House of Commons

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 12 February 2020

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to inform the House that she will consider for selection for the Committee stage of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill amendments that can be tabled up to and until 1 o’clock today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of child poverty in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

The Government are committed to tackling poverty so that we can make a lasting difference to long-term outcomes. This Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, and income inequality has fallen. While the Scottish Government have powers to tackle poverty through the devolution of skills, education, health and employment programmes, it is important that Scotland’s two Governments work together to address this critical issue.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is estimated that one in four children in Scotland —230,000 of them—are living in poverty, and that is substantially higher than in many other European countries. Like poor children everywhere, these children are likely to achieve less in school and more likely to suffer chronic illness and poor mental health. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that child poverty could rise to about 37% by 2021. Does the Minister not agree that this Tory Government’s welfare policies, such as the two-child benefit cap, zero-hours contracts and the dreaded universal credit, are contributing to the increasing rate of child poverty in Scotland?

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him. Since 2010 there are over 3.8 million more people in work and 730,000 fewer children growing up in workless households. Over three quarters of this employment growth has been in full-time work, which can be proven substantially to reduce the risk of poverty. But I know how passionate the hon. Gentleman is on this issue, and I would be very happy to meet him to hear his concerns.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Minister has got to reflect on his answer. Yes, of course he is right about the growth of employment, but the majority of children in poverty in Scotland—230,000 of them—are living in families with parents in work. That is a disgrace. What are this Government going to do about it?

[Will Quince]

We do not want to see one individual family or child in poverty. The hon. Gentleman talks about in-work poverty. We are taking action, as a Government, to tackle in-work poverty. Real wages have risen for over a year—22 months in a row—and total wages rose by 3.2%. The national living wage rises to £8.72 in April, and we want to go further. That is why the Chancellor has announced that the national living wage will rise to £10.50 by 2024. We also have a focus, through a network of jobcentres, on in-work progression.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

We know that children living in poverty experience poor physical and mental health, employment difficulties, stigma, and chronic low self-esteem. This creates problems not just for the individual but for government further down the line, so would the Minister surprise us all and welcome the Scottish Government’s introduction of the Scottish child payment later this year?

[Will Quince]

I am looking very closely at that measure and its impact. I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that this is in fact evidence of devolution working. There is no monopoly on good ideas, and where the evidence suggests that a measure works, we should of course explore it, and I will. I stress that I am committed to working with the Scottish Government to improve the life chances of people across Scotland, as I am across our whole United Kingdom.

[Mhairi Black]

If this is evidence of devolution working, I would like to remind the Minister that that is why we want all the welfare powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Once rolled out, this new payment will help roughly 30,000 children out of poverty. So if it is a good measure for the Scottish Government, why are his Government not following suit?

[Will Quince]

I think I have already answered that question—I will look at it very closely. If the Scottish Government are serious about addressing child poverty more broadly, they should be making full use of the powers to reduce housing costs, improve earnings, and enhance social security. As I said, the Scottish Government have powers to tackle poverty through the devolution of skills, education, health and employment programmes. In fact, the UK Government do welcome the Scottish Government’s child poverty strategy. I look forward to working very closely with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to ensure that we cover these devolved areas.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

The child poverty payment is welcome, but does the Minister share my concerns that the vast number of welfare powers that the SNP Scottish Government argued for, which were transferred in the Scotland Act 2016, have not been taken forward? In fact, some of them are now delayed until 2024. Is welfare not just another victim of the Scottish Government’s obsession with the constitution, rather than focusing on the day job?

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend and recognise his huge expertise in this area. The Scottish Government, and indeed this Government, want to address these issues, and I am committed to working with my counterparts in the Scottish Government to tackle child poverty and poverty in all its forms.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the renewable energy sector in Scotland.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the renewable energy sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

My Department has regular engagement with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a range of issues relevant to Scotland, including the renewable energy sector.

[Cat Smith]

Scotland has a huge geographical advantage when it comes to wave and tidal energy, with reports suggesting that up to 40,000 jobs could be created in the sector if it had Government support. What work is being done in Government to explore wave and tidal technology?

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Lady is right; we have an advantage with that and with our wind speeds, mountains and hydro schemes. The Government are supporting technology. Wave and tidal technology is being investigated in universities, and we are completely behind that, should it prove to work.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) is right about the geographical advantage. What infrastructure work are the Government undertaking—for example, interconnectors and storage—so that the clean green energy that Scotland is able to generate can be shared with the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jack]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, interconnectors are a devolved matter, but we are looking at upgrading the schemes so that we can transfer our power across the United Kingdom and the advantage that we have in Scotland with renewables and our growing renewable industry can benefit the whole UK.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will recall that, when EDF was given a licence to develop the wind farm at Neart na Gaoithe, 10 miles off the Fife coast, there was a commitment that 1,000 jobs would be created in making the jackets for the wind turbines. Can he tell the House how many jobs have been created?

[Mr Jack]

No, because I do not know the answer—that is a perfectly straight answer to a straight question. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the sector deal aims to create 27,000 jobs by 2030.

[Tony Lloyd]

I will tell the Secretary of State how many jobs were created: 1,000—in Indonesia. Is the GMB union right in saying that the transportation of those wind turbines from Indonesia to the Fife coast will be the equivalent of 35 million cars on the road? How does that fit our commitment to greening the economy, and what confidence can people have in Scotland that jobs in a wind farm 10 miles off the Fife coast will be created for people in Scotland, not people in Indonesia?

[Mr Jack]

That is the market economy, and we need to be better at pricing and better at producing our turbines—that is the straight answer. We will discuss this issue and many others at COP 26 in Glasgow later this year, when we discuss the climate emergency, but I do not dispute the fact that bringing turbines from Indonesia is not the answer; we need to find a better way of efficiently delivering them in the UK.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

We are 13 minutes in, and I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State—and it is to do with wind, because Saturday was a windy day—about us winning the Calcutta cup. [Interruption.] Come on! You have to be happy with that.

We have had a balance of payments deficit, with lots of wind farms in Scotland being paid not to produce any electricity. Is that likely to take place later this year?

[Mr Jack]

Obviously I disagree with my hon. Friend on the Calcutta cup; that goes without saying. It was a wet, windy and miserable day at Murrayfield for me.

We are trying to improve the way in which wind works for Scotland. Contracts for difference provide certainty for investors over the longevity and protect consumers. In October 2019, at the last round of contracts for difference, six of the 12 awarded went to projects in Scotland.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the untapped capacity for using renewables in Scotland, and how many jobs would be created as a result of enhancing that capability?

[Mr Jack]

There is enormous capability not just with more offshore wind schemes, but with more hydro schemes. As I said earlier, we intend to create 27,000 more jobs through using that untapped capacity.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Offshore wind and contracts for difference entry was cost-free to both the Government and the consumer as the strike price was below the typical wholesale price, but 240 MW of that remains stranded because Ofgem demands that the island of Lewis has at least 369 MW to build an interconnector cable. Another 180 MW could have been consented to, and that would have been cost-free, but they were not consented to due to Government caps. Can we have some joined-up thinking in the Government between the interconnector and the contracts for difference to ensure we are not billowing out fossil fuels when we could instead have 600 MW of wind being produced?

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. One of the things the UK should look at, for future infrastructure and shared prosperity, is building that interconnector.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

3. What recent economic assessment his Department has made of the value of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

12. What recent economic assessment his Department has made of the value of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Busy day—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] It appears I have woken a few people up.

Scottish exports to the rest of the UK increased in 2018 by £1.2 billion to £51.2 billion. As a result, the rest of the UK continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports, accounting for three times the value of exports to the European Union.

[James Sunderland]

Given the Secretary of State’s assessment, will he confirm that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is worth more than three times that with the EU, and this is only one of the benefits on offer of being part of the United Kingdom, not least for British firms?

[Mr Jack]

The Scottish Government’s own figures show that Scotland’s most important trading partner is the rest of the UK and, as my hon. Friend said, that is worth more than three times the trade with the other 27 EU countries combined. In other words, the Scottish Government’s figures show that over 60% of Scotland’s exports go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would argue that this is just one of the many benefits that Scotland has from being part of the United Kingdom.

[Greg Smith]

Given the excellent figures my right hon. Friend has just given, does he share my concern that the separatist agenda peddled by the SNP is a direct threat to Scottish jobs and that it would inevitably end up, if its dreams come true, in a hard border?

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that Nicola Sturgeon’s separatist agenda is a real threat to Scotland’s jobs, businesses and the economy, and that is why I am against the First Minister’s demand for another independence referendum. We want 2020 to be a year of growth, stability and opportunity for Scotland and for the whole of the United Kingdom, whereas the SNP wants 2020 to be a year of more political wrangling and wasteful debate.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Labour MSP Monica Lennon has introduced the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament to give free provision to women in Scotland, but it is opposed by the SNP Government because of “tampon raids” by the English into Scotland to steal the products. If that is the case, what kind of border does the Secretary of State think will be required in the event of an independent Scotland, with a separate currency, a different regulatory environment and different provisions on trade?

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman makes an exceptionally good point. That is a border we need to avoid, and it makes no sense to have any sort of border between Gretna and Berwick. As for the SNP opposing that, and the opportunity to reduce VAT rates and other things that would help people on the poorest incomes, I simply do not understand what it is thinking.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If the Secretary of State truly values the trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, why is he prepared to countenance a situation in which we would lose frictionless trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Jack]

As the Prime Minister said, there will be “unfettered access” between Scotland and Northern Ireland and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on maritime security off the coast of Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

The Scottish Secretary and I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland, including maritime security.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Not least because of the Minister’s own constituency, he will understand that there is an obvious breach point in the high north of Scotland for adversaries to come into, as has happened before. Can he assure the House that the Scotland Office will be engaging fully with the upcoming integrated defence review, and will he agree to meet me to discuss some of the issues that are important to him and to the rest of Scotland?

[Douglas Ross]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, and we can continue that discussion about the great investment by the UK Government into Scotland, and into Moray. Last week we welcomed the first of nine P-8A aircraft, the “Pride of Moray”, which touched down at Kinloss. That is a huge investment by the UK Government and Boeing, and I also put on the record the outstanding work done by local firm Robertson, in building the Poseidon facility.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on his discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the protection of fisheries, not just regarding enforcement, but also monitoring?

[Douglas Ross]

That is a devolved issue, and I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and other Departments, are in continued dialogue about that with the Scottish Government, and others. My hon. Friend’s longstanding commitment to the fishing industry has again been raised in the House, and he continues to stand up for his constituents in Banff and Buchan on that subject, and on many others.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the use of its taxation powers.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

UK Government Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the Scottish Government on matters of importance, including the Scottish fiscal framework. That historic arrangement delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, and it is up to the Scottish Government to use those powers wisely further to increase the economic prosperity of Scotland.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom is not only regrettable but yet another broken SNP promise?

[Mr Jack]

It goes without saying that I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is disappointing that Scottish taxpayers who earn more than £27,000 will pay more tax in Scotland than they would in the rest of the UK. Furthermore, taxpayers in Scotland will pay 41% income tax on earnings between £43,500 and £50,000, compared with just 20% in the rest of the UK. That means that a police officer with 10 years’ experience—mid thirties; bringing up a family—will pay 21% more tax on earnings between £43,500 and £50,000 in Scotland than they would pay in the rest of the UK.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that for the third consecutive year more than half of Scottish income tax payers will pay less tax than taxpayers in the UK? Will he explain to those UK taxpayers why his Government is ripping them off?

[Mr Jack]

That figure about less tax is correct—about 56% of Scots will pay less tax. [Interruption.] Before the Scottish nationalists become over-jubilant, I point out that that is the grand amount of 40p per week.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment his Department has made of the (a) economic and (b) social effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

Now that we have left the European Union, we are free to determine our own future. We want 2020 to be a year of economic and social growth for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[Ruth Jones]

The Secretary of State has stated in the Chamber that the UK internal market represents the majority of Scotland’s total export market, and it is therefore vital that he makes provision to develop and strengthen that market. Will he confirm that the Government will prioritise the UK’s internal market over any future US-UK trade deal that the Prime Minister wants with Donald Trump?

[Douglas Ross]

I absolutely can because the UK internal market is so important for this country and Scotland. The Secretary of State has mentioned some figures today, and Scotland does 1.5 times more in trade with the rest of the UK than it does with the EU and the rest of the world combined.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The financial services sector is a major employer in my Chelmsford constituency, as well as in Scotland. Will my hon. Friend ensure that all parts of the Scottish economy are preserved and cared for in our future trade negotiations?

[Douglas Ross]

Absolutely. The future of Scotland’s economy and the UK economy will be buoyant, and as we leave the European Union we want to ensure that all our sectors continue to thrive. I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Scotland Office will do everything possible to facilitate those discussions.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The response we have heard from the Government Front Bench today might explain why the Minister has lost half of his Scottish colleagues, why the SNP is at 51% in the polls and why the majority of the Scottish people now want independence. In the real world, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says that border checks are now inevitable for almost everybody because of the Government’s disastrous Brexit. How will this help Scottish business?

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the real world, so let us look at the real world in Scotland where the SNP is in power: we have bridges that people cannot get across; we have hospitals that it cannot open; and we have an education system that is failing. That is the record that the Scottish Government and the SNP will have to go to the people in a little over 15 months’ time. I look forward to that election, when what the Scottish Government and the SNP have done to Scotland since 2007 will have an impact on the result.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to support the Scottish fishing sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

Thank you very much. I am busy today, Mr Speaker.

At the end of 2020, we automatically take control of our waters. This opens up a sea of opportunity for our fishing industry in Scotland, and across the UK. As I have said before, this Government will work tirelessly with our fishermen and coastal communities across Scotland.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that by becoming an independent coastal state once again we will be able to deliver a better deal for fishermen across the United Kingdom, and that ultimately we will control who fishes in our waters?

[Douglas Ross]

I can confirm that we will no longer be bound by the EU’s outdated and unfair method for sharing fishing opportunities. We will set our own fishing quotas, based on science, and decide who can fish in our waters. I have to say that I share my hon. Friend’s optimism for the future of our industry, and it is an optimism that I have heard time and time again from fishermen and fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State reveal whether the UK Government’s stated intention of agreeing a mechanism of co-operation within the EU on fishing will include an extended agreement on access to waters as part of an EU trade deal?

[Douglas Ross]

Clearly we are in discussions about this, but we have a positive vision for our fishing industry in Scotland now that we have left the European Union. How does that reflect on the SNP’s vision for fishing in Scotland, which is to take us back into the European Union, to be shackled once again by the common fisheries policy? That is something that many Scots and many fishermen voted comprehensively to leave, but the SNP wants to put us right back in.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the forthcoming Budget.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I have regular discussions with all my Cabinet colleagues on issues important to Scotland’s economy, including the forthcoming Budget in March. The Government will deliver a Budget for Scotland’s businesses and Scotland’s people. We will set out ambitious plans to unleash Britain’s potential, and level up across the nations and regions of the UK.

[John Stevenson]

Given the close economic relationship between the south of Scotland and the north of England, particularly within the borderlands region, will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor on and give his support to a freeport at the Carlisle Lake District airport?

