned, said:
“We have concerns about placing this kind of responsibility on landlords, who are not trained for it”–-[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 54, Q120.]
His colleague from the Residential Landlords Association, David Smith, said in written evidence that,
“given that, for example, landlords would need to be able to recognise the 404 different types of European identity documents that may be possessed by a tenant…which give holders the right to free movement”,
how can landlords possibly
“be expected to know every legitimate document from every country that proves someone’s immigration status, let alone recognise high-quality fraudulent documents, without proper training and support?”
The RLA has also said:
“Whilst the Residential Landlords Association condemns all acts of racism, the threat of sanctions will inevitably lead many landlords to err on the side of caution and not rent to anyone whose nationality cannot be easily proved.”
All in all, that is hardly a ringing endorsement from those charged with implementing this part of the Minister’s new immigration policy.
James Brokenshire
Amendment 70 would defer the implementation of the measures in the Bill for two years and amendment 73 would require that the Government lay before Parliament a report of the likely impacts of the new measures. The Government have published both a policy equality statement and an evaluation of the right to rent scheme. Both are available in the public domain. For the reasons that we have debated previously, we judge that there is no good reason to delay implementation of the new measures.
On amendment 86, the Home Office takes seriously its responsibilities towards children, and the new measures take account of the need to be clear about when it is appropriate to serve notice on landlords in respect of illegal immigrant families. Clause 13 applies where all occupiers of the premises are disqualified as a result of their immigration status from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement. In some circumstances, as with eviction for other reasons under housing legislation, that will mean that children are evicted along with adults in family groups.
The expectation is that persons who are in the United Kingdom without permission should regularise their position or leave. That applies to family groups as it does to individuals, but where families are involved, they will be offered advice and assistance in returning home and the Home Office will seek to engage the family in the family returns process. Families, as with other illegal migrants, will be given clear warnings that a failure to regularise their stay, to return home or to engage and co-operate with attempts to assist them to return may lead to the Home Office contacting the landlord and advising that the family may be evicted.
The measures make it clear that action can only be taken following service by the Home Office on a landlord of a notice or notices in respect of each occupier; those will only be issued when the Home Office is clear that all of the occupiers are illegal migrants and do not have the right to rent, and there is no bar to them leaving the United Kingdom. In serving a notice in respect of a child, the Home Office will have regard to its duty to safeguard and promote the rights of children. I made that point earlier. The measures also ensure that a landlord must provide at least a 28-day notice period, during which arrangements could be made by persons in the country without permission to leave the UK. Given the protections already in place, the amendment is unnecessary.
In response to the latter points made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, I do not accept or recognise a number of the assertions that he made. We remain conscious of the implementation of the right to rent scheme as we extend it out and, indeed, how we can ensure that we give clarity around the documents that might be required, in particular where someone might not have a passport or a driving licence. That is something we remain focused on in the detailed implementation of the scheme. The landlord panel is indeed actively assisting us with that.
Keir Starmer
I ask that we vote on the three amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
To be helpful to the shadow Minister, amendment 86 will be voted on in clause 13 and amendment 70 some way later on in our consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Charlie Elphicke.)
Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 57, page 53, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) The report must inform Parliament on progress made in improving the reach and quality of education about new psychoactive substances.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to include a section on progress in NPS education in their statutory review.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—New Psychoactive Substances—Prevention and Education—
‘(1) In section 84(3) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the first, second and third key stages), after paragraph (g) there is inserted—
“(ga) personal, social and health education.”
(2) In section 85(4) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
(d) personal, social and health education.”
(3) In section 74(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which (when brought into force) will substitute a new section 85 in the Education Act 2002, in subsection (4) of that substituted section (foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
(d) personal, social and health education.”
(4) Before section 86 of the Education Act 2002 there is inserted—
“85B Personal, social and health education
(1) For the purposes of this Part, personal, social and health education (“PSHE”) must include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) education about alcohol and tobacco; illegal recreational drugs and new psychoactive substances;
(b) education about emotional health and well-being and how this can be impacted by psychoactive substances;
(c) education about individual safety, including risk taking behaviour.
(2) The National Curriculum for England is not required to specify attainment targets or assessment arrangements for PSHE (and section 84(1) has effect accordingly).
(3) The Secretary of State for Education shall set out guidance to schools and colleges to ensure that a coherent approach to personal, social, health and economic education is developed, including between primary and secondary schools.
(4) It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of any school in which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part to secure that guidance issued under subsection (3) is followed and principles set out in subsections (5) to (6) are complied with.
(5) The first principle is that information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced.
(6) The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that—
(a) is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds, and also
(b) reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives.
(7) The third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that—
(a) endeavours to promote equality,
(b) encourages acceptance of diversity, and
(c) emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
(8) In the exercise of their functions under this Part so far as relating to PSHE, a local authority, governing body or head teacher shall have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.”’
This would amend the Education Act to make PHSE, with drugs education including on New Psychoactive Substances, a foundation subject in the national curriculum.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
If you say no to anything now, Sir David will have to stand up again.
Lyn Brown
We are keeping our powder dry.