[Mr Jack]

I welcome the recent freeports announcement, and I have no doubt that freeports will unleash the potential of our proud historic ports, boosting and regenerating communities across the UK. I and other Ministers on the Front Bench—the Chancellor is here—have heard my hon. Friend’s early representations on behalf of his airport and his area. Not only is he a great champion for the borderlands, but he is a great champion for the Carlisle Lake District airport.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Page 64 of the 2015 statement of funding policy document confirms that HS2 should have 100% Barnett consequentials for Scotland. Will the Secretary of State ask for those Barnett consequentials, roughly £750 million in relation to what is being spent on HS2, to be delivered in the Budget?

[Mr Jack]

There already has been a Barnett consequential relating to HS2 spending. In the next spending round, we will see what money is allocated to the Department for Transport. That money will have a Barnett consequential.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Over the weekend, Kingsbarns distillery in my constituency won the “Best Lowlands Scotch, 12 years and Under” award at the world whisky awards. However, the impact of US tariffs continues to impede the growth of the Scotch whisky industry in my constituency and across Scotland. Will the forthcoming Budget include provisions to help our distilleries to compete internationally, despite those stifling tariffs?

[Mr Jack]

I know that the hon. Lady has a lot of experience of this, having formerly worked for Diageo. The 25% tariffs on malt whisky are a consequence of the Boeing-Airbus dispute between the EU and the USA. In the next carousel, by having useful negotiations on a US trade deal, we want to get those tariffs removed.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 February.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the weekend’s flooding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced the activation of the Government’s emergency Bellwin scheme to provide financial support for qualifying affected areas in the north of England, and we continue to work closely with our partners to help those affected and, above all, to keep people safe.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall hold further such meetings later today.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Q1. If he will take steps to ensure that the security, defence and foreign policy review is completed before the comprehensive spending review.

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to transform the UK economy through the Budget in March and the comprehensive spending review later this year. The timing of that integrated review will be announced shortly.

[Dr Lewis]

I am grateful for that reply. May I urge the Prime Minister to recall what happened to the last combined security and defence review, which was done within a straitjacket of fiscal neutrality? It meant that every extra pound spent on cyber or security was a pound to be cut from the conventional armed forces. Therefore, will he try to ensure that the next attempt at a combined security and defence review will not face such a straitjacket and will be concluded before rather than after the comprehensive spending review?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand very well the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I can assure him that the integrated review will be the deepest review of Britain’s security, defence and foreign policy since the cold war. I can also assure him that by transforming this country’s economy and by raising productivity, we will ensure that both defence and security are amply provided for.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in expressing sympathy and support to the victims of flooding and thank the Environment Agency and all the emergency services that are doing their best to help people.

Our thoughts are also with those who suffer from the coronavirus and with the Chinese community in this country, who are, I am sorry to say, facing increasingly alarming levels of racism within our country. As this virus spreads, I also thank public health workers who are helping those affected and raising awareness of the danger of the virus.

Does the Prime Minister think that someone who came to this country at the age of five, was the victim of county lines grooming and compelled to carry drugs, was released five years ago and has never reoffended deserves to be deported?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole country would agree that, while I cannot comment on individual cases, it is entirely right that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country in accordance with the law.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Government have learned absolutely nothing from the Windrush scandal. This cruel and callous Government are trying to mislead the British people into thinking that they are solely deporting foreign nationals who are guilty of murder, rape and other very serious offences. This is clearly not the case. Take the example of a young black boy who came to the UK aged five and is now being deported after serving time for a drugs offence. If there was a case of a young white boy with blond hair who later dabbled in class A drugs and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist, would the Prime Minister deport that boy; or is it one rule for young black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

Quite frankly, I think the right hon. Gentleman demeans himself and besmirches the reputation of the Windrush generation, who came to this country to work in our public services, to teach our children and to make lives better for the people of this country. He has no right to conflate them with the foreign national offenders we are deporting today.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Windrush generation have been disgracefully treated by a Government who deliberately created a hostile environment. While the Government were fighting to deport people who legally came to this country as children, the Foreign Secretary refused to tell the family of Harry Dunn the reason the US is blocking the extradition of the woman who is alleged to have killed him. I now ask the Prime Minister straight: is Anne Sacoolas being shielded from justice because she is a former CIA officer?

[The Prime Minister]

The whole House will know that the Foreign Secretary and I, and the Government at every level, have tirelessly sought the extradition of Anne Sacoolas for justice in this country, and we will continue to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is widely reported that Anne Sacoolas is in fact a CIA operative. Now we know that the Foreign Secretary misled the Dunn family, who are being denied justice by the US Government, will the Prime Minister commit to his removal from office tomorrow in his reshuffle?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Foreign Office has been told that Anne Sacoolas was notified to the UK Government as a spouse with no official role. We will continue, without fear or favour, to seek justice for Harry Dunn and his family, and we will continue to seek the extradition of Anne Sacoolas from the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This morning Charlotte Charles, Harry’s mum, said: “We thought we had bridged the gap with the Government. But they have not been honest with us”. This is only the latest case of our country’s one-sided extradition treaty with the USA. This lopsided treaty means the US can request extradition in circumstances that Britain cannot. While the US continues to deny justice to Harry Dunn, will the Prime Minister commit today to seeking an equal and balanced extradition relationship with the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

To be frank, I think the right hon. Gentleman has a point in his characterisation of our extradition arrangements with the United States. I do think that elements of that relationships are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at, but that is totally different from the case of Harry Dunn and Anne Sacoolas. We continue to seek the extradition of Anne Sacoolas to face justice in this country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It has everything to do with the relationship with the USA that Anne Sacoolas has not been extradited back to Britain, because the US refuses to do it because of this lopsided treaty. I am glad the Prime Minister at least acknowledges that point about the treaty. This deep disparity with the US is about to be laid bare, when the courts decide whether the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange will be extradited to the US on charges of espionage and for exposing war crimes, including the murder of civilians and large-scale corruption. Does the Prime Minister agree with the parliamentary report that is going to the Council of Europe that this extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of us all?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on any individual case, but it is obvious that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld, and this Government will clearly continue to do that.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Q2. My wife is a volunteer with the local branch of the Samaritans, and my right hon. Friend will know what good work they do in helping to keep people safe online in Sedgefield and the rest of the UK. Does he agree that today’s announcement that we are putting Ofcom at the helm of a strong regulatory regime shows that we are delivering on our commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. As we deliver gigabit broadband to every part of this country, including to the people of Sedgefield, we will also ensure that the UK is the safest place to be online.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

In northern Syria, displaced women and their children are literally freezing to death. There are reports of babies dying as a result of the extreme conditions, and 45,000 people remain stranded with nowhere to go. The Syrian war is considered to have caused the biggest wave of displacement since the second world war. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what responsibility his Government have taken for this humanitarian crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think the whole House will know, and as I have said several times in the House, the UK leads the world in supporting humanitarian relief efforts in Syria. This country has committed £3.2 billion to that cause.

[Ian Blackford]

My question was about the children who are literally freezing to death. That was not an answer from the Prime Minister.

In 2017, as Foreign Secretary, this Prime Minister enacted a policy of accepting the Syrian dictator Assad’s rule over the country. Assad has delivered death and destruction to his people—a man who has gassed his own civilians. The humanitarian situation has reached crisis point, and there are now fears of all-out war. Is the message that the Prime Minister wants to send from the House today that the UK Government are washing their hands of the Syrian people, and that he is content for Assad’s regime to continue enacting these atrocities?

[The Prime Minister]

I really think the right hon. Gentleman needs to consult his memory better. He would find that this country and this Government have persistently called for the end of the Assad regime, and indeed have led the world in denouncing the cruelty of the regime towards Assad’s own people. That has continuously been the policy of the British Government.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

Q3. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting a new initiative I am launching in my constituency to train mental health first aiders in schools, workplaces and the community throughout the constituency to tackle loneliness and challenge mental health stigma, and may I ask whether he could find time in his diary to join me at the launch?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to champion mental health services in Watford. We are massively increasing support for good mental health in schools, and, if I can, I will do my best to attend the launch event.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Q4. After three years of extensive evidence-gathering and research, on 26 March the Youth Violence Commission will publish its final recommendations. The overwhelming verdict of victims, youth workers, community leaders and other stakeholders is that short-term solutions do not work. Violence reduction units are a welcome first step, but they need long-term funding and leadership from the top. Will the Prime Minister commit to that funding, and will he attend our report launch to hear directly from victims and experts how we can get to grips with this crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Lady is right: we have to do both, which is why we are putting £200 million into the Youth Endowment Fund as well as supporting violence reduction units. We are also putting 20,000 police on the streets of this country, and giving them the powers, which the Leader of the Opposition opposes, to take knives off the streets with stop and search.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

Q5. The Prime Minister has made transport connectivity a priority for the Government. Does he agree that connecting my constituency of Southport with Preston through the Burscough curve link would not only give my constituents more access to the rail network, but help us to unleash our economic potential?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign for the restoration of the Burscough curves. That sounds to me like a great idea. What he needs to do is put forward a costed business plan, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will look at it very carefully.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Q6. Does the Prime Minister agree with me and 10,800 of my constituents who signed petitions, that the building of a gasification plant in Washington would be terrible for the people of Sunderland, due to the public health concerns, and air quality, and would indeed be a blot on the landscape of Sunderland, and that now as a frequent visitor to Sunderland, I’m sure he shares my concerns on this matter? Will he therefore support me and my constituents, who oppose the building of this plant?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look into the matter that the hon. Lady raises. We will ensure, of course, that if there is a problem with the gasification plant that she describes, Sunderland will continue to prosper and to lead the UK economy.

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

Q12. Blyth has the potential to become one of the most strategically important ports in the UK for the export of renewable technology as well as wind turbines. Would my right hon. Friend consider visiting Blyth, where I am sure he would get a warm Northern welcome— rose— —and see for himself the strength of Blyth to become a freeport?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Prime Minister had the answer ready.

[The Prime Minister]

The answer was in the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the potential of Blyth, although I must remind him that the allocation of free ports will be decided in an entirely fair and transparent way.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q7. Every day, an estimated 280 shopworkers will be victims of violence at work. At my local Co-op, a staff member was hit with a glass bottle. The Co-op is a good employer, and it wants this to stop, so it and other local retailers engaged with the Government’s call for evidence on violence towards shop staff. Seven and a half months later, they are awaiting a response. Prime Minister, will you commit today to publishing your response to the call for evidence, and will you meet me and a group of shopworkers who have experienced violence at work to hear about what happened to them?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will make that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has raised this matter. We should not tolerate crimes of violence against shopworkers or indeed anybody else. I therefore find it paradoxical that the leader of his party is soft on the deportation of serious violent offenders.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Q14. This year, we mark the 75th anniversaries of VE-day and VJ-day. As we honour those who have served our country, will my right hon. Friend outline how his new Office for Veterans Affairs is giving our veterans and their families the support they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Our new Office for Veterans Affairs is helping veterans to transition to new jobs and to secure homes. A discount railcard will be rolled out by Armistice day, and veterans will get guaranteed interviews for civil service jobs so that we have more veterans bringing their talents to government.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Q8. The Prime Minister’s junior Scotland Office Minister told the National Farmers Union last week that substandard food would be allowed into the UK under a US trade deal, but that it would have to be labelled as such. The Prime Minister has denied this in the past, so who is telling the truth and which of them does not know what is coming?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the UK has and will continue to have the highest standards in the world for our food.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Q15. In Greater Manchester, frontline police officers are increasingly having to resort to using a pen and paper because of the failing iOPS computer system. This is putting the police at risk and undermining their ability to protect residents and vulnerable children. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intervene to solve this problem?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is, I am afraid, entirely right. We know that there are concerns about this system, and that is why I have asked the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), to ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for an independent review of the operation of the system. We will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q9. Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituents, has not met its four-hour A&E target since August 2014. It has been starved of capital investment and it is short of intensive treatment unit beds. It is expected to have close to a £100 million deficit by the end of the financial year—one of the highest in the NHS. When does the Prime Minister expect Northwick Park to receive a little Government love and attention?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but as he will know, the highest-ever number of people attended A&E in this country last month—2 million people. The demand is exceptional, and I pay tribute to the work of NHS staff. As he knows, we in this Government are responding with a record investment in the NHS of £34 billion, and we are recruiting 50,000 more nurses, which will help to deal with that crisis.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

In the past week, Storm Ciara has wreaked havoc along West Yorkshire’s Calder Valley, affecting the constituencies of Members across the House. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seek to find time to visit my constituency? Horbury Bridge, where “Onward Christians Soldiers” was penned, has been acutely affected. Will he see for himself the terrible damage done to people’s homes, lives and businesses? Will he tread where the saints of our communities and emergency services have trod and continue to toil undivided towards recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the emergency services for what they are doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, in all flood-affected areas. As he knows, we have activated the Bellwin scheme to protect homeowners, and we are putting £4 billion into flood defences. I certainly will do what I can to take up his offer to visit his constituency and see the scene for myself.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Q10. The new daily allowance for the unelected and unaccountable Peers being stuffed into the House of Lords by the Prime Minister is set to rise to £323. The monthly allowance for a single person over 25 on universal credit is £317.82. Is that the levelling up that the Prime Minister keeps talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

I hate agreeing with these people, but I do find it odd that the House of Lords has chosen to do that, but it is a decision for them.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was instrumental in banning the trade in ivory in this country. Will he be equally decisive in getting rid of the importation of hunting trophies into this country, particularly of endangered animals?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign against illegal wildlife trading and trophy hunting, and we mean to end the import into this country of trophies hunted elsewhere.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Q11. In 2018, Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Putin’s former deputy Finance Minister, paid £20,000 for lunch with the then Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who we believe is soon to be ennobled. Will the Prime Minister remind the House once more why his Government are yet to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into alleged Russian interference in UK politics?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the report will be published as soon as the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconvened. As I have told the House several times, those of a conspiratorial cast of mind will be disappointed by its findings.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

May I commend the Prime Minister for his belief in Britain and the massive boost to infrastructure investment around the country? However, the cost of landing fees at Heathrow airport is £25 per passenger, and those fees will rise with a third runway, leading to Heathrow becoming the least competitive airport on the entire planet. Given the delays and the escalating costs, does the Prime Minister agree that it may well be time to review progress and perhaps to deploy the bulldozers elsewhere in the country?

[The Prime Minister]

The House of Commons voted effectively to give outline planning consent to the third runway. It was supported by people across the Chamber—not by me, as it happens. I wait to see the outcome of the various legal processes that are currently under way to see whether the promoters of the third runway can satisfy their legal obligations under air quality and, indeed, noise pollution.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Q13. Since 2015, the number of GPs working in Sunderland has fallen by 16%—much higher than the national average. After almost a decade of Tory control, our GP services are inadequate and getting worse, so who does the Prime Minister hold responsible?