On Second Reading, I made it clear that the blanket ban created by the Bill would only partially tackle the problem of new psychoactive substances. The measures in the Bill are an appropriate way to disrupt supply, but if we really want to protect public health, we must also work to reduce the demand for those dangerous drugs. I firmly believe that that requires a comprehensive drugs education and awareness strategy, which is why I have tabled amendment 57 and new clause 4. Amendment 57 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the quality and reach of new psychoactive substances education in its statutory report. New clause 4 would amend the Education Act 2002 to make drugs education, including a focus on NPS, part of the personal, social, health and economic education foundation subject in the national curriculum.
I will start by speaking about new clause 4 and comprehensive drug education in our schools. In 2010, the coalition Government launched a new drug strategy, which contained some really sensible approaches to reducing demand for drugs. The Government stated that they wanted to
“provide good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information to actively resist substance misuse”
and to
“intervene early with young people and young adults”.
A preventive and proactive education policy based on information and resilience training is exactly the sort of approach that the Government ought to be taking.
As we know, however, actions speak louder than words. The Government reversed Labour’s plans to make PSHE a statutory requirement, even though that was recommended by the Macdonald review. They also closed the Drug Education Forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in England that disseminated research on drugs and drugs education to teachers across the country, as part of a drastic 80% cut in drugs education spending. Figures from the Department of Health show that drugs education spending was reduced from £3.9 million in 2009-10 to £500,000 in 2010-2011. The Department for Education revealed that there was a 22% cut in spending on drug and alcohol services for young people between 2011 and 2014.
Statistics provided by Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, show how disastrous those decisions were. Only 15% of schools teach drugs and alcohol education for one hour or more a term, and 59% of young people say that they cannot even remember having a drugs education lesson in the last year. Media reports on the impact of cuts to drugs education included a 2011 survey of staff at 79 local education authorities. More than a quarter of the staff reported that there had been no specialist drugs education support in the past three months. Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Mentor, told The Guardian:
“We are probably in the worst situation for drug education for decades”.
It would appear that where there is drugs education in our schools, sadly it is often of poor quality, incomplete or totally irrelevant.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
In my constituency, education on these substances is mainly taken up by the local high sheriff, who has had an excellent campaign to produce leaflets and posters, and to go into most secondary schools. The local police also have an excellent project, called “Weird Science”, and Sands Cymru offers training to teachers and parents within the local authority. However, this work should be included in a curriculum, rather than it being left to other bodies to take up the slack. It is vital that other organisations get involved in this work, but the education really needs to be built into the ban, so that schools are forced to act. The word “legal” is misleading for young people and that needs to be emphasised very strongly at the education level.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Wales, which I will discuss next, some really excellent work is taking place and we might learn from it; it would be good if we did.
In 2012, Ofsted concluded that,
“the quality of PSHE education is not yet good enough in a sizeable proportion of schools in England. These deficiencies in learning result in part from inadequacies in subject-specific training and support for PSHE education teachers, particularly in the teaching of sensitive and controversial issues.”
And those are issues such as drugs.
Ofsted also found that in 60% of schools PSHE training was not good enough and certainly needed to improve, and the evidence from the Government’s own inspectors suggests that the Government’s approach to PSHE just is not working. And all this is happening while the presence of NPS has begun to grow in our communities.
Figures from Wales show us just what is possible with a different approach. The Labour Administration in Wales has put drugs education at the forefront of its drugs prevention policy, and there is now a core substance misuse education programme in 97% of Welsh primary and secondary schools, ensuring that almost all Welsh children receive accurate, consistent and credible information about the potential harms of drugs, rather than having to rely on myths, part-information and basic guesswork.
That degree of comprehensive drugs education is possible in England but it is not happening at the moment, and I suggest that that is because of a lack of political leadership. That lack of political will is all the more unjustifiable given that parents want these sorts of issues discussed in schools. For example, a survey by Parentline Plus found that 97% of parents believe that drug and alcohol education should be delivered in schools.
There are signs that the comprehensive approach to drug awareness in Wales is working. The school programme is complemented by the Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances project, an NPS-specific information and harm reduction programme, as well as measures designed to help to educate parents. These are all part of a £50 million investment in reducing drug harms, which has coincided with a rapid reduction in drug deaths in Wales; they are down by 30% since 2010. By contrast, drug-related deaths have been creeping up here in England; there was a 17% increase in the last year and the Office for National Statistics says that drug deaths are now at the highest level since records began in 1993. And according to the national records of Scotland, drug-related deaths in Scotland went up by 16% and are also at a record high.
Mike Penning
I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of these worrying figures. Although this is not the whole answer, when we look at the figures, we see that we had an epidemic of heroin addicts of a certain generation, and that certain generation is coming to a certain age. If we look carefully—I am doing some analysis as chair of the interministerial group on drugs—we see that it seems that the increase has come from within that age profile. There was an increase in deaths, but that was particularly among a group that had no treatment at all. A lot more research is needed—I know that it is being done across the devolved Administrations—but we must look carefully at the figures to find out the reasons, instead of just taking a block figure, although I know the hon. Lady too well to think that she would do that. There are reasons for the increase, and we need to get to the bottom of them, but clearly part of that was the heroin epidemic of the 1980s.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful for that intervention, but we are considering this Bill because the number of NPS-related drugs deaths has been rising. I am desperately looking for the figure in Hansard, but I think it is three hundred and something in a year. Those are the deaths of people’s loved ones and children, many of whom would have been young people who had no idea that they were taking something harmful. I am thinking about preventing those deaths, as there will be empty seats at tables at Christmas time.
Mike Penning
I emphasise that that is absolutely why we are here. Those big figures for deaths will include people affected by the heroin epidemic that I mentioned as well as the people whom we are trying to save through the Bill. I said on Second Reading that the Bill is not a silver bullet, and we must work with other Departments to get out information, health provisions and treatment plans.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I apologise for being late to the Committee. You will appreciate the reason, Sir David, as I think you share my interest in the Westminster dog of the year competition.
The Minister has mentioned the statistics, and we are moving on from the situation when people were using opiates—such people are older or, sadly, dying. However, the challenge that came out of a visit to a drugs clinic by the Home Affairs Committee was for treatment to go beyond the old substitute-based system towards a more holistic approach that is focused on the addict rather than just the substance. The challenge of NPS for specialist drug treatments, not just in hotspots but generally, relates to grappling with a new drug.
Lyn Brown
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need a holistic approach and education must be a part of that. We therefore need what the Welsh Government have: a 10-year plan. Theirs culminates in 2018. I know that it is too early for us to draw conclusions about what its outcomes will be, but the early signs are good, especially with regard to reducing drug harms. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not just received a note from his Whip suggesting he should shut up, because I have enjoyed his interventions in Committee. I have passed those notes, so I know that that happens.
Lyn Brown
I would do it much more subtly, but the Government Whip is new.
We should be in no doubt that the evidence suggests that a comprehensive and universal approach to education is the right one, provided that the delivery is right. Recent meta-analysis of the academic literature by Wolfgang Götz and Professor Heidrun Thaiss from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction concludes that universal drugs education works so long as it is not simply about providing information. They state that provision of information is not recommended as a stand-alone measure.
Carolyn Harris
The Angelus Foundation has done good work on the issue and recommended to the Welsh Assembly Government that an hour a term is the minimum standard for drugs education. It also argues for a return to the “Talk to Frank” campaign, which I am strongly in favour of, along with some kind of media campaign.
We talk about good practice in Wales, and I am extremely proud of the work that has been done there, but my local accident and emergency department has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of young people whom you would not necessarily imagine becoming involved in drugs culture experimenting with NPS. In 2011, five young people presented at the only local A&E in my constituency, whereas between April and August this year, 76 young people presented. We need a wider education campaign.
Lyn Brown
I totally and utterly agree.
It is clear that there is no evidence that increased knowledge leads to reduced drug use. The EMCDDA came to that conclusion in its 2006 report. Frankly, too much of the drugs education in our schools is focused on providing information. The Department for Education’s review of PHSE found that students find drug education “boring” because what they did in PHSE too closely mirrored what they learned in science lessons. The review found that staff thought that the issue should be addressed from a different direction in PHSE. That point was made to the Home Affairs Committee during its review of UK drug policy in 2012. Paul Tuohy of Mentor, which is a strong advocate of good-quality drug education, stated starkly:
“We are spending the vast majority of the money we do spend on drug education on programmes that don’t work”.
The Home Affairs Committee asked a number of local authorities to survey secondary schools in their area to ask whether they used the life skills programmes it learned about while gathering evidence for its report. None said that they used any of the programmes.
A narrow focus on providing information to students is likely to be holding us back. Evidence suggests that to get drugs education right, information has to be taught alongside a focus on the life skills that empower young people to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions. When young people go into a head shop and see these lovely coloured sachets, it will be good for them to know that they contain illegal substances that are not safe—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position—
Mike Penning
I apologise for chuntering. Of course, the head shops will not be there. I accept that people may still try to sell these products, but instead of being legal highs, they will be illegal highs. The head shops as such will vanish, as has happened in Ireland.
Lyn Brown
I hope that the Minister is right. I fear that the head shops will transmogrify and change what they do. They will still exist, selling bath salts and other things, and it will be up to us and local authorities to prove that the substances they are selling—ostensibly to go into the bath or to feed fish—are in fact being used for nefarious purposes and are illegal highs. Although I genuinely hope that the Minister is right, I fear that these head shops will not necessarily go away. Irrespective, however, drug dealers and pushers are still going to exist, so we need to educate our children and make them resilient to the messages from such people.
Life skills can be taught effectively only by helping children to think about the challenges and dangers that they face, including about how drugs are often followed by bullying, debt and exploitation. We need information, values and context to deliver quality drugs education, which is why that education should be part of a comprehensive personal and social education that can be provided only by PHSE. I have voted to make PHSE a statutory requirement—I am sure that I will do so again—because it is an important tool in our fight against psychoactive drugs and those who push them.