[The Prime Minister]

We are, of course, responsible, and we take full responsibility, but overall GP numbers are up and we are now recruiting 6,000 more. We are able to do that because we are running a sound economy and investing massively in our NHS across the whole country.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

As the coronavirus hits the headlines every day, will the Prime Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to the supreme professionalism of those at Public Health England and, in my area, to RAF Brize Norton for bringing home people who have been affected? Their work often goes unremarked, but it has the admiration of all of us.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it beautifully, and I salute everybody involved in bringing home the victims and potential victims of coronavirus for the difficulties and risks they face. Indeed, our NHS has so far done an outstanding job in preparing and informing the country.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

When Kevin Simpson’s partner of over 12 years died and his two children lost their mother, the family received no bereavement support payments at all. Because the parents were unmarried, the law denied that support to the two grieving children. The High Court ruled last Friday that this breached the children’s human rights, so when will the Government obey the rule of law and legislate to respond both to that ruling and to the similar ruling by the Supreme Court in the McLaughlin case in 2018? Will there be no further delay so that we can start supporting the thousands of similar children across our country every year who lose their mother or father?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised this with me before, and I have undertaken to meet him on the matter. We will certainly look at the case he mentions to see what exactly our response should be. He is right to draw attention to this injustice, and we will do all we can to remedy it.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

On Thursday last week, two people were stabbed in Redcar in broad daylight. Another person was injured in a horrific knife crime on Saturday evening outside a busy nightclub. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice in January show that the Cleveland force area has the highest number of knife and offensive weapon offences per head of population in all of England and Wales. What additional support can my right hon. Friend give to Cleveland police to tackle this problem, and when will we start to see more police on the streets of Teesside?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. Knife crime is intolerable, and its recent rise must be combated. That is why we brought in knife crime prevention orders, which give police the powers, where they suspect a knife crime is about to be committed, to make the interventions that are needed. That is why we are putting 20,000 more police on our streets, with the encouragement and the political support they need to carry out stop and search.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Oxford-Cambridge so-called expressway is a 20th-century roadbuilding solution to a 21st-century challenge, and at the election Labour rightly pledged to scrap it. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has caught up with us. Will he announce today whether the expressway has finally been put to rest and scrapped?

[The Prime Minister]

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait and contain his impatience until the Budget, when he will learn more about the national infrastructure plan.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I support the Prime Minister’s decision yesterday to go ahead with HS2, although I have to tell him there is little enthusiasm among my constituents because it does nothing to improve connectivity to Cleethorpes. To build up enthusiasm among the people of Cleethorpes, may I urge him: to instruct London North Eastern Railway to reintroduce the direct train service from Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross; to make the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes service, which at present runs one day a week, into a seven-day service; to manufacture the rails at Scunthorpe; and, of course, to reopen Suggitts Lane level crossing?

[The Prime Minister]

The voice of Cleethorpes has been heard, and my hon. Friend makes a vivid and compelling case. As I stood up to answer, the Chancellor whispered in my ear that we will certainly be looking at it in the infrastructure review.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The prosperous future of our young people all too often depends on their family wellbeing and their school readiness, which requires investment in early years. Does the Prime Minister regret the Conservative cuts to around 1,000 Sure Start centres, including in my constituency? Will he commit to greater funding and support for early years development, particularly in our most deprived communities?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and this is why we are putting record sums into early years funding—£14 billion is going into education. It is under this Government that people will see the biggest improvements, because it is under this Government that we have a robust, strong, dynamic economy—the third fastest growing in the G7. We are able to make those investments in early years precisely because of our sensible management of the economy.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the private finance initiative deals signed by the last Labour Government to build hospitals such as King’s Mill in Ashfield, at a cost of £1 million a week, are nothing short of a national scandal? Will he please ensure that this never happens again?

[The Prime Minister]

It was one of the many scandals of the last Labour Government. From memory, the PFI deals that they did saddled the taxpayer with £80 billion-worth of debts in exchange for £12 billion-worth of hospital assets. That is how Labour runs government. That is how Labour runs the economy. Let’s not let it happen again.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister bring to an end the sickening outrage of a witch hunt against former police officers who served Ulster through the heat of the troubles and who will now face the most odious prosecutions for non-criminal misconduct? That would not be tolerated in this part of the United Kingdom and it should not be tolerated in mine.

[The Prime Minister]

We will make sure that we give support for all those who face unnecessary prosecution, and I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Point of Order

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

12:31

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has started legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care for its failure to move 2,200 autistic people and people with learning disabilities out of inappropriate in-patient units. Separately, we have the Government’s response to the learning disabilities mortality review, a review that has shockingly found that people with learning disabilities are dying, on average, 25 years earlier than the rest of the population. It seems that improving care for people with learning disabilities and autistic people is not a priority for this Government, who have made no statement in the House on these important issues so far. Have you been given an indication that a Minister plans to make a statement on these important issues?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice on this important matter. It is not a point of order for the Chair; it is for Departments to make statements. I am sure that people will have listened to what she has had to say, but it is for others, certainly not for me, to come forward with a statement.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill (Business of the House)

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made and Question proposed,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill—

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put, unless a Minister of the Crown nominates a future day for Reconsideration.

(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill:

(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No. 83N(6)), and

(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph 17(a) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(19) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on that Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Robert Buckland.)

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected a manuscript amendment to the motion in the name of Alistair Carmichael.

12:33

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in paragraph (6), after sub-paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman or Speaker for separate decision;”.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the business motion that he has just moved, without any explanation whatsoever, replicates the provisions of Standing Order 83D faithfully in every respect bar one, which is that it omits the contents of Standing Order 83D(2)(c), which provides that at the conclusion of proceedings the Question may be put on

“any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chair for separate decision”.

The effect of the omission of that provision from the business motion before the House is that if the debate continues until the conclusion of the time allowed in the business motion, there will be no Division on any amendments moved in Committee.

At the very least, the House is entitled to hear an explanation from those on the Treasury Bench as to why we should see your power restricted in that way, Mr Speaker. It may be that ultimately this is all academic—it may be that we conclude proceedings before the expiry of time, or it may be that there will simply be no amendment that anybody wishes to move at the conclusion of proceedings—but there remains an important point of principle at stake, which is that surely we should hear the debate first before we make decisions of that sort, and that if it is the will of the House at the conclusion of the time allowed, then you, Mr Speaker, should have the power to put any Question from the Chair. It is entirely regrettable that the Secretary of State, in moving the motion, did not offer any explanation to the House as to why the Government, through us, should seek to fetter your power in this way.

It is worth bearing in mind that although what the Government are doing today in bringing forward a Bill and going through all its stages in one day is not by any means unusual, it is still quite extraordinary. The Government rely on co-operation from all parts of the House in order to do that. They have had that co-operation, so why do they now seek to restrict the power that you, Mr Speaker, have to call Divisions at the end of the Committee stage?

12:37

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who speaks with years of experience, shall we say, as somebody who had direct responsibility, at least partly, for this issue during his time in coalition. I simply say to him that although I am not accusing him of having an unreasonable approach, we do view the business motion as meeting the test of reasonableness, bearing in mind that these are exceptional circumstances and we would not depart from normal proceedings lightly. We want to make sure that the time we have for debate is maximised, which is important when we bear in mind the issue of Divisions. For those reasons we judge it appropriate on this occasion to depart from normal proceedings.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will probably not accept the explanation I give him, but at least the very fact that he has moved this manuscript amendment—although I note that we have not heard the same objection from other parts of the House—has made the Government explain their position. These are exceptional circumstances, and for that reason I urge him respectfully to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

12:38

Division 34

Ayes: 51

---

Scottish National Party: 42
Liberal Democrat: 9

Noes: 316

---

Conservative: 310
Democratic Unionist Party: 6

Main Question put and agreed to.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

12:51

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Twice in the past few months we have seen appalling and senseless attacks on members of the public by terrorist offenders. At Fishmongers’ Hall on 30 November last year, two bright and promising young lives were cut heartbreakingly short. The perpetrator, Usman Khan, had been released automatically halfway through a 16-year sentence for preparing terrorist acts. That tragedy was made so much more poignant by the fact that the victims were dedicated to the rehabilitation of offenders, and were helping people to get their lives back on track.

The attack in Streatham on 2 February this year came as a stark reminder of the risks when these sorts of offenders are let out automatically before they have served their full sentence in prison.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

A number of people may question why we are rushing through this business in one day today, so may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, if the business were not completed today and the Bill therefore not enabled as an Act, would it result in terrorists being released early in the immediate future?

[Robert Buckland]

The simple answer is yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I was telling the House about the events in Streatham. Sudesh Amman had been released just one week before the attack, halfway through a sentence of three years and four months for offences related to distributing or promoting material intended to stir up religious hatred. The automatic nature of his release meant that there was no parole oversight and no decision as to whether he posed a risk to the public. No one could prevent his release. It is purely thanks to the swift intervention of our incredible police officers that he did not go on to commit even more harm before he was stopped with necessary force. The reality is that we face an unprecedented threat from terrorist offenders who are willing to commit random violence without any fear of the consequences.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in this area over the last few weeks, and that he is bringing the Bill before the House today. Will he concede that this form of jihadi extremism and the threat that it has posed has now been around us for almost 20 years, since the horrible attacks of 9/11 and, of course, Bali in 2002? I absolutely welcome the extra funding for our counter-terrorism police and rehabilitation and probation services—this is all very good news—but ultimately we have to ask ourselves why these people were indoctrinated in the first place. Does he agree that we need to do more to remove the harmful online content that is used so much to attract people to the dark place they go to?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend speaks with particular personal experience of the Bali atrocity, and he is right to talk about the long-term nature of the threat, but it is a threat that changes and evolves, and this Government will be as fleet of foot as possible in responding to it. He will be glad to note that we are working at pace to deal with and remove inappropriate and hateful online content. The Home Secretary is by my side today to emphasise, in the most eloquent possible way, the joint approach that she and I, and our respective Departments—together with the security services and the police—are taking with regard to the first duty of Government: protecting the public. It is a grave responsibility from which we will not shirk, and we say that enough is enough.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am very glad about the tone my right hon. and learned Friend is taking. Were this measure to be challenged in our courts and the Government were to lose, that would be merely declaratory. But if it made its way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Government were to lose there, the ministerial code would require him to abide by treaty law. Would he then entertain the prospect of a derogation from the convention on human rights?

[Robert Buckland]

I believe that the declaration that I make on the front of the Bill speaks for itself—

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

Well, I have not finished developing the point yet, but I will of course give way to my eager hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in time.

This is a Bill on which I have made the following statement:

“In my view the provisions of the…Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”

I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I am not going to anticipate litigation in domestic courts or in Strasbourg, but I will repeat for the benefit of the record that it is my firm view that this Bill does not engage the provisions of article 7 of the European convention on human rights, because it relates to the way in which the sentence is administered, not a change in the nature of the penalty itself. I am grateful to him for allowing me to say that at this point.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, because this is an important point. Will he confirm that, in coming to that conclusion and making that certification, he has taken the advice of senior Treasury counsel, and also that the case law has made it quite clear that the administration of a sentence is not part of the penalty? Finally, will he confirm that even were there to be successful litigation—which I do not believe will be the case—it would result only in a declaration of incompatibility, and could not strike down primary legislation?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there is no power to strike down the primary legislation. I am afraid that I will not indulge him in a direct answer as to the nature of advice that may or may not have been tendered, and he knows the reasons why. However, I reassure him that all the proper mechanisms have been employed and engaged in the preparation of the Bill, and that on the basis of all the information received, I was able—with high certainty—to make the declaration on the frontispiece.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that we worked together on these matters when I was in the Government. He is right to speak about the metamorphosis of terrorism. Will he confirm—indeed, these provisions underpin this—that we must never let the persistent and perverse advocacy of the rights of murderous individuals compromise either the work of our security services or public faith in the rule of law?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, as we worked together on the Bill that became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which rightly struck the balance between the need to protect the public and the need to make sure that the rule of law was respected.

That gives me a chance to warm to a theme that I make no apology—

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way in a moment. I am warming to a theme—let me warm!

The theme is this: in our fight against terrorism—in our determination to protect the public against those who spread hate, division, death and injury, irrespective of what might motivate them, because we know that we have a cohort of different types of terrorist—we are defending something of value. We are defending a democratic, free society. We are defending the rule of law. We are defending the values of this place and, indeed, the values of all the people we have the honour and privilege of representing. That is something worth defending. By using due process, we mark ourselves out as distinct from, better than and different from those who seek to divide us.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend in receipt of advice from the Law Officers on this question? I say that because whatever arguments he may address with regard to compatibility and his statement on the front of the Bill, the reality is that this could easily end up in the courts if they can possibly manufacture an argument. I want to be quite clear that his advice relates to action in the courts and not just to incompatibility.

[Robert Buckland]

I can assure my hon. Friend that all the usual processes were followed. I am not going to go into the weeds of what the Law Officers might have said. We know that they have a particular function when it comes to the necessary clearances for the introduction of a Bill. I can assure him that those processes have been followed and that the issues that he rightly outlines—and, indeed, presages through his amendments—are very much uppermost in our considerations.

[Seema Malhotra]

Recent events have indeed shown the need for a review through this legislation, which I certainly support, and which has the appropriate safeguards and implementation measures that will be debated today.

The Lord Chancellor made a point about the victims. Somebody who had done work experience in my office was a witness on that day as they were working at Fishmongers’ Hall. The impact not just on those who were injured or killed, but on those who were there and their families, has been tremendous, and continues.

The provisions in the Bill change the release point for offenders who have committed a relevant terrorism offence and refer those offenders to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of the sentence. I think we can understand and acknowledge that the resources available to the police and probation are also a critical part of this. A change in legislation will not be enough. Is the Lord Chancellor also committed to making sure that the resources required through the justice system will be in place to make any change effective on the ground?

[Robert Buckland]

Indeed, I pay tribute to everybody who was not only involved with but witnessed those awful events at Fishmongers’ Hall.

The hon. Lady and I served together on the Justice Committee for some time, and I know that she has a long-term interest in these issues. She is right to ask about resources. Some weeks ago, when it was announced that we would be introducing a counter-terrorism Bill, extra resources of £90 million for counter-terrorism activity were announced, additional to the overall package of £900 million of support for counter-terrorism. With regard to what we are doing with probation and the interventions that she referred to, again we announced extra resources, with a doubling in the number of specialist probation officers and the introduction of more expert psychiatric and imam involvement. She can rest assured that whatever resources are needed in order to deal with this issue, we will devote them to this particular line of important, intensive work.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

The Staffordshire-born convicted terrorist Usman Khan was let out of prison early on licence. Last November, less than a year after his release, he killed two young people near London Bridge. Does the Secretary of State agree that this illustrates why this Bill is so important to protect the public in my constituency and across the UK, and to ensure that the most dangerous criminals serve the prison time that they deserve?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly points out the sad local connection to that appalling case last year. I know that she shares my—and indeed, I think, the whole House’s—commitment to maximum effort when it comes to protecting the public. It is clear that we must put a stop to the current arrangements whereby a dangerous terrorist can be released from prison by automatic process of law before the end of their sentence, so we must do so as quickly as possible.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the legislation that has been put before the House today. The Secretary of State is talking about resources. Will he outline any estimates he has made of the number of individuals who might be covered by this legislation so that we can perhaps understand the impact that it could have had on our police forces if those individuals had been released from prison early?