As we know—many Members will be parents—every child is different, so universal drugs education must be complemented by specifically tailored messages and support for those who are most vulnerable to the messages of drugs and drug abuse. Universal drugs education makes it easier to identify those who need early intervention. Schools ask children at an early age to draw pictures of what they understand by common drugs terms. That enables educators to know which children are more familiar with substance abuse than one would expect of a child growing up in a safe environment. There is no trade-off between universal and targeted education; they naturally complement each other.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I shall be relatively brief and speak largely about the principles of the provisions—particularly amendment 57. I will not pass any comment on new clause 4, which relates to education in England, given that such matters are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
My one question on amendment 57 would be about how best to accommodate the devolved Administrations of the four nations—how to make sure that the input happens. On Second Reading, I commented on the importance of education. Prevention is far better than any cure that can be come up with—in this context as in many others. We need education processes to ensure that people who consider taking the substances in question have all the information available to them. Whether or not head shops exist, we need such a knowledge base in society.
On 26 September Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, held an event with the Scottish Youth Parliament, with a discussion about the best way to establish a suitable education programme. The Youth Parliament is now preparing a report to Ministers. It is useful, given that we want to target information to young people, to gather younger people’s views about the best way they can equip themselves with that knowledge.
I am confident that the Scottish Government and Education Scotland are already considering how best to equip young people with the knowledge that they need to defend themselves and prevent themselves from coming to harm. The Bill takes account more widely of head shops and illegality of purchase, but we cannot hide from the need to emphasise education, so I support the principles behind amendment 57.
I cannot let the occasion pass without mentioning the welcome fact that only this week the City of Edinburgh Council was the first in Scotland to secure a forfeiture order. Already eight outlets in the city have voluntarily given up supplies of psychoactive substances. We can see that when the processes in question are carried out, head shops are quick to react. I hope that is a marker for the effect that the Bill will have on head shops.
We need to ensure that knowledge is available to young people and more widely in society, so that whether or not there are head shops we can be equipped as well as possible to tackle head-on the supply and use of psychoactive substances.
Mike Penning
One thing that I can say about the hon. Member for West Ham is that when she is passionate, she is passionate—and she is, like all of us, passionate about the subject that we are dealing with. I will discuss the amendment and new clause from the point of view of England, and I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I am particularly pleased about events in Edinburgh. That process has not yet gone all the way, but progress is being made. What has happened proves that action could have been taken before, even before there was legislation, as it was in Belfast and Lincoln, both of which I have visited.
As we have said since day one, legislation is only part of what we need. It is not a silver bullet. We need to educate young people, but also others, including, perhaps, much older people who have used illegal drugs such as cocaine and moved on to synthetic cocaine. We need to give those people help.
Addiction to NPS is a difficult area, where much of the third sector and health service have been trying desperately to catch up, not least because the drugs change so fast. We may ban one, and another will arrive that is almost exactly the same but with its own problems.
The shadow Minister alluded to the £180,000 and how many people that money might employ, but it was a specifically targeted communications campaign that was part of £341 million that was spent overall on drugs prevention, including early intervention, family support and schools work. I am not saying that that is enough, or that it is not enough, but at the end of the day we are in a difficult financial situation.
Since I have had the responsibility, I have been pulling together the other Departments and working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have the best possible picture out there as we bring the legislation forward. That includes working bilaterally next week with the Schools Minister on this specific subject and my chairing of the inter-ministerial group yesterday, where Health, the Cabinet Office and Justice were all represented and saying, “We’re doing this,” and I now need to pull that together.
There are a lot of campaigns, and probably the best thing for me to do is to write to members of the Committee with the full list of work that we are doing as we develop it. There is a resource pack for front-line professionals. We had a campaign over the summer where Ministers wrote to the 50 largest music festivals. Public Health England has launched its online campaign for building resilience. Mentor is still massively part of things, and I pay tribute to it and the Angelus Foundation. Among many others, Angelus is clearly one of the leading charities.
I put my hands up: “Talk to Frank” is not perfect. We will work with everybody to try to ensure that “Talk to Frank” improves. The hon. Lady is right that the way in which it is feeding information is perhaps not as open or as direct as possible. Let us sort that now. That is not about money; it is just bad communication and we need to ensure that that is put right. That is vital as we develop the communications strategy with other Ministers.
The Department for Education is already committed to reporting to the Education Committee, and it must do so by the end of this year. That commitment is already sitting there. On amendment 57, we deliberately put in the review and made it as open as possible. That will ensure that when the review takes place, we will gather as much information as possible, because we need to get things right. If we are getting things wrong at review time, we can sort that. If we need to tweak things in the run-up, that is fine. The legislation specifically allows those powers to move things around.
I am not going to make the hon. Lady’s day today by supporting her new clause and amendment.
Mr Burrowes
Although the Minister will not make the hon. Lady’s day, may I just press him on resource allocation? Plainly, a whole lot of resource and attention is going on the Bill’s implementation and on proving psychoactivity in the lab and getting the right test in place with the ACMD and all the scientists. Is that same attention also being seen within the education sphere to ensure that prevention is up to speed, as well as the proveability?
Mike Penning
That is exactly what is No. 1 on the agenda with the Schools Minister next week. We need to share information. As the scientists and the ACMD develop the knowledge base, we need to share that knowledge base. It is not something we want to hold in, and that is why we have made the review as open as possible. If we do not share that knowledge, we will have people out there trying generally to help people, but probably not sending the message out and doing the work that needs to be done.