[Robert Buckland]

The number of offenders, either terrorist offenders or offenders who have committed offences with a terrorist link, is about 50. That does not sound like a large cohort, but in this particular situation of extreme gravity, we cannot afford to allow any further incidents to happen. I have spoken about the need to minimise risk; that does not mean that we can eliminate risk. That is why this emergency measure is, in my judgment and the judgment of the Government, absolutely necessary if we are to meet the concerns of my right hon. Friend and other hon. and right hon. Members.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises the issue of risk. He and the Government are absolutely right to be addressing the question of the automatic early release of terrorist offenders, but terrorist offenders will still be released at some point. That is why rehabilitation—the work that is done both in prison and when they are out of prison—is so important. There have been many efforts at this over the years, but, as recent incidents have shown, not always with success. Does he agree that we will never deal with the issue of terrorism until we deal with the ideology that drives it? Will he reassure me that the Government are making extra efforts to find new paths to ensure that we can turn people away from the extremism and terrorism that takes other people’s lives?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend speaks with unparalleled experience of these issues, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister. I can assure her—I will develop these issues later in my speech—that there is a constant self-questioning among those responsible for these programmes to make sure that they are properly calibrated, that they understand the particular drivers that compel people to commit these acts, and that the distinctions between the different types of offender are fully understood; from her own case experience she will know of myriad motivations. Rather than taking a blanket approach, a case-by-case analysis is very much at the heart of how we approach these matters.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that this legislation ending the automatic halfway point of release is the correct thing to do. The Parole Board obviously still has a very important role in this process. What reform of the Parole Board does he envisage to make it more accountable, because that is a key aspect of ensuring that citizens are kept safe from those who would cause them harm?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will be reassured that a lot of ongoing work continues with regard to the role of the Parole Board. Very recently, reforms were introduced that allow me to ask the Parole Board to reconsider important decisions that it makes with regard to the release, or early release, of offenders. A tailored review is currently being undertaken to make sure that its work is as practically effective as possible.

In our manifesto, we committed to a root-and-branch review, to ensure that victims are aware and as involved as possible from the outset and that the sharing of intelligence and information between the security services, the police and the Parole Board is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, so that the fullest and most appropriate assessment of risk can be made. In the area of counter-terrorism, nothing can be more important than ensuring that that intelligence is shared and that those who handle it have the appropriate clearances and expertise to make the necessary assessment.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor rightly mentions the need for resources to support this new legislation, because most of these offenders will eventually be released, albeit later, into the community. The issue is not just one of resources; it is also one of process and expertise, because the recall provisions that are in place now could have been of use in the cases that we have seen in recent months. Can he assure me that the Government are also looking at training and process and that any reforms needed—for example, to recall processes—will be properly put in place to support this legislation?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady, with whom I served on the Justice Committee, is right to talk about risk assessment and the recall process. She knows that the recall process can be triggered on arrest, and certainly on charge, and that is regularly done in the normal course of events. When it comes to multi-agency public protection arrangements, I think she will note with pleasure that, only three weeks ago, the Home Secretary and I ordered a review to be conducted by Jonathan Hall QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He will look at MAPPA with regard to this high-risk, high-level sector of the cohort, to ensure that we are getting it right and that the appropriate expertise is deployed at the right time in order to make the finest judgment with regard to risk.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

If I understand it correctly, there are about 220 people serving time for terrorist offences, 50 of whom will be affected by this legislation. Is that because those 50 are up for imminent release within the next few months? Does this legislation in principle apply to all 220 people in prison for terrorist-related offences?

[Robert Buckland]

The cohort of around 50 are due for automatic early release; the rest will be subject to Parole Board assessment. Different types of sentence are available. We are talking about people on standard determinate sentences. Other types of sentence include extended determinate sentences. Some may still be on the historical IPP—imprisonment for public protection—regime, and there are also sentences for offenders of particular concern, or SOPC. Forgive me for the alphabet soup, but I am afraid that criminal justice sentencing legislation has not been the easiest matter for us to deal with, either as legislators or when I was a practitioner in this area.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way; he is being hugely generous. Does he accept that, while a lot of these people are terrorists and criminals, a significant number of them are clearly insane? The people who were in jail with the latest perpetrator said that that individual was plainly off his head. He had a history of drug abuse, and mind-altering substances clearly played a role. Why is it that if people are secular and insane, they will be locked up indefinitely, but if they can ascribe this to some sort of religious motive, we feel we have to give them a finite sentence and release them, when they might run amok at any stage?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an interesting and thought-provoking point. While I will not go into the individual facts of this case, because it is subject to a police investigation and there is an ongoing inquiry, I will say this. The judgment as to a mental health disorder within the meaning set out in the Mental Health Act 1983 is a matter for two section 12 qualified clinicians—consultant psychiatrists—who will produce clinical evidence that will satisfy a court of the provisions of section 37 of the Act or, indeed, a restriction under section 41, which puts the power of release into my hands. That has to be satisfied on the basis of evidence.

It is important to make a distinction between that clinical approach and the risk assessment that we have to undertake when it comes to those who profess political motivation. It is thought-provoking in the sense that we need to think about a mechanism that would be robust and legally sound but would allow an objective assessment to be made about the risk posed by individuals, even after their sentence has been completed. Public protection has to come to the forefront of our thinking.

I will now describe what we have done operationally since the attack at Streatham. The Prison and Probation Service has taken immediate action to strengthen our operational grip of terrorist offenders and protect the public from any further attacks. The National Probation Service is working closely with counter-terrorism partners. Several offenders on licence have been recalled to prison since the attack, where officers identified concerning behaviour, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). We have also instructed prison governors to report any concerns and take any action required. Several terrorist prisoners have subsequently been placed in segregation units as a result of concerns raised by prison staff. The Prison Service is managing the risk of incidents in prisons that may be inspired by, or in response to, the attack at Streatham.

I would like to put on record my thanks to Ian Acheson for his 2016 report on our response to extremism in prisons. In the intervening years, the operating context has changed, and our response has strengthened considerably, but we must go further. We will take all additional steps necessary, including keeping the full list of recommendations in Mr Acheson’s internal report under careful review.

However, we need to take further action urgently to ensure that the public are protected. As we saw in the Streatham attack, we cannot have a situation where an offender—a known risk to the public—is released without any oversight by the Parole Board. The Bill therefore sets out new release arrangements for prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorist offence or an offence with a terrorist connection. There are two main elements to that: first, to standardise the earliest point at which they may be considered for release at two thirds of the sentence imposed; and secondly, to require that the Parole Board assesses whether they are safe to release between that point and the end of their sentence. That will apply to all terrorist and terrorist-related offences where the maximum penalty is above two years, including those offences for which Sudesh Umman was sentenced. Only a very small number of low-level offences, such as failure to comply with a police cordon, are excluded by this threshold, and prosecution and conviction for those offences are rare.

The changes affect those who are serving sentences for a specified offence, whether the sentence was imposed before or after the new section comes into force. Applying this to serving prisoners reflects the unprecedented gravity of the situation we face and the danger posed to the public. The Bill will not achieve its intended effect unless it operates with retrospective effect, and therefore it will necessarily operate on both serving and future prisoners. That does not mean that the Bill will change retrospectively the sentence imposed by the court; release arrangements are part of the administration of a sentence, and the overall penalty remains unchanged. As I outlined earlier, domestic and ECHR case law supports our stance that article 7 is not engaged where the penalty imposed by the court is not altered. The measures in the Bill will also amend the release arrangements for terrorist offenders sentenced in Scotland, which will ensure a consistent approach where possible to the release of terrorist prisoners.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the introduction of this legislation and dealing with the issue of early release. May I come back to him on a point I have raised previously about how we manage the risk of people who have offended once they have left prison, and about using the availability and enforceability of post-release conditions, and indeed the terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime and its potential application, to give a sense of assurance? Can he comment any further on the next steps and how this can be progressed, because this is clearly an issue that will need to be addressed?

[Robert Buckland]

I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as the House will know, was a distinguished Security Minister and Northern Ireland Secretary, and had to deal with these issues daily. I will say this to him: he will know that the counter-terrorism Bill, which was announced some weeks ago, will be coming before the House soon. There will be measures in it not only on the minimum term to be served for serious terror offences, but on the way in which licence periods will be applied as part of such a sentence. That is clearly one of the most effective ways to deal with this problem—through the criminal prosecution and conviction process.

My right hon. Friend makes a wider point. He will know from having navigated through the House the TPIMs legislation, which has been subsequently strengthened and amended, that there are other circumstances in which public protection will have to play a function in the absence of a conviction. It is on that particular cohort that the Government are placing a lot of attention and concentration. It would perhaps be idle of me to speculate by outlining what precise forms those will take, but it is a dialogue that I encourage him actively to take part in over the next few months and it is something I would want to develop with support from all parts of this House.

[Sir William Cash]

At this stage in the debate, and trying to avoid our having what might otherwise turn into an argument about the law in court, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the case of del Río Prada has actually been taken into account? Does he know if that has been taken into account, because it was about policy and administration?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that not only has it been taken into account, but I have read it. It is a 2013 authority from the Strasbourg Court that relates to a particular set of circumstances involving the Kingdom of Spain. There have been subsequent cases both before that court and, indeed, domestically. In summary, we are satisfied, on the basis of all the information we have, that the provisions of article 7 are not engaged in this respect.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most compelling case for this legislation. For the sake of completeness, I am sure he will also have read and taken into account the subsequent cases in the Strasbourg Court of Abedin in the United Kingdom in 2016 and of the Supreme Court in Docherty in 2017—both subsequent to del Río Prada—which it seems to me support the Government’s contention.

[Robert Buckland]

I say to my hon. Friend, as I am sure he has heard many times in court, that his submissions find great force with the Government and we are persuaded by them.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is very clear that the Lord Chancellor is carrying the House with him this afternoon, and all of us are seized of the necessity of bringing forward this Bill at this time and as quickly as possible. However, it is acknowledged that there are serious concerns and issues about the engagement of article 7—I think he has an entirely justifiable position—and that we are bereft of the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny that we might otherwise have had; that is a consequence of the situation we find ourselves in. Given that, has the Lord Chancellor given any consideration to injecting a review mechanism into the Bill?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I think it is right to say, in the context of Northern Ireland, that we have given such careful consideration to the engagement of article 7 that we have chosen not to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland. The way in which the sentence is calculated and put together by the Northern Ireland courts does cause potential issues with regard to engagement and therefore potential interference with the nature of the penalty itself. I think that is actually very important in this context: it is real evidence of the fact that the British Government have thought very carefully about the engagement of article 7, and have not sought to take a blanket approach to all the various jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about a review mechanism. He will be reassured to know that a counter-terrorism Bill is coming forward that will cover all parts of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity on that Bill to debate and analyse further long-term proposals. Inevitably, the status and provisions of this Bill—I hope, by then, an Act of Parliament—will be part of that ongoing debate. I am confident that, through the mechanisms of this House, we will be able to subject these provisions to post-legislative scrutiny in the way that he would expect.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the effect of this legislation that will keep terrorist prisoners in custody for longer, and he has rightly paid tribute to prison imams, who maintain religious interventions for those whose motivation for their terrorist offending is at least claimed to be religious. Can he reassure us that, given the extra time in custody that many of these prisoners will now serve, such effective and in many cases very brave interventions by prison imams will be given the extra time available to take further effect?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General speaks with great experience and knowledge of these matters. He is absolutely right to focus on the specialist intervention of our imams. I think I referred to the fact that we are going to increase resources and increase the number available within our prisons. Both the Home Secretary and I have seen at first hand the partnership working that goes on within the high-security estate when it comes to dealing with these particular challenges. It is precisely that type of specialist intervention that he and others can be confident we will be supporting in the years ahead.

I was going on to explain the extension of parole release to those who serve standard determinate sentences and other transitional cases currently subject to automatic release. In line with the normal arrangements for prisoners released by the Parole Board, the board will set the conditions of an offender’s licence for this cohort when they are released before the end of their sentence. The Parole Board, as I outlined earlier, has the necessary powers and indeed the expertise to make risk-based release decisions for terrorist offenders. The board currently deals with terrorists who serve indeterminate sentences, extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern—the “SPOCs”, as they are colloquially referred to.

There is a cohort of specialist Parole Board members who are trained specifically to deal with terrorist and extremist offenders. They are, in effect, the specialised branch of the board that will be used to handle these additional cases. They include retired High Court judges, retired police officers and other experts in the field, all of whom have extensive experience of dealing with the most sensitive and difficult terrorist cases. Due to the nature of the emergency legislation, I have proposed that the provisions cover England, Wales and Scotland.

The justification for this emergency, retrospective legislation—out of the ordinary though I accept it is—is to prevent the automatic release of terrorist offenders in the coming weeks and months. Given the risk that this cohort has already shown they pose to the public, it is vital that we pass this legislation rapidly before any more terrorists are automatically released from custody at the halfway point. Therefore, we are aiming for this legislation to receive Royal Assent before the end of the month. With the support of this House, I am confident that we can do that. I commend the Bill to the House.

13:19

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Justice Secretary for his briefing last week and for his opening remarks, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has been keeping me updated in recent days.

This Bill follows the awful terrorist atrocities first at Fishmongers’ Hall on 30 November and more recently in Streatham. My thoughts, and I am sure those of all Members across the House, go out to the victims of these terrible attacks and to their families and friends, and we thank the emergency services who responded so quickly.

Labour Members support the Parole Board’s involvement in release decisions. If this Bill is not passed and rushed through its stages over the next couple of weeks, terrorist prisoners will be on our streets, without any assessment of risk or dangerousness by the Parole Board. That does not leave the House in the easiest of positions, but it is the reality of the situation before us. For the Bill to be durable and workable, it must not simply amount to a delay in confronting the problem; it will also require a relentless focus on, and investment in, the most effective de-radicalisation programmes in our prisons.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

One of the most effective de-radicalisation programmes is that run by the Saudis, but it takes a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sentences are long enough to accommodate a successful programme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I took part in a long debate on sentencing in the last Parliament with the then Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, now the Secretary of State for Defence, and a number of sentences were increased. In her intervention on the Justice Secretary, the former Prime Minister pointed out —very fairly, I thought—that there has been an issue with the success of de-radicalisation programmes in recent years. Length of a sentence is one matter, but, whatever the length, the programme must be targeted and effective—I will come on to that point in a moment.

We are here to discuss emergency legislation, but there is also an emergency in resources. The Leader of the House indicated yesterday that the Treasury has approved additional resources for the extra time that prisoners will spend in custody as a consequence of the Bill, as well as for the Parole Board. Clearly, however, there must also be a specific and dramatic increase in resources to tackle extremism in our prisons.

But this is not just about resources—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a point about process and expertise, and she is absolutely right—and a strategic approach from the top will be required.