If I not only write to everyone on the Committee but develop extensively what we are going to do based on what I have said today—admittedly, most of this particular area is devolved—I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. If I update everyone as we develop that, she can see what we are doing as we move forward and we can give her as much help as possible, as we have all the way through the Bill. However, if she does press the proposals to a vote, I will sadly oppose both the new clause and the amendment.
Lyn Brown
I really am grateful to the Minister for outlining what is going on. It is clear that some activity is happening. Bilaterals with the Schools Minister and action across all Departments are to be welcomed. I also welcome the Minister’s suggestion that he write to us about all the education programmes that are happening, about to happen, or being considered. I am sure that would be really useful to us all.
However, given that the Education Committee will receive a report on the education about these substances and the issues involved in reducing demand for them, it would not be a huge step to include that report within the review and to accept amendment 57. In fact, amendment 57 is very gentle. It is not really asking for very much more than that Parliament be kept informed of the way forward regarding our reducing the demand for these drugs. If the Education Committee can be kept informed, I cannot see why Parliament cannot be.
I ask the Minister to think again and consider accepting amendment 57 if he cannot go all the way and accept new clause 4, although it would also be a great pity if he cannot accept new clause 4. I am sure that the Department for Education would actually thank him for accepting new clause 4, which would alter its curriculum, because the DFE possibly needs a bit of a jolt, and the impact of new clause 4 on PSHE would be to give it an amazing boost to its arm.
The Minister does not look as if he is rising right now to assure me that he will accept new clause 4, so I ask him to spend the weekend and maybe next week—I know he will not have an awful lot on now that consideration of this Bill is coming to a close—thinking about amendment 57 and new clause 4, and perhaps on Report he will make my day. Then I can buy that bottle of champagne for us all to share.
Lyn Brown
Guinness is not a problem.
I will probably come back to this issue on Report, but today I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Interpretation
Amendment made: 38, in clause 58, page 36, line 23, after “Court” insert
“, other than the reference in section 30(1) in relation to a prohibition order made under section 18,”—(Mike Penning.)
This amendment disapplies the transitional provision in clause 58(5) in relation to appeals under clause 30(1) about variation and discharge in relation to prohibition orders made under clause 18.
Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Consequential Amendments
Amendment proposed: 39, in schedule 4, page 48, line 16, at end insert—
“Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985
(1) The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 is repealed.
(2) In consequence of the repeal made by sub-paragraph (1), in Schedules 3 and 6 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, omit the entry relating to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.”—(Mike Penning.)
This amendment repeals the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.
Lyn Brown
I will be brief. The amendment repeals the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, which bans the sale of solvents to children if there is reason to believe the substances will be misused.
The Government have explained that they are repealing the 1985 Act because they think it is good legal practice not to have “overlapping criminal offences” covered in separate legislation; I understand that. They say that the offences under the 1985 Act are all covered by this Bill, so the 1985 Act is redundant. I agree with the principle of not having overlapping criminal offences, but I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see this amendment.
The Government’s belief that selling solvents to children is covered by this Bill implies that, in certain circumstances, selling solvents to adults will now be considered a crime. Is that the case? If it is, presumably shopkeepers would need to know that selling solvents to adults is “reckless” and that the solvent will be consumed for a psychoactive effect. That seems to be a bit of a stretch when it comes to adults. Many of us would purchase such solvents for legitimate purposes and I do not understand how a shopkeeper could understand that I was taking the solvent away to sniff, if I may put it in such crude terms, because sniffing is obviously something I know about, being of that age—not that I did it. Let me be very clear about that.
Lyn Brown
This is my era; I kind of get it.
Even if the issue with selling solvents to adults is resolved, the issue of sentencing remains. The 1985 Act does not provide for sentences longer than six months; as we know, the maximum tariff in the Bill is seven years. Selling to a child is an aggravated offence, so is more likely to lead to harsher penalties. There is an enormous gulf in the sentences provided for in the two pieces of legislation. I wonder whether it is sensible for the Bill to try to control the specific offence of selling solvents to children.
Are we confident that solvents are captured by the definition of psychoactive substances? We do not want to repeal the 1985 Act if it in any way weakens the law. Are we satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the 1985 Act’s provisions on sales to under-18s to everyone? If it is, why has it not been done already? I can imagine there might be unintended consequences. My anxiety is over how, when I walk in tomorrow and buy a solvent, my local newsagent is going to know whether I am going to use it for sniffing. One would assume that someone of my age was not, but that is not necessarily the case.
The change seems to be a significant one to make in an amendment: there is a significant extension of the punishment. Does the Minister think that is justified? There have been very few recent prosecutions under the 1985 Act for the sale of solvents to children. I do not know why the Government expect to enforce the offence more with this Bill than it has been enforced under the 1985 Act. I would be grateful for some help from the Minister.
Mike Penning
I can understand the shadow Minister’s concerns—I come from that era as well. The interesting thing is that the existing legislation was targeted at a specific age profile and worked. We keep talking about children, but the Bill is not specifically targeted at them. When the 1985 Act was introduced, the same argument was made about how individual shopkeepers would know, but we have proven that it can work.
Mike Penning
Fortunately, there are now few prosecutions because people know. That is the principle behind the Bill. The maximum penalty will be seven years, but we would expect the job to be done by trading standards in a non-legislative way, so we would not be penalising anyone. I have obviously taken all the legal advice on this matter, and we feel that the change is needed and that this is the right way to do it. I repeat that we are not trying to protect children only; we are also trying to protect adults, some of whom are also very vulnerable.
Lyn Brown
I am still concerned by the issue of sentencing, because the punishment will be extended significantly. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that is justified. Also, there have been so few prosecutions under the 1985 Act. Lastly, I genuinely do not understand how a shopkeeper would know if the Minister or I were walking in to buy our solvent of choice to sniff away tonight in front of the TV. When young children went into a shop to purchase solvents it was often quite obvious that they had in mind some activity other than that for which the solvent was designed, for which they probably would not have had a purpose.
Mike Penning
I do not want to detain the Committee any further, but the change has not come as a particular shock to the British Retail Consortium or the Association of Convenience Stores, because we have been working with them. It is designed not to penalise small shopkeepers, but to ensure that they are confident, and we will work with them as the Bill proceeds. We will have considerable time, even after Royal Assent, but I am already working with the relevant bodies, which represent a significant part of the industry.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution
‘(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person is in possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution,
(b) the person knows or suspects that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and
(c) the person intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects.
(2) In this section “custodial institution” has the same meaning as in section 6.
(3) This section is subject to section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).’.—(Mike Penning.)
This new clause provides for a new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Exceptions to offences
‘(1) It is not an offence under this Act for a person to carry on any activity listed in subsection (3) if, in the circumstances in which it is carried on by that person, the activity is an exempted activity.
(2) In this section “exempted activity” means an activity listed in Schedule (Exempted activities).
(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) producing a psychoactive substance;
(b) supplying such a substance;
(c) offering to supply such a substance;
(d) possessing such a substance with intent to supply it;
(e) importing or exporting such a substance;
(f) possessing such a substance in a custodial institution (within the meaning of section (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Exempted activities) in order to—
(a) add or vary any description of activity;
(b) remove any description of activity added under paragraph (a).
(5) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—(Mike Penning.)
The new clause inserted by this amendment (which will replace clause 10) provides that it is not an offence under clauses 4 to 8, or the offence under the new clause inserted by NC2, for a person to carry on an “exempted activity” listed in the new Schedule inserted by NS1. The new clause also provides a power to add or vary any description of activity specified in the new Schedule.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Breach of a premises notice
‘(1) A senior officer or a local authority may issue a notice requiring a premise to cease trading if conditions A, B and C are met.
(2) Condition A is that the premise has been issued a premises notice under section 13 of this Act.
(3) Condition B is that in the view of the senior officer or a local authority that issued the premises notice, the terms of that notice are not being complied with.
(4) Condition C is that the senior officer or local authority has made an application to an appropriate court for a premises order under section 19 of this Act.
(5) A notice issued to a premise under subsection 1 shall cease to have effect when a court has considered an application for a premises order in respect of that premise.
(6) In a case where a court has decided not to issue a premises order to a premise that has been subject to a notice under this section, the court may order the local authority or the senior officer’s organisation to pay compensation to the owner of the premises in respect of income lost due to the suspension in trading.
(7) For the meaning of “senior officer”, see section 12(7).’.—(Lyn Brown.)
This new clause’s intention is to allow a senior officer or local authority to comply a premises to stop trading while it applies for a premises order.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lyn Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, who has a long-standing interest in the issue. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today, as he is at a funeral, so I am moving the new clause on his behalf. I make it clear that the broad thrust of the Bill is welcome; the new clause is intended to add to, rather than contradict, its provisions.
I want briefly to set out the context in which the new clause sits. My hon. Friend has been campaigning on legal highs for several years following a series of incidents in his constituency involving such drugs. He is, understandably, especially concerned about the drugs’ damaging effects, especially on young people, and the police’s inability to take swift action to deal with the suppliers and distributors of legal highs. He has also been a strong supporter of the successful “Ban Them Now” campaign against legal highs in Cumbria that has been run by the North-West Evening Mail, a fabulous campaigning newspaper that has done a huge amount to raise awareness of the issue in the region.
Lyn Brown
I am not sure that I am going to get any votes there.
The new clause, which is supported by the Local Government Association, is intended to address the potential delay between the point at which the police believe a premises order has been breached and the point at which a court authorises a closure order. During such a delay, there is a worry that a premises may be able to continue to trade prohibited substances without the police being able to take appropriate action. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has found nefarious tactics when that happens, including NPS sales. Pushers may offer offer two-for-one deals, which encourage binging and stockpiling.
Premises that are found to be trading illicit substances can be dealt with under part 4, chapter 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The closure orders contained within the Act do not apply specifically to psychoactive substances—they are more of a catch-all—but they have nevertheless been used to take action against shops that trade in legal highs. Under the existing power, a court is obligated to hear a case for a closure order within 48 hours of the application being made by the police. That is not necessarily a guarantee of no delays, as the police are advised in the legislation to delay applications to court until they believe that the case can be heard within the 48-hour limit. Nevertheless, that limit provides some assurance that cases will be heard swiftly and that the police will be able to act accordingly.