The Justice Secretary made it clear that there is no need for derogation from the European convention on human rights, and he set out the Government’s legal position on article 7. Labour Members firmly believe that we can tackle terrorism and proudly remain signatories to the European convention on human rights. In our view, to leave that convention and join Belarus as the only European non-signatory would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world. We should never sacrifice the values that we are defending in the fight against terrorism and hatred.

Those who perpetrate hatred and violence are responsible for their actions, but it is for the Government to do everything they can to keep our streets safe and minimise the risk of something like this ever happening again. The House is therefore entitled to ask why we have ended up requiring this Bill to be passed via emergency legislation. Automatic early release is hardly new. It has been part of our system for many years, and could already have been dealt with by a Government who took a more strategic approach.

There have been a number of warning signals over the past decade. In his opening remarks, the Justice Secretary mentioned Ian Acheson, a former prison governor who led a review of Islamist extremism in our prisons, probation and youth justice system, which was published in August 2016. Mr Acheson said:

“What we found was so shockingly bad that I had to agree to the language in the original report being toned down…There were serious deficiencies in almost every aspect of the management of terrorist offenders through the system…It was a shambles.”

Mr Acheson proposed 69 recommendations that, according to the Justice Secretary when speaking to the media over the weekend, have been consolidated into a total of 11, eight of which are being implemented. However, in a newspaper article last Thursday Mr Acheson said:

“As part of my review of prison extremism, I made a great number of recommendations that specifically related to a tactical response to a terrorist incident in prison where staff were targeted. I have no way of knowing if or how many were implemented as none made it into the response published by the Ministry of Justice.”

That was only days ago. I do not know whether the Justice Secretary has met Mr Acheson since last Thursday—[Interruption.] I am happy for him to intervene.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have not met Mr Acheson since last Thursday, but I have met him. Indeed, I took part in a documentary that he produced for Radio 4 a few weeks ago, before the latest attack. His engagement has been valued. I will not go into the precise circumstances in which the report was consolidated, because in essence it contained some sensitive matters that we all understood could not be published.

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about 2016. We accepted what Mr Acheson said, but things have moved on a long way since then, and the problems that were identified are being tackled directly. We accept that there is still more to be done, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that we have moved on in the four years since that report.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will come on to whether things have moved on in a moment when I explore what the Chief Inspector of Prisons says about that issue. Last Thursday, however—only days ago—Mr Acheson was clearly unsure of the Government’s position. I hear what the Justice Secretary says about what is in the public domain, which is entirely appropriate. One would hope, however, that someone who led a review for the Government would know four years later whether specific recommendations had been acted on. I also accept what the Justice Secretary says about appearing in a documentary, but I strongly suggest that he meet Mr Acheson fairly urgently, to discuss those matters about which Mr Acheson is not sure, so that they can be cleared up.

[Robert Buckland]

I should have added that I have offered Mr Acheson a full briefing from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service on those issues, and it has been accepted.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am pleased to hear that, and I hope we will never again be in a situation where someone who led a review is not aware of what is going on years later. That simply cannot and should not happen, as I am sure the Justice Secretary would agree.

There are concerns about the Ministry of Justice listening, and the extent to which justice has been a priority for the Government over the past decade. The coalition Government chose not to make the Ministry of Justice a protected Department when they implemented spending cuts That led to 40% cuts over the past decade, including to the prisons that today we expect to play a vital role in offender management. We know that 21,000 police officers disappeared from our streets, and prison officer numbers have been slashed. There are currently 18,912 front-line prison officers, which is not yet back to 2010 levels. That loss of prison officers has not just reduced the capacity of prisons to deal with rehabilitation; it also means that years of experience of working in challenging environments in our prisons have been lost.

In 2019, 35% of prison officers had been in post for less than two years, compared with just 7% in 2010. I do not mean that those officers are not doing their best in difficult circumstances, but the Government needlessly threw away valuable experience in our prisons.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of prison officers, the privatisation of some of our prisons, and having those young officers, has led to problems in Her Majesty’s Prison Birmingham, which has seen a number of riots over the past couple of years? It adds more to the Treasury’s costs if we have to take away people with experience and later bring them back.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority about HMP Birmingham, and he is right to identify that if prisons are run in such a way there will be consequences because the time available for meaningful activity is reduced.

The Justice Secretary talked in the media at the weekend about improvements in our justice system since Mr Acheson’s report. He repeated that in his speech and he has repeated it in an intervention a moment or two ago. I therefore thought I would compare what the Justice Secretary is saying with the views of the independent chief inspector of prisons. The latest annual report from Peter Clarke states that

“far too many of our jails have been plagued by drugs, violence, appalling living conditions and a lack of access to meaningful rehabilitative activity.”

That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Mr Clarke went on to say that

“levels of self-harm were disturbingly high and self-inflicted deaths tragically increased by nearly one-fifth on the previous year.”

That is no way for the Prison Service to be run and things must change.

There is also, if I may say so, an issue at the Ministry of Justice with the Government failing to provide it with stable leadership. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the seventh Justice Secretary since 2010. Of those seven, five have served for 18 months or less. The role of Lord Chancellor should have been respected and not been subject to a revolving door. No wonder there is such a lack of direction and no wonder there is no long-term planning. Justice Secretaries are simply not in post long enough. There are even indications from 10 Downing Street that half the Cabinet could be out by Friday.

I say in all sincerity to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I very much hope he survives in this role—I hope I have not jinxed him by saying that; I could have just ruined his Friday—because there is an enormous job to do. There are 224 terrorist prisoners in England and Wales, of whom 173 have been assessed as having extreme Islamist views. We also know that there is a growing threat from far-right terrorism. If we want properly to manage the risk of terrorist offenders, we need the most effective targeted de-radicalisation programmes to be delivered by staff working in the best conditions we can provide for them.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

One area has not been mentioned. When I took part in the police service parliamentary scheme and spent some time with the counter-terrorism units, the one area they highlighted was working on the ground with mental health resources in our communities. That risk decision, the decision at community level about someone’s mental capacity and radicalisation, is really important when we look at resources. The cuts to our mental health services are having an impact on this area.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we sometimes see things in isolation, but cuts to many other services have also had an impact, which the Government need to take into account. Indeed, when we talk about conditions for our prison officers to work in, a third of our prisons were built in the Victoria era. There is a £900 million maintenance backlog and a desperate need for new investment.

[Sir William Cash]

On mental disturbance, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are circumstances in which the principle of mens rea may not apply simply because the person in question, for a variety of reasons, some of which may be drug-affected or intrinsic, is incapable of making an act within the framework of mens rea? In those circumstances, should we perhaps be thinking further down the line about what kind of containment people need to restrain them from performing such murderous acts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

A number of issues about mens rea, which is an essential element of committing a criminal offence, have been decided before the courts. However, elements of our law can already deal with those who suffer from severe mental health problems, and they can be used and operated appropriately on a multi-agency basis.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I take this opportunity to reiterate my previous intervention. The suspicion is that there are gravely mentally ill people who are in prison when they ought to be treated as if they are criminally insane and held in a secure psychiatric unit. The concern is that people are being treated as terrorists when they are clearly mad, simply because they have picked up some smattering of something that passes for a religious motivation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Where I can agree to a degree is that I certainly accept that there are people with mental health problems in prison who, frankly, should not be. The right hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to secure psychiatric units, where there is also a shortage of places. That is another issue that the Government need to accept on the basis of the past 10 years.

I heard what the Justice Secretary said about specialist officers, particularly those in de-radicalisation programmes, but we are tolerating a rise in physical attacks on our prison staff. That cannot be fair to them and it will not produce a constructive environment in our prisons. From September 2018-19, there were 33,222 assaults, including 23,592 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and 10,059 assaults on staff. Levels of self-harm were also the highest ever recorded.

The Bill, I am sure the Justice Secretary will argue, will deal with the immediate crisis of the next few weeks, but he must plan ahead. The crisis in our criminal justice system does not end with our prisons. We also need the best possible probation services and the best possible supervision. In 2014, the Government part-privatised the probation service. I do not think it is unfair to say that it was an absolute disaster. The Government had more than 150,000 people supervised by private community rehabilitation companies and just left the high-risk offenders to be managed by the National Probation Service. The chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, said last year:

“The system which sees private firms monitor criminals serving community sentences is ‘irredeemably flawed’”.

She is right. No wonder the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s predecessor had to announce last year that the supervision of all offenders on probation in England and Wales was being put back into the public sector.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about capacity, and that seems to be reasonable. Early release—scores of convicted terrorists have been released early since 2013—adds to demand on capacity and he is making a case that we should address that. On that basis, I am sure he would want to support the Secretary of State in taking that pressure away, building morale and, as he described, allowing the police to exercise capacity more effectively.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, yes. I have made absolutely clear my support for the measures before us today. My point is simply this: today we will deal with an immediate crisis. What the Bill will not do is deal with the broader and deeper problems we have that will need to be dealt with in the months and years ahead. The National Audit Office announced that the botched part-privatisation of probation cost the taxpayer nearly £500 million. Frankly, it is time for good sense and consistency in policy making at the Ministry of Justice.

The independent review of the Prevent programme, which I secured in the previous Parliament—I think I debated it with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—has been announced, but there is no reviewer. We are now a year from the point at which the Bill that he and I debated received Royal Assent. Lord Carlile was appointed but resigned before Christmas, because he had already expressed views on the programme, and the Government have hardly shown urgency in appointing a replacement. It is high time that they did. I appreciate that that is not the responsibility of the Justice Secretary, but I am sure he will pass on the message to his Cabinet colleagues that the reviewer must be appointed and the review must begin, take place and make recommendations. Today really must be a day when that focus on rehabilitation comes and we turn the page away from a decade of problems in our criminal justice system.

One of the recommendations made by Mr Acheson was for an independent adviser on counter-terrorism in prisons. I would go further and press the Justice Secretary to provide external scrutiny and assessment of the deradicalisation programmes across our prison estate. In that way, this House can regularly assess the position, and we will not again be in a situation where we are taken by surprise or are responding on the hoof. We cannot tolerate our prisons becoming breeding grounds for extremism, and we need to ask searching questions.

I hope that this emergency legislation will pass without a Division. Alongside it, I hope that the Government will now invest in the very best expertise available in counter-extremism and tackle the crisis in our prisons. It is only by doing that that the Government can truly say they are doing all they can to keep our streets safe, and in that we will be holding them to account.

13:50

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The speeches from both Front Benchers have been very thoughtful and that matches the significance of this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a very compelling case for this legislation. It is not the type of legislation that the House should undertake lightly, but protecting the public must ultimately trump all other considerations. It is always right that we should protect the public in a way that is commensurate with the rule of law. I believe that the Government and the Lord Chancellor have managed to achieve that balance and I am glad that the official Opposition recognise that, too. That is a fundamental duty for all of us, and reconciling the two is a considerable achievement, given the pressures we are under at this time.

The reason that I think it is necessary to move in this way has been well set out. I speak as somebody who represents a London constituency: many of my constituents work in and around the places where we have seen so many atrocities. That brings home to us profoundly the catastrophic risk that can come when an individual is released. Even though the index offence that caused them to go to prison may not have led to a very long sentence, the nature—I am sorry to say—of the type of terrorism that we see now, often based on perverted ideologies and the deep-seated hatred that that breeds, gives us the need to be particularly careful and cautious about all forms of release going forward. The automatic point of release will be moved to two thirds—in fact, that will no longer be automatic but will, in all cases, be considered by the Parole Board, and that is a worthwhile and important aspect of the Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

I am listening with great interest to everything that my hon. Friend says, as ever. Does he think that the question over the Bill is that it will have a limited effect, whereas the problems that we face have a much longer-term consequence? Does he believe, therefore, that we ought to have a more rigorous analysis in future—this is only emergency legislation—to make sure that human life in this country takes priority over the interpretation of law?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I certainly agree that we need a more detailed analysis of the best approach to a threat that continues to change and develop. My hon. Friend is right about that, and it is right that this is a discrete, emergency measure to deal with a specific and urgent problem. We certainly need to look at the way in which we deal with sentencing, the treatment of such individuals and the protection of the public in that context—that is absolutely right. I happen to believe, lest it be hinted otherwise, that that is perfectly capable of being achieved within our continuing adherence to the European convention on human rights and that a series of British court decisions would tend to support that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right on the broader thrust that there is more work to do in this field. I got the sense that the Government and the Lord Chancellor recognise that, too.

It is right that we should consider the necessity of the Bill. I would have thought that that had been well laid out now. That is one of the principles of the rule of law. Lord Bingham famously set out a number of principles. One should not act in haste unless there is a compelling reason, but the reality of blood being shed on the streets of this country seems a compelling reason to me. The fact that people have been released and then have swiftly, and frequently, seized articles and used them to catastrophic effect seems to make this legislation both necessary and proportionate, so I hope that the House will have no hesitation in supporting it.

One issue that seems to have raised some concern, particularly in legal circles, is whether there is any risk of retrospectivity. I do not seek to see retrospective legislation, and for the reasons that the Lord Chancellor set out I do not believe that that is the case. When I was in practice at the Bar, it was very clear that the prospect of whether early release might occur was not a consideration that any judge should take into account in passing sentence. The principle was, and always has been, that the sentence passed should be commensurate with the gravity and seriousness of the offence and any other legitimate mitigating or aggravating circumstances that the Crown or the defence can put forward. Whether there may or may not be early release thereafter was never regarded as a consideration affecting the penalty.

That is important for the argument that the Bill retrospectively increases the penalty, which I think is a misguided argument in these circumstances. It was often said that the prospect of early release in effect ameliorates the penalty that was passed, rather than anything else. There is a string of authority in both the UK and Strasbourg courts to the effect that the total duration of the penalty is that which is laid down by the court at the time. That is the bit that cannot be changed retrospectively and the legislation does not seek to do that.

[Sir John Hayes]

From his long experience of these things, my hon. Friend is making a cogent argument about the character of penalties. He might want to go further. The problem with the assumption about automatic early release is that it is injurious to the very principle that he set out. Early release has always been part of judicial considerations but on the basis of an assessment of risk, merit and worthiness. Automatic early release runs against those principles.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I understand that point and we can debate it in broader terms when the larger piece of sentencing legislation is introduced, as I understand it will be later in the Session. The purpose of this legislation is effectively to deal with that—as well as moving the release point from half-way to two thirds, the Bill automatically states that there must be consideration by the Parole Board. It is very important that the Parole Board has the resource and expertise to carry out the additional and heavy burden that it must take on. There have been good reforms of the Parole Board since the Worboys case, for example, and in the last Parliament the Justice Committee looked at this and urged changes to the way in which parole operated, which have been acted on. There is movement in the right direction but we must be ever vigilant in making sure that the Parole Board has the resource, which may include more specialist resource.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s lucid speech and particularly in the fact that he says the sentence imposed by judges is meant to reflect the gravity of the crime. It does explain why so many victims feel short-changed when people are let out early. When we come to consider the larger question of sentencing, would it not make more sense to have judges impose sentences that people will actually serve and to extend them if people misbehave in jail, rather than reducing them if they behave?