In the absence of a similar provision in the Bill, there is a concern that delays may occur at that point in the process. In fact, the Bill imposes no time limit between a notice and a court order. We know that our courts are facing mounting pressures due to their case loads, which heightens the fear that the provisions in the Bill will cause further delays.
New clause 1 is a modest proposal that would allow senior police or local authority officers to obtain an order to require a premise to cease trading, provided that certain conditions are met. That action would be taken only when a premises order had already been made; when, in the opinion of the officer, the business was in breach of the order; and when the application to a court had already been made. There is also provision for compensation to be paid to businesses if the power is ever used in error.
Of course, we would hope that the power would have to be used only sparingly. The new clause would be a safeguard to ensure that no offenders slipped through the gaps and to give the police the powers they need to take action as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister agrees that the new clause is limited, proportional and considered. It is very much in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope it will command broad support.
Mike Penning
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—he is my hon. Friend really, although he probably would not like to admit that to some of his colleagues—for his campaigning. Many members of the Committee have been campaigning for many years on this subject.
Of course, the police and the courts are the end of the process for most cases. We know that powers are already there for local authorities and trading standards, which have been doing a lot of this work, so a problem arises only when there is a breach of a notice. Significantly, the new clause would give local authorities and senior officers the power to require specific premises to cease trading while an application is made. I have seen no evidence from the police that they feel that is necessary. Actually, new clause 1 could weaken judicial oversight, which none of us wants. This is a specific issue for England, of course. I think I am right about that, but it could be England and Wales—[Interruption.] I have got it wrong then; when I get things wrong, I always say so as soon as I can.
I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in tabling the new clause, but I do not feel that he needs to have such concerns. The measure would be used right at the very end of the process. We would hope, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, that it would be used in very few cases, not least because of the number of civil sanctions in the Bill.
I am absolutely confident—I have been assured by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General—that we will not have a problem, but the matter will be part of the review, so we can keep our eyes open to see exactly what is going on. Even though I fully understand and respect the reasons why the new clause was tabled. I am afraid I do not see the need for it and I am concerned that it might weaken judicial oversight. Sadly, towards the end of our time in Committee, I must disagree with the hon. Lady.
Lyn Brown
Do you know, Sir David, this Minister is just not giving me satisfaction?
Given that we sprung the new clause on the Minister in the last knockings of this Bill Committee, will he take it away and have a quick look at it? Perhaps after talking to the LGA and his fabulous civil servants, he might find that there is a need for it. We love humility, so if he comes back to us on Report and tells us that he has thought again, we will applaud him to the rafters, rather than making any political capital.
Mike Penning
Assuming that the new clause is not pressed to a Division, I will take a long look at it, as if I take a quick look at it, I will be criticised for not taking a long look at it. I will seek advice from not only my Department, but the other relevant Departments, as well as my excellent Bill team. We will probably discuss this on Report but, at present, I cannot support the new clause.
Lyn Brown
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
“Exempted activities
Healthcare-related activities
1 Any activity carried on by a person who is a health care professional and is acting in the course of his or her profession.
In this paragraph “health care professional” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916) (see regulation 8 of those Regulations).
2 Any activity carried on for the purpose of, or in connection with—
(a) the supply to, or the consumption by, any person of a substance prescribed for that person by a health care professional acting in the course of his or her profession, or
(b) the supply to, or the consumption by, any person of a substance in accordance with the directions of a health care professional acting in the course of his or her profession.
3 Any activity carried on in respect of an active substance by a person who—
(a) is registered in accordance with regulation 45N of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, or
(b) is exempt from any requirement to be so registered by virtue of regulation 45M(2) or (3) of those Regulations.
In this paragraph “active substance” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (see regulation 8 of those Regulations).
Research
4 Any activity carried on in the course of, or in connection with, approved scientific research.
In this paragraph—
“approved scientific research” means scientific research carried out by a person who has approval from a relevant ethics review body to carry out that research;
“relevant ethics review body” means—
(a) a research ethics committee recognised or established by the Health Research Authority under Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Care Act 2014, or
(b) a body appointed by any of the following for the purpose of assessing the ethics of research involving individuals—
(i) the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department;
(ii) a relevant NHS body;
(iii) a body that is a Research Council for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965;
(iv) an institution that is a research institution for the purposes of Chapter 4A of Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (see section 457 of that Act);
(v) a charity which has as its charitable purpose (or one of its charitable purposes) the advancement of health or the saving of lives;
“charity” means—
(a) a charity as defined by section 1(1) of the Charities Act 2011,
(b) a body entered in the Scottish Charity Register, or
(c) a charity as defined by section 1(1) of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;
“relevant NHS body” means—
(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England,
(b) an NHS trust or Local Health Board in Wales,
(c) a Health Board or Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,
(d) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service, or
(e) any of the health and social care bodies in Northern Ireland, as defined by section 1(5) of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.”—(Mike Penning.)