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We will want to look at a number of issues when we debate the sentencing Bill. However, I say by way of caution that when we start extending the sentence—the penalty—we run the risk of falling foul of the principle against retrospectivity. With respect, I say to him that that is not something I would wish to see. That is different from remission of the sentence for earned good behaviour, which is the traditional system that we grew up with. There is an important distinction to be drawn.

[Dr Lewis]

The point about extending the sentence is that it would be extended because of the commission of a further offence while the person was in prison, and that would not be retrospectivity.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is an interesting point, but, with respect to my right hon. Friend, it is a wholly different consideration. There has been much debate on this point. The Select Committee has looked at it and urged that for certain offences, such as assaults on prison officers, there is often a compelling case, as a matter of public policy, for that to be charged as an additional offence, rather than be dealt with under the prison disciplinary rules, as is frequently the case. I am with him on that, but perhaps that is as far as we should take it today.

I have one final point about retrospectivity. Some learned commentators have raised concerns on the basis of the European Court decision in the case of Del Río Prada, but that case at most raises a tangential or speculative concern that there might be retrospectivity. The briefing from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I have a lot of respect for that centre, so it is right that I address it—says that arguably this could be regarded as falling foul of the principles; it does not come down hard and fast in that regard. The decision came after a particularly convoluted history of changes within the Spanish judicial system, which is utterly different from what we are doing. Subsequently, there have been decisions by the Strasbourg Court, in the case of the application of Abedin against the United Kingdom, and by the Supreme Court in the UK, in the case of Doherty, where the line of reasoning was much more consistent with the traditional stance we have taken ever since the House of Lords decision in the case of Uttley, which was that the changes to remission and early release provisions were part of the administration or execution of a sentence, not part of the penalty. That seems such a well-established principle that we ought to have confidence that we can act upon it in this case.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend’s analysis, but I just wanted to add one point. The Del Río Prada case touched on how concurrent sentences were calculated, which is wholly different from the matter before the House today.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In legal parlance, I would say that is the most material consideration in distinguishing between those cases and the ones we are dealing with here. I hope that, having considered all those points, the House will be reassured on retrospectivity.

As other hon. Members have observed, it is important to recognise that this is a specific piece of legislation dealing with a specific and discrete problem; it does not mean we should not act urgently to deal with the broader issue of how we deal with this type of terrorism, which has developed in recent years; how we contain those who are deeply radicalised in prison; and how we prevent further radicalisation in prison—there is some concern that the Streatham attacker might still have been receiving radicalisation material while in prison. We need to look urgently at that and at the threat, which many of us have come across, of hard-line terrorist prisoners seeking to further radicalise more vulnerable inmates within the prison estate. That is an issue that Mr Acheson, who has been referred to favourably by many in this debate, addressed. I am glad to hear the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with Mr Acheson.

I share the view of the shadow Minister that Mr Acheson has a good deal more to give to this discussion. Things have moved on since his 2016 report, and he was a most compelling witness when he appeared before the Justice Committee in a previous Parliament, so it might be that we would like the benefit of his views again. I hope the Government will engage directly with him to see how, within the new context, we can continue to take on that and other expertise.

It is also right that we build upon the good work being done by the chaplaincy service in the form of the specialist imams. We have not perhaps given enough credit to the work of prison chaplaincy generally and of the specialist imams, who have a very difficult task to fulfil but do it most admirably. That is the impression I have got from those I have met. What more can we do to give them greater professional—pastoral, if you like—practical and professional support? This is an important area. I hope the Minister will confirm that we intend to continue that work and say what we can do to make sure that the many terrorist prisoners being held in high-security prisons like Belmarsh, near me in south-east London, are being held in a way that does not pose any further threat to staff, in terms of attacks—an issue that Mr Acheson dealt with—or any threat, either physically or in terms of further corruption, to other more vulnerable inmates with whom they might be serving.

In conclusion, this is an important Bill, and I hope the House will speed it through, but there is much more work to do. I will finish, though the Lord Chancellor is not now in the Chamber, by concurring with the shadow Minister on one final point: I, too, have been frustrated, as Chairman of the Select Committee, at the revolving door of Secretaries of State and Ministers who have appeared before us over the years, and I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will stay in office very successfully and for many years. His handling of this delicate matter, including yesterday, has given him as good a claim as anyone to his office—and I, too, hope that that has not done too much damage to his career.

13:59

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I concur with the Lord Chancellor’s comments that one of the primary duties of any Government, in any country, is to keep their population safe. I would go as far as to say that that applies to everybody elected to this institution and indeed to any democratic Chamber. Nobody seeks to make their constituency, let alone their country, unsafe. It is in that spirit that we come to this debate.

We understand the spirit of the Bill and the need for urgency—our party has had to deal, in another Chamber, with urgent and special procedures on severe matters that present a danger to the public—but we obviously have other duties, too, and there must be an element of proportionality. I think the Lord Chancellor used the word “cohorts”. It is important that we put it on the record that, despite what might be put across by some tabloid newspapers or by others, we are not dealing with thousands or hundreds; he said that we were dealing with 50 individuals, although some have suggested that it might be an even lower number. Equally, we recognise that, although they may be few in number, the danger and damage they can cause in our communities is significant, as we have sadly seen.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Although I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will recognise that keeping even one of these people under close surveillance can involve up to 50 members of special branch or MI5. Therefore, even a handful of them will severely test the resources of the security services.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. I was going to come to that point, given my involvement as a former Justice Secretary in Scotland. We on the Opposition Benches have a duty not only to ensure public safety, but to challenge and hold the Government to account on proportionality, practicality and operability. We will test and probe issues to ensure that public safety criteria, which are shared on both sides of the House, are met, but I assure the Minister that we do not oppose the general principles of the Bill.

That brings me to the question of retrospectivity, which has been commented on by many Members. It is unusual, it is rare, it is infrequently done, but we are open to it, although we have some caveats, the major one being that we have to get it right. We appreciate and welcome the extensive consideration given to this matter and the sharing with all Members of the logic and thinking, but this is an important point. I am conscious of the analogy of wasps in a jar: if you shake them all about and then let them out, you will get stung. We are, as I say, sympathetic to the point about retrospectivity, but we take on board the points made by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which Members will have seen today. We seek as much assurance as the Minister can give—we recognise that no absolute assurance can be given—that he is as certain as he can be that we will not face protracted litigation, a rewrite or further emergency legislation, and that we will avoid the potentially calamitous problems that may follow. I think again of the analogy of wasps in a jar.

That takes us on to the substantive issues that have been dealt with by many Members on both sides of the House, but in particular by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). The real issue here is radicalisation. Our primary concern on the Opposition Benches is not so much the nature of the legislation, but the action with prisoners, current or future, that has been taken and must be taken in the future. It is one thing to detain them for longer; it is quite another to do something constructive with them when you have them. That is the nub of the problem, and that is the underlying issue that we are seeking to test with the Government.

I think it was the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who mentioned that all will ultimately be released. I had significant discussions with her when she was the Home Secretary and I was the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Parliament. The likelihood is that most will be released bar a very few, perhaps only a handful, and we must ensure that when that date comes, we are as safe as we can be. Although no Government can give every assurance that no one will reoffend, we must be as sure as we can be that the risk is limited, or, indeed, that the actions to protect the public have been taken.

That brings me back to why we are generally supportive of the thrust of the Opposition amendments, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen. The real issue is not the legislation, but the action to deradicalise when people are within our prisons and monitor when they are without them. We also recognise that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Many Members have said that it has been with us for more years than they care to remember, but it is a challenge for those involved in criminal justice, because this is a new aspect. We have to think outside the box, which is why the input of imams, which was mentioned earlier, is so important. They are to be welcomed—and they sometimes face significant challenges, if not threats, themselves.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is absolutely correct, but there will be some who will not be deradicalised. In that circumstance, and when the time comes for their release, they are not mentally ill but they have a different view of the world. Might we not need to review the treason law, as was suggested at the weekend by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)?

[Kenny MacAskill]

I do not think that that would be required. I think that there are other ways in which we can deal with these people. The Chair of the Select Committee will know better than I, and the law in Scotland is somewhat different in relation to how we address psychopathy, but dealing with mental health issues always involves difficulties. It challenges the courts as it challenges those in the national health service who quite correctly deal with those issues. I think that this comes down to the fact that we are dealing with a new phenomenon. There are those who are mentally ill and who are set loose to cause havoc—either individually or encouraged by others—and the health service has to try to deal with them as best it can, but there are others who are simply malevolent. There are powers under current terrorism legislation, so I do not think there is any need for additional measures in that regard.

That returns me to the question of how we deal with them within and how we deal with them without. Let me start with the latter. Obviously monitoring is extremely resource-significant, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It is not a matter of someone in a rain jacket tailing an individual, even if that someone is accompanied by another. It takes dozens, and often significantly more, because there is back-office work and there are different shifts, and there are different ways of monitoring in the world in which we live. The resources needed just to deal with one individual, never mind the accompanying supply chain, are significant, and we need assurances that that will be provided. More police are required, particularly south of the border. The impact of terrorism on policing is significant, and that must be taken on board, given the other demands that the police rightly face in our communities.

I now come to the former issue. This is relevant to what has been said about the Acheson review, which was published back in 2016. It appears that little has been done since then. I gather from discussions I have had that one of Mr Acheson’s recommendations—which was, quite correctly, welcomed by the Government—was that prisons should have specialist separation units. I understand that some four were subsequently established, but only one—at, I think, HMP Frankland—is in operation. I am open to correction or challenge, but if that is indeed the position, it is simply not good enough. If an independent reviewer of the stature of Mr Acheson—on which we all agree—makes a recommendation, you are duty bound to implement it. If he makes a specific recommendation for units that you go to the trouble of establishing, it is mind-blowing that only one should be operating.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the separation units. We need to think about how we can increase the numbers. People who are already radicalised arrive in prison and then prey on vulnerable inmates to increase the level of radicalisation. It has been suggested that those who have already been convicted of terrorist crimes should be placed in separate units to prevent the spread of radicalisation. The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I thank the hon. Lady. The same has been done in previous years in the case of other prisoners. Even during my tenure, we had special units for those involved in paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland. This is something deeply specialised, but it will require action both by those involved in the establishment of the units and by the Prison Service.

That brings me to the question of deradicalisation programmes. I recognise the difficulty of checking against delivery and ensuring that the programmes are working, but I think that we need to take steps. I have a special request for the Minister: I think that prison officers should have an input in these courses. Their input is currently very limited—indeed, almost nil—and they are outsourced, which is understandable. There are also the specialist resources such as imams, who were mentioned earlier. However, we should recognise that prison officers have remarkable skills. They are able to tell who is pulling the wool over their eyes. They may not be trained in this or qualified in that, but they know psychology and individuals within the prison institution. They can tell you why someone is applying for a course—in the main, because no one can always get it right. They are hugely skilful in distinguishing those who are signing up because they want to be able to tick the box and satisfy the Parole Board from those who are signing up for a course because they believe in it. They do not engage with the prisoners just on the course; they live with them 24/7, and they can see who prisoners are interacting with and what their behaviour is like. I think that we have been remiss in this regard, and I ask the Minister to take my suggestion on board.

Let me end by simply saying that we are satisfied about the need for the Bill. We are satisfied with the general principles. We wish to be assured that retrospectivity will be addressed, and that resources both within and without will be provided. If that is done—although we accept that no Government can give us an absolute, categorical assurance that these people will not reoffend —we can at least go back to our constituencies and say to our constituents that we are doing as much as we can to keep our communities safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Dr Kieran Mullan to make his maiden speech.

14:17

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am conscious of the seriousness of the topic with which we are dealing today as I embark on the traditional features of a maiden speech, but we know that the positive community stories that I will be sharing are exactly what the terrorists seek to destroy, and what the Bill seeks to prevent them from destroying.

Let me begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Laura Smith. Laura was vociferous in her advocacy, and, like me, has frontline experience of public services. Before becoming a politician, she was a primary school teacher and a private tutor. It is a good thing to have diverse backgrounds and experiences in this place.

Crewe and Nantwich is a true melting pot of northern Britain, and I could not possibly do all its diversity justice in this short speech. I represent a large number of villages and parishes including Haslington, Willaston, Wistaston, Rope, Hough, Basford, Shavington, Barthomley, Weston, Leighton and Wybunbury. Across the constituency can be seen a host of community activities that embed each of those places in my mind. Hough Village will always be best known to me as the home of a monthly charity bingo club set up by village resident Celia Brown, which has raised thousands of pounds over the years. I pay tribute to the amazing contribution that Celia and her family have made to charity fundraising. Willaston hosts the annual world worm-charming championship, which sees competitors travel from as far afield as New Zealand and Australia. I will ensure that the upcoming reform of the immigration system makes the necessary visas available to those who wish to compete in this important global competition.

We have a host of fantastic local sports teams, including Crewe and Nantwich rugby club, which I play for. There is no better way of keeping your feet firmly on the ground than running around on the rugby pitch on a Saturday with team-mates and an opposition who could not care less about my being an MP: the bruise on my cheek testifies to that. The second team that I play for has a two-part team motto, the first part of which is “Win or Lose”; the second part contains unparliamentary language which I cannot repeat in this place.

Inevitably, however, the constituency is best known for its two towns of Crewe and Nantwich. Nantwich is a true gem in the Cheshire tourism crown, attracting streams of visitors every year, whether it be to the regular farmers markets or the famous food festival, or just to enjoy a stroll around the cobbled pavements with a view of St Mary’s church and the beautiful floral displays of Nantwich In Bloom. It is home to Barony Park, which is championed by the Friends of Barony Park and their irrepressible cheerleader, Rachel Wright.

Crewe is a town with a proud history, and there can be no better example of the kind of town this Government have pledged to support. Everywhere you look, there are people fighting to make a difference: people such as David McDonald and Margaret Smith, who are working hard to improve Crewe as part of the Crewe Clean Team. When the Beechmere residential home burned down last year, the whole community rallied round.

However, Crewe faces a declining high street and an ongoing struggle to return once again to the high point of its enormous contribution to our national economy as home to Crewe Works, which at one point employed 20,000 people designing and building world-famous trains. The site’s famous 11-metre tall wall that had stood for more than a century was finally knocked down last year to make way for development. I grudgingly understand why that might have been the right decision, but it serves as a symbol of what we must get right for all of Crewe. Yes, let’s see progress—as we soon will with the arrival of HS2 and with the Towns Fund investment—but we must ensure that the reward is worth the cost, and losing the wall and the legacy it represented has been a blow for many local residents. Bombardier has allowed me to have a brick from that wall, and it has pride of place in my office to serve as a constant reminder to me of what has passed and what must come next. Why do things such as that wall matter to people? They matter because they help us to tell a story of our lives and our history.

Seven years ago, as a junior doctor, I had the privilege to look after Jan Krasnodebski, a Polish man of quiet dignity, who was admitted to hospital towards the end of his life. His family were deported from Poland to Russia during the war, then allowed by Stalin to join the British Army training camps in Persia. Jan eventually joined the Polish army cadet school in Palestine, and when the British mandate ended, he came to Britain. He went on to live a rich life, but he had no wife or children. We would sometimes talk in the evenings, and he told me of his worry that without children of his own, his life would not be as vividly remembered as it deserved to be. I know, as a gay man, that the question of whether I would have children and how I would be remembered sometimes crossed my mind at the time, so I felt an affinity with him.