The new Schedule inserted by this amendment lists exempted activities for the purpose of the Bill. These include activities carried out by health care professionals acting in that capacity and approved research activities.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
As a number of new colleagues are serving on a Bill Committee for the first time, let me say that we traditionally end our proceedings with some very brief remarks.
Lyn Brown
On a point of order, Sir David. I want thank a number of people for the conduct of our proceedings during the Bill’s scrutiny. This has been a massive learning curve for me, not only because of the Bill’s subject, but as this is the first time that I have served on a Committee in such a role for the Opposition. I thank all concerned for the support, generosity of spirit and kindness shown to me.
My learning started in a surprising way when, at a team meeting with my shadow colleagues, I was briefed by a Member of the other place on exactly what the Bill entails. He talked about poppers—I had never heard of them. The shadow team, including the noble Lord, laughed and suggested that I go home and watch several series of “Breaking Bad” in order to educate myself. They also thought that I should talk to the little boy on a bike who apparently cycles between my house and Plaistow station offering substances to people, including members of my staff team, although he has never stopped to offer me anything. It was not like that at all in my student days but, with a modicum of help from a number of agencies and others, I was able to get up to speed—[Interruption.] Yes, that was around when I was young.
I want to thank the Minister for his welcome and commend him for encouraging and facilitating the sense of consensus that has been a real feature of our deliberations. I thank him for his positive responses on the issues that Opposition Members have flagged up as needing review. I hope he agrees that this has been a really good Bill Committee and that our deliberations have made the Bill better and stronger.
I thank the people who have supported me. My wonderful Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, is normally a garrulous fellow, but he has been amazingly quiet and a strong man who has guided me through the terrors of the Committee with great skill. I thank you, Sir David, and your fellow Chair, Mr Howarth, for your excellent and effective oversight of our proceedings and ensuring that I have not gone astray. I am particularly grateful for the advice and support of the Clerk, Mr Williams, who has been very generous with his time and sensitive to the fact that this was my first time in such a role. We have not over-troubled the Doorkeepers by requiring them to go into the corridors and shout loudly, but it is always a comfort to know they are there, passing me notes and fizzy water. I thank Hansard for its reporting. I, for one, will be grateful to have some time off from having regularly to articulate the words “psychoactive substances”, which is quite a mouthful when we are going at full tilt.
I thank my Opposition colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, who has given her insights into what is going on in Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who could not be present today because of a funeral, but has spoken elegantly on the public health aspects of the Bill. I also valued the contributions of our Scottish National party colleagues, who made this a genuinely consensual matter. I thank all Committee members for their laughter, for picking up on my little jokes and for their pursuit of consensus as we consider matters of such fundamental concern for public health. I look forward to our consideration on Report.
Owen Thompson
On a point of order, Sir David. I very much associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk with the comments made by the shadow Minister. This has certainly been an experience for us as well, as it has been our first Bill Committee. The approach that the Committee has taken highlights the importance of the Bill and its potential to help to deliver safer communities. Our resounding agreement on the destination we are trying to reach, if not the specifics of any amendments that we have debated, has been encouraging and shows that the direction of travel is certainly right. Although we might have minor disagreements along the way, what is ultimately delivered will be particularly useful.
I thank you, Sir David, and Mr Howarth for being so gentle with us newer Members. I look forward to the Bill’s next stage in the Chamber.
Mike Penning
On a point of order, Sir David. I congratulate you on your lung capacity today and your ability to expedite amendments, most of which were technical and consequential.
It is a shame that the public and the rest of the House cannot see how the Committee has conducted itself and the way in which we have come together, even though at times we have disagreed. I enjoyed a lot of the conversations that took place outside the Committee to make our proceedings work better. I cannot promise the shadow Minister that that will be on every Minister’s agenda; my particular way of working is not shared by everyone, which I fully understand. I remember making some mistakes, to say the least, when I was an Opposition Front Bencher, when I was absolutely crucified by the Minister and the Whip. The shadow Minister said that she was subtle when she was a Whip, which is probably why she no longer holds that post. Subtlety in Whips is a dangerous thing.
I congratulate all Members who have taken part in debating this important Bill. I understand that some Members had to be in other places today. Sadly, I, too, am going to a funeral on Monday. I know how important they are to our constituents and others. In my case, I will be in Merseyside at the funeral of the police officer who was murdered on duty in early October.
I thank my not-so-subtle Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and the hon. Member for Easington, the Opposition Whip. This has been a fantastic Committee—probably the best that I have sat on as Minister, a shadow Minister or a Back Bencher. We have reached where we need to be, which is protecting people—not just young people, although we are talking about predominantly young people—from the perception that if something is legal, that means it is safe. These substances are killing people and destroying people’s lives. If we have done nothing else today, we have had that success. We have been successful because I have such a fantastic Bill team and brilliant Parliamentary Private Secretary.
The Chair
Mr Howarth and I have found the Committee an absolute pleasure to chair. It has been a model Committee and Members have acquitted themselves extremely well in scrutinising the Bill. We would like to thank the Doorkeeper for his diligence, the Hansard reporters and, in particular, the Committee Clerk, whose wise counsel has prevailed at all times.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.