We agreed that I would write the story of Jan’s life, so that he could share it with others and ensure that he would be remembered. For a week after I finished work, I sat with him as he quietly and studiously sketched it out for me. It was the story of two generations, his and his parents’, who lived in a world more precarious than most of us can imagine, and full of hardship but also of dignity. What we wrote together was read at his funeral following his death a couple of months after he left hospital. In preparing this speech, I revisited the story. In it, I think we can find some clues as to why, despite the hardship and upheaval that they faced, families such as Jan’s and their communities still lived contented lives. As I share Jan’s words now, they enter Hansard, so he can be sure that his story is preserved forever. Jan told me:

“You can have a happy fulfilled life as long as you do something that you think is important.”

When we get home from this place in the evenings, we climb into bed and all the pomp and ceremony and the expectations on us fall away, and we are no different to Jan in his hospital bed wanting to reflect on his life and feel that it had meaning. Our constituents are no different either. Listening to the maiden speeches of many new Members, I have been struck by how many have spoken about what is increasingly missing from people’s lives: that sense of how they fit in with this ever-changing complicated world we live in. People want meaning and a sense of where they belong. Too often, we forget that that comes in the form of expectations and obligations on us. Delivering on what we must give to others and what is expected of us helps to create our own sense of worth.

There are no simple solutions to this challenge of people struggling with their identity and place in the world. If you have a low-paid skilled job but every week you help to run a women’s refuge, you can feel important. On the other hand, you can have a high-paid, high-skilled job but get lost in the world of addiction, because what you earn has, on its own, given you no sense of meaning. You can live on a deprived housing estate surrounded by drug-dealing gangs but feel no temptation to join them, because your loving family is all the community you need. And you can hold enormous talent in your hands but not feel valued, because society has decided that grafting all day for a great wage is not as important or worthy as going to university.

Today we are talking about the evils of terrorism, but at the heart of any successful terrorist recruitment campaign are people who have lost that sense of meaning in their own lives, leaving them vulnerable to the simple narratives of victimhood and betrayal. We can build infrastructure and create jobs, but all of this sits in a vacuum if it is not part of a broader story of a nation and a community that people feel part of. Of course, I will always believe that it is our families—the very first community we are part of—that ensure we grow to become part of the wider world with confidence, ambition and a sense of right and wrong. People lacking that foundation need our help most of all.

Modern culture holds up as important the people whose stories are being told loudest, on radio and television, in newspapers and on Facebook and Instagram, and whether a story is being told by admirers or detractors, we are made to feel that it is volume that counts. That is something that modern terrorist groups understand very well. Let us make sure that our constituents feel their story is important, however quietly told it is. I finish by returning to Jan’s words. He reflected:

“Though I have written about some of the more memorable events in my life, I would say most of my enjoyment of life has been from the day to day involvement in smaller ways with the Polish community”.

Whether we are addressing terrorism, loneliness, addiction or family breakdown, it is with community, belonging and importance that we need to start if we really want to level up this country. Many people have forgotten that the community right outside their door—in community bingo clubs, world worm-charming championships, parks groups, litter-pick groups and rugby teams—is where they will find that fulfilment, belonging and a sense of importance. Let us work hard in this place to remind them of that, to ensure that our society is one in which no terrorist ideology will ever find a home.

14:26

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on his thoughtful and beautiful speech. To give his maiden speech in that spirit shows the way in which he will work hard for his constituents to tell the stories not just of the two towns he represents but of the people within the towns, and also of the search for meaning and the search for purpose in politics. I really must congratulate him on making such a poignant and powerful maiden speech.

I rise to support this legislation. The purpose behind the Bill is the right one. It is to ensure that those convicted of terrorist offences are not released early without a Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a danger to the public. In the past few months, we have seen two awful terror attacks—one on London Bridge and one in Streatham—and our hearts go out to those who were killed or hurt, and also to their families and to those who were there and witnessed the awful events. We owe our thanks and tributes to brave members of the public as well as to the police, the security services and the emergency services, and to those such as Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who worked so hard on the rehabilitation of offenders in the community, and who worked every day to help keep others safe. They tragically lost their lives in the London Bridge attack.

I agree with the Lord Chancellor and with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that we should come together on this, because terrorists seek to undermine our way of life and to divide us, and we cannot let them so do. We have faced terrorist and extremist attacks for many years in this country. We have seen an increase in Islamist extremism and, more recently, an increase in far right extremism. The changing patterns of those threats include an increase in lone attacks by those who have been radicalised, either online or in prison. In those attacks, by extremists on all sides in pursuit of poisonous ideologies, people are hoping not just to hurt and harm us but to provoke fear and reactions that they can further feed upon. So it is a sign of our strength and resilience as a country that most people have always been determined to come together in the face of such extremism and attacks and not to let them divide us.

The Streatham attack highlights a problem. The police, the courts, the security services, the prisons, the rehabilitation and prevention services and the affected communities all need our support and also Government support to keep communities safe. That is why this Bill is justified and needed. When someone has been convicted of terrorism and they are still dangerous to the public, they should not be released early from prison. That means that, before they are released, they must be subjected to a proper Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a threat. The seriousness of terror events and the dangers of radicalisation mean that the police often rightly intervene before an appalling attack takes place and charge people with preparatory offences, but in some of those cases the police, the security services, the courts, and the prison and probation service are all aware that they are dealing with people who are capable of something even more serious.

People have raised concerns about applying these new rules to those currently serving their sentences, and I accept the Government’s legal advice on the fact that the proposal does not change the length of sentences. We have always had administrative rules about the way in which sentences are served. For example, people are out on licence for the bit of the sentence that is served in the community. However, if licence terms are breached, people can be returned to prison to continue their sentence in custody, so that concept of risk is built into the criminal justice system, the system of custody and the system of sentencing. That is why it is right that the Parole Board should be able to assess the risk in such cases, just as they do in many other cases. It is sensible and proportionate.

I have already said to Ministers that it is important that this legislation is drawn up in a way that is robust against legal challenge, particularly to ensure that Parole Board assessments can take place. I agree with both the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that we must ensure that we keep our communities safe and do what is right while defending the British values of the rule of law and supporting the European convention on human rights—all the very things that terrorists try to undermine and threaten.

I also accept the need for emergency legislation and accept the Government’s warnings that they, the police and security services are concerned about other individuals who might otherwise be released without parole assessment and who they believe are a danger to the public and should not be released early without any kind of assessment. However, it is right to raise a concern that it is not ideal to be making this kind of legislation in a day. It is right that we do so in these circumstances, but the Government must recognise that it is not ideal to rush through legislation breathlessly.

To be honest, there have been many warnings that such an issue was coming down the track, because the Government have known about the problem for some time. The Home Affairs Committee took evidence from Neil Basu in October 2018 during the course of its consideration of what became the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, and he told us:

“The point that some of our radicalisers are getting short sentences, coming out early, and being able to continue is a problem, as is not having sufficient resources in place to use desistence or disengagement programmes.”

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I support the legislation, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it feels a bit like a sticking plaster. The unanswered questions are the danger here. What happens to the people who we keep in prison longer unless there is effective intervention? What confidence can we have that MAPPA levels 2 and 3 are stringently managed and enforced? That is always the issue that must be addressed when such people come out of prison.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a danger that we are simply reacting to this situation in a hand-to-mouth way, rather than in a more strategic way that recognises some of the underlying issues that need to be dealt with over a long time. We may need further legislation, but that should be done in a thoughtful way, with proper scrutiny, not left until the last minute and, as a result, done in a breathless rush.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

The MAPPA review provides exactly that opportunity. We need this emergency legislation to go through, but it is by reviewing the MAPPA process that we will see results. One of the most crucial changes that I would like to the MAPPA process is to include Prevent co-ordinators in MAPPA meetings, because Prevent co-ordinators can understand that someone newly released has come to their community and say, “That individual is still a threat for the following reasons. I can map this individual against the communities and groups that they might be a risk to.” This emergency legislation is important because, for example, if we had had it in place, Anjem Choudary would still be in prison, but the crucial change will be to MAPPA so that Prevent co-ordinators can know where Anjem Choudary has gone and can therefore provide a relevant analysis of what he will do.

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree. Having a link between Prevent programmes and the MAPPA process is extremely important. There is a question here for the Government about how the MAPPA review and the Prevent review are going to link together. The problem is that we do not have a chair in place for the Prevent review, and I am unsure of the Government’s plans for the timetable for the two different reviews. It might be helpful, in fact, if the Minister were able to say something in his winding-up speech about how the two reviews will interact and how the Prevent review will be put back on track with somebody in place.

What happens before a terrorist incident happens and what happens afterwards—whether that be in prison or probation or in assessment—need to be properly integrated, and the expertise in different parts of the system needs to be pulled together and effectively co-ordinated. We have known for some time that Sudesh Amman was due to be released this January, for example, so we need a more effective system to anticipate the challenges, because there have been previous opportunities to change the legislation.

We also need to address what happens at the end of the sentence, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is right to describe this legislation as a sticking plaster if we do not look more widely. When the Parole Board decides that somebody still poses a serious risk, that person will still, however, have served their time after, say, another couple of years. If they still pose a threat to the public at that point, we still will not have addressed the heart of the problem. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Anderson, pointed out that if they are sufficiently dangerous to end up serving their whole sentence in custody, they will not have any further licensing conditions attached at the end of their sentence, nor will they be subject to further supervision.

In the past, we had control orders and imprisonment for public protection sentences to address such circumstances. The Minister will know that I opposed the removal of control orders, and we have had debates about the decision to end rather than just to reform IPPs. However, in their absence, the question for the Government is whether the existing arrangements with TPIMs, for example, are sufficient to address the circumstances for individuals coming out at the end of their sentence, having served the full sentence in custody, with no licence conditions attached. Do the Government have plans to address those individuals should they still prove to be a danger?

There is also a massive problem with what is happening in our prisons. The Chair of the Justice Committee has already raised this, but we do not yet have effective enough de-radicalisation programmes in prison. Former public prosecutors have warned that they have been underfunded. Academics point out that some prisoners who are willing to go on de-radicalisation programmes wait so long to get on them that they are released before they are able to do so. There are, of course, concerns about the effectiveness of the assessment of de-radicalisation programmes, the interaction between programmes that may work in the community but not in prison, and the best way to do this.

Nobody should ever pretend that this is easy or that there is a magical response to solve the problems. However, there are real worries that we are not doing everything we could in prisons. The concerns raised by Ian Acheson, who conducted an independent review of Islamist extremism in the prison and probation service, are really serious. He said that frontline prison staff were ill-equipped to handle the situation, prison imams did not possess the tools or the will to tackle extreme ideology, the intelligence gathering system was not working, and there were serious problems of lack of leadership and management and a lack of end-to-end systems. He concluded by saying that, frankly, the prisons are struggling to cope.

I heard what the Lord Chancellor said about things having moved on, but there is a problem in that we cannot judge whether that is right because the Government have refused to publish the entire Acheson report. I understand that there are sensitivities around radicalisation, but even Ian Acheson is not able to say, “Yes, all the problems are being addressed.”

There are continual reports of people being further radicalised in prison. These are cases not where de-radicalisation fails but where, in fact, there is greater radicalisation. Non-radicalised people who go into prison end up being converted not just to Islam but to extreme perversions of the religion that are, in fact, an ideology, not a religion.

A Wigan man was convicted of far-right extremism, but the judge concluded that this person would be vulnerable to further radicalisation and chose not to give him a prison sentence on that basis. We are in a very uneasy situation if our courts are reluctant to give prison sentences because they fear greater radicalisation. The prison system, which is supposed to be keeping us and our communities safe from extremism and terrorist threats, may instead be contributing to the problem and, in some cases, making matters worse.

I do not doubt the huge commitment and hard work of many people across our prison system to try to tackle radicalisation and extremism. However, the evidence we have seen from the outside is that the system simply is not working. It is not enough for the Lord Chancellor simply to give us his word that things have improved if there is no proper system of oversight or checks and balances to ensure that progress is being made. I urge the Lord Chancellor and the Minister to talk to the Justice Committee about what more can be done to ensure proper oversight so that we can be sure we are making progress on what is happening both inside and outside prisons.

We all have a shared interest in ensuring that extremists and terrorists are not able to threaten our way of life, to put people’s lives at risk or to threaten our communities and our democracy. There has often been cross-party consensus on the need to take a sensible approach to ensuring we protect both people’s safety and the values that terrorists challenge—the values of the rule of law and our democratic institutions. We need to challenge their ideology and work ever harder to make sure the systems that are supposed to address this can properly do so.

It is therefore not a surprise that we have cross-party consensus in support of the Bill today. This is a sensible and proportionate response to keep people safe and to address a genuine problem to which the criminal system has to adjust and adapt. It is also imperative on all of us to work further across parties to address some of the deeper, longer-term problems, on which the Government need to do more. I hope we will be able to work across parties on addressing those longer-term challenges so that we can do a better job of keeping us safe.

14:43

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the cross-party consensus that is needed in passing this Bill.

However, as I have already indicated in a number of interventions, I am concerned about the restrictive and restricted nature of this Bill. We should get the Justice Committee to look at the longer-term issues raised by these incidents, murders and terrorist offences. I entirely understand why this Bill has been introduced, and I support it. I am glad the House, as a whole, has clearly indicated the same.

We have to take these problems seriously, as they are deeply entrenched in parts of our society, and they will continue. They will not change just because this emergency legislation has been passed. The Bill will have a limited effect, so we need a longer-term assessment of the real problems that underpin it.

In response to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I mentioned the state of mind of some of the people concerned and the question of whether, in certain cases, it is evidence of some degree of insanity, of a drug-affected mind or of mental disturbance on such a scale as to impinge on the question of mens rea. We do not have time to go into all of it this afternoon, but I want such longer-term assessments because some of these people, from whatever part of society, have had to be confined to Broadmoor and other similar secure places because of their mental state. I put that on the record as a suggestion that needs to be taken up by the Justice Committee and, indeed, other Committees.

I also raised in an intervention that, for me, this Bill does not answer the question of why automatic early release, with the agreement of the Parole Board, should be moved from halfway to two thirds of a sentence. In circumstances where we are dealing with public safety and human life, I do not see why two thirds should be chosen as a boundary line. There are circumstances in very severe cases where I do not believe there should be any release at all, for the reasons I have already touched on in relation to certain people’s instability of mind.

[Alicia Kearns]

Does my hon. Friend agree that terrorists are traitors? They have declared this country their enemy, and they have declared he and I, and civilians, as legitimate targets to be murdered and assaulted on our streets. I therefore agree entirely that they should serve at least their full sentence. We should be looking at far longer sentences than just 14 years.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend touches on a point that I raised several years ago, shortly after the infamous, terrible murder of Lee Rigby. On the question of persons returning to this country from ISIS, I told the House that, as far as I was concerned, the issue of their return should be evaluated in accordance with article 8 of the convention on the reduction of statelessness, which makes it clear that a person can be made stateless if they give allegiance to another country—the caliphate could be regarded as such in this context. I accept this is controversial, but the United States, for example, already applies article 8 in that way. If the person in question gives allegiance to another country, by definition they have moved into the zone of treason and have deliberately and voluntarily abdicated their allegiance to this country. I put that on the record because we have to take these matters extremely seriously, and I attempted to make such an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This is about not just external activities, but internal ones, within our domestic law, so we need to take this incredibly seriously. That is why I am appealing for this longer term assessment of all these questions, including the one my hon. Friend has raised, because it is so important and cannot just be put into a category of “rather extravagant thinking”. This is really serious.

As I said earlier, human life and public safety are much more important than the question of whether the courts may or may not interpret a particular provision in a more “fashionable” judicial interpretation than we ought to expect of our courts. I go further and say that human life is more important than any legal interpretation of human rights, which is why I have tabled my amendments. I imagine that the Committee stage will be pretty truncated, so I am not going to go into this in Committee in the detail that I will now. As this is a Second Reading issue and a matter of principle, let me say that we should include in the Bill, in clause 1, the exclusion of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have something of a history in that respect, but so do the Foreign Secretary and many others, such as the distinguished Martin Howe, QC. We were regarded as highly unfashionable some years ago, but issues of the kind that gravitate around the Bill have drawn attention to the fact that we have to take these matters really seriously. I understand that the Bingham Centre has made a number of representations on the matter, and there are clear indications that there are lawyers of some notoriety, if not distinction, who will seek to overturn the provisions of this Bill by going to the courts. I deplore the fact that they would seek to do so.

I am looking forward to the discussion in the House of Lords on this matter, because there are distinguished lawyers on all sides of the debate in that House, who, with the greatest respect to all of us here in the House of Commons, have been practising at the Bar, have been in the Supreme Court and so on. They will be able to bring to bear the right degree of analysis of the case law, which needs to be looked at carefully in this context.

[Sir John Hayes]

As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I suggest to him that this requires a more fundamental review of the characteristic and extent of rights, and how they relate to citizenship, duty, responsibility and the public good. I wonder what he thinks of that.

[Sir William Cash]

That is an extremely important point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have the greatest respect for his analysis when it moves from not just the law into the broader societal and philosophical questions, which ought to inform opinions made in this House; we should not just treat issues of this kind as if they are somehow matters of semantics. We are dealing with the kind of society that we want, and the impact of the terrorism, and murderous and dangerous behaviour, of the perpetrators of these crimes our own constituents. A most recent case involved somebody who travelled from Stafford down to London, and therefore was a matter of immediate concern to my constituents, because he had been living there for some time. The manner in which he was allowed to leave to come down to London and commit murder in Fishmongers’ Hall and in the vicinity is a lesson for us all.

I now want to deal with the retrospectivity elements of this Bill, which relate to my general concern to tie down this issue in the longer term. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I had an exchange about a number of cases. I am well aware that this is not the place for us to attempt to make an assumption that we are able to treat this Chamber as though it is a court of law, although we are, of course, the High Court of Parliament, but that is to miss the point; the fact is that proper analysis of the case law has to be conducted. Some of that has already been done in blogging and in some pamphlets, and I am expecting the House of Lords to home in on it effectively when the Bill gets to that House, although it will not have much time.

We know that Ministers have been warned about the likelihood of a legal battle; despite the assertions of the Government that the Bill is compatible with article 7 of the European convention on human rights—for reasons that I will explain, I am sympathetic to their view—there are those who will argue that it is not. I can see this coming, so my amendment would remove any chance that there could be that kind of legal battle on the applicability of the Human Rights Act to this Bill. My amendment would insert the words

“notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

That is a belt-and-braces approach, and it is what I am seeking. I am not going to move this amendment in Committee with any intention of dividing the Committee of the whole House on it; I think the matter needs further consideration outside this House, and I look to the House of Lords for some indication of views.

My argument goes like this: this Bill is compatible with article 7. No one has read it out so far, so I will do so. It states:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence”—

for conduct —

“which did not constitute a criminal offence…at the time when it was committed.”

This Bill does not purport to create a new criminal offence. Rather, it seeks to prevent terrorists convicted by UK courts on the basis of offences that existed prior to the Bill from having automatic early release. I have already made my point about the length of time indicated. Furthermore, the explanatory notes state:

“The Bill does not retrospectively alter a serving offender’s sentence as imposed by the court, or alter the maximum penalties for offences.”

They state that the Bill is concerned with the “administration of a sentence”. I still believe, despite the exchanges I had with the Chairman of the Justice Committee, that the del Río Prada case could well still come into play there. I fear that it might be used effectively against the Bill. So my conclusion on the question of a textual interpretation of article 7 of the ECHR indicates that is not incompatible with this Bill. However, Parliament does have the power to legislate retrospectively—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just want to let the hon. Gentleman know that I am sure he will have the opportunity in Committee to address his amendment. I am sure he will be aware that there are quite a few people who wish to speak on Second Reading; I just want to assure him that he will be able to address his amendment during the Committee stage.

[Sir William Cash]

I do understand that, but I also anticipate that there may be a need for brevity at that point. That is how these things go, from my experience, which goes back some time. I am talking about matters of principle. I repeat: I am talking about matters of principle.

As established by Willes J in Phillips v. Eyre, courts ascribe retrospective force to new laws that affect rights only if

“by express words or necessary implication that such was the intention of the legislature”.

Clause 1 will amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and expressly restrict eligibility for the release of prisoners who have been sentenced for a terrorist offence

“whether before or after this section comes into force”.

My conclusion on this point is simple: the courts would be expected to give retrospective effect to the Bill.

The principle I wish to address is that I am concerned that the courts have a disinclination and reluctance to give effect to retrospective legislation, particularly when it deals with criminal acts. That is well established, and I could quote Bradley and Ewing, page 56, which explains that. Although I do not think that article 7 applies to the Bill, to ensure that the courts do not find a way around the Bill or a misguided interpretation that would frustrate its real purpose, I shall move my amendment in Committee, for the purposes of legislative clarity and for the avoidance of doubt in relation to the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. That is the principle that I am addressing at this moment.

I have no further comment to make for the purposes of this debate, but this matter has to be taken seriously. The wording that I intend to introduce in Committee will be taken as a serious attempt to make sure that no way around the provisions is found by the courts or by some ingenious lawyers, who would avoid and frustrate the purposes and principle of the Bill, as expressed on Second Reading, which we are debating.

15:01

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He referred to lawyers of some “notoriety” rather than, perhaps, remarkable lawyers; he is not the former. He has raised in the House the considerations relating to his amendment, so should this matter ever reach the courts for adjudication, the courts may, having been served with notice that the wording he proposes in his amendment should have been in the Bill, be even more inclined to accept the argument, knowing that Parliament was fully apprised of the considerations and had the opportunity so to heed the advice. That said, it was pragmatic of the hon. Member to indicate that although he may move his amendment, he may not force it to a vote, hoping instead that it is considered in the other place. I understand why he did that.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, which has been incredibly positive so far. We have been considering a serious issue, but every Member who has spoken so far has done so with a determination— in recognition of the difficulties that we have faced as a society from terrorism in responding appropriately, pragmatically, sensibly and swiftly—that this debate should add to the response that we as a Parliament should bring.

It was of benefit to hear from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), if I may mention him specifically. He is new to the House, but he has incredible knowledge of a parliamentary approach to early release. He did not refer to any individual cases in his remarks, but Members should know that the hon. Member has been through the political, practical, public and moral rigours of early release for those engaged in terrorist offences. We have benefited from his insight.

Reference has been made already to the contributions from the former reviewers of terrorism and terrorist legislation, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, the latter of whom has indicated that he believes that the Bill will be subject to legal challenge. Of course, that may be right, but I do not think that ultimately the House should fear that. It is appropriate that if people feel this legislation is incompatible with the European convention on human rights they get the opportunity to challenge it in the courts, but the Lord Chancellor expertly took the House through all the implications as to whether article 7 is engaged. It is surely engaged, but not in a fundamentally flawed way. It is fair for us to say that, yes, there are the considerations that we have discussed this afternoon and that will be discussed in another place and in the courts, but I believe that ultimately this Bill is the right approach for Parliament to take.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly referred to the comments of Lord Anderson QC. It was entirely appropriate for Lord Anderson to say that should this process, through this Bill, exhaust the opportunity for licence, compliance and control within the public sector and society at large, that would be a missed opportunity. We need to be alive to that in this debate. I think the Lord Chancellor nodded when he was considering TPIMs and the protective measures that have been in place and that could be put to good use. Licensing and rehabilitation are important parts of the criminal justice process, so the retention of someone in custody, without giving them the opportunity under control orders, is something that we should think about. We should recognise that if somebody spends the entirety of their sentence in custody without any control on release, that places an even bigger burden on our security services, when other aspects of the criminal justice system should be more appropriately engaged in monitoring, surveying and ensuring compliance and the rehabilitation of offenders who have been brought before the courts previously.

As a representative from Northern Ireland, I must focus on the fact that the Bill does not apply to our jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor did proffer a view—I think this fairly reflects his comments—that the way we calculate sentences in Northern Ireland means that although the Bill does not fundamentally or injuriously engage article 7 considerations in England and Wales or Scotland, it would in Northern Ireland. I would be keen to explore that in greater detail with the Minister somewhere else. I do not think it would be appropriate to do that on the Floor of the House this afternoon, but it is worthy of further interrogation. I do not challenge what the Lord Chancellor said on the Floor of the House, believing what he said to be true, but I am not sure that what was indicated is right, nor indeed do I believe that it was the totality of the issues that may have been under consideration in connection with the Bill and its application to Northern Ireland. I say that as somebody who has contributed to many debates on terrorism and who lamented the fact that the counter-extremism strategy was introduced in this place and similarly did not apply to Northern Ireland.

The House knows the history that we in Northern Ireland have had in respect of both terrorism and extremism. I have made the point in the Chamber before that as a Member of Parliament for four and a half years I have seen a member of my own constituency murdered by the Provisional IRA, an organisation that most in the Chamber would believe does not exist any more; I have had a prison officer in my constituency murdered by dissident republicans through an under-car booby-trap bomb; and in January last year I had a father murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in my constituency. In four and a half years, we have had three individual murders by three different paramilitary terrorist organisations, at a time of peace. So it does jar, whenever we lend our weight—give our support—to counter-terrorism measures in this place, that we are not incorporated.

Members who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs will be aware that the political process and the Good Friday agreement led to the early release of terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland, and that there were two protections. Everyone was released on licence, and legislative provision was made for those licences to be revoked if it was the view of the Secretary of State that the person had engaged in activity that was leaning towards paramilitary or terrorist activity yet again: the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

In preparation for the introduction of this Bill, I tabled questions to the Northern Ireland Office to ask how many people who had been jailed in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist activity had been released and had their licence subsequently revoked because of their activity. One answer, on the 1998 Act, was that two licences had been revoked since 1998, but I got the most obtuse answer on those who had licences revoked under the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order.

When you are trying to paint a picture, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you are trying to do research to understand where we have had parallel experiences in the past, and where people have been released for altogether different political reasons and under a different political settlement but have had licences revoked because they re-engaged in terrorist activity, it is important that this House has those figures. The answer, from 2001 to 2020, was that policing and justice was devolved in 2010.

That answer tells us nothing. I think it entirely discourteous to me, as a Member of Parliament seeking information, and to the House. It does not answer the question about 2001 to 2010 and it does not answer the question about licences revoked under national security considerations—information that would have been appropriate and important to inform us during the passage of the Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I wonder whether steps are being taken to raise these matters, not only as he is doing in Westminster, but also now in Stormont. Is that now under consideration in the context of the Bill?

[Gavin Robinson]

That is a very fair question. When national security considerations are engaged—so that relates to terrorism—the devolved institutions at Stormont do not have a role; that remains the competence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But there are issues that I want to pursue, and I hope the Minister will give a commitment that we can have a discussion about article 7 and how it is engaged differently, in a way that makes the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights but not in England, Scotland or Wales.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you know our position when it comes to legislation to protect society and curtail the excesses of those who want to frustrate everything we value in the United Kingdom—the positive values and principles that we hold dear in this Parliament and in this place. We will support this Bill and I am grateful for the opportunity to make those ancillary comments about Northern Ireland, which I hope help to set this debate in context.

15:12

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Except for love infused by hope, fear is the most vivid of emotions. Love is perhaps more readily remembered, but fear is more easily envisaged, because fear in itself is the imagining of horror that might happen. That is why provoking fear has been the instrument of bullies, thugs, despots and torturers through the ages—to terrorise, hurt, harm, maim and murder is designed to intimidate each and all of us, and to undermine the certainty of order that underpins social solidarity.

Today the provisions we debate are designed to revisit the means of re-establishing order, and to reassure the virtuous that the wicked will not succeed. The Secretary of State described in his opening remarks the metamorphosis of terrorism—the fact that it is constantly changing, and so becoming harder to counter. There are obvious changes: the adaptability—the flexibility—of terrorists, and the instruments used to terrorise are altering. The spontaneity of terrorism is altering, too. The business of the security services and the police, and the legislation that underpins their business, must be just as flexible—must adapt to meet the changing character of terrorism.

The security services and the police, as I learned when I was the Security Minister, constantly refine what they do to anticipate and counter fanaticism, but early release is bound to undermine their morale, as well as to stretch their capacity. The number of subjects of interest, leaving aside those that have been released from prison early, already presents an extraordinary challenge to our security services and police, as we know from various debates that we have had and various reports on this matter, about which time prevents me from going into detail. Simultaneously, public faith in the rule of law is critical, and I suspect that most of our constituents would be amazed that we have released so many terrorist convicts early. I think they would regard that with disbelief. That we have allowed formulaic leniency to characterise the treatment of convicted terrorists is extraordinary, and in my judgment unacceptable.

It is not as if there had not been warnings, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said. In 2018, signals were sent that this would have the kind of consequences that we have now met with horror. The Government are acting decisively in response, to reinforce the legislative powers necessary to allow the police and the security services to protect the public. Public safety, as has been said repeatedly, is the heart of this business.

I suspect that, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, the enhanced role for parole boards will require greater expertise. The measurement of risk will also change, as the character of terrorism and our response to it changes. We need to be able to assess risk, as we always have, in respect of early release, for parole is about measurement of risk—it always has been—but it is also rooted in the idea that someone who is going to be released early deserves to be released, and will not create further harm and danger. I believe that the rehabilitative aspect of criminal justice is accepted across the Chamber, but the retributive aspect of justice should be accepted too. This is also about punishment—about punishing guilty people who have, through due process, been found to have done the most awful, horrendous, things, and we should not be ashamed to say that.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pleased and proud, as Security Minister, to guide the Investigatory Powers Bill—the 2016 Act—through the House. That Bill struck a balance between the protection of the public and the necessary safeguards that should always be applied when we are limiting people’s freedoms—maintaining the tenets of a free society and defending those freedoms from the anarchy of fear and disorder.

Since that time, many people have been released early. I shall be brief because I am anxious to allow others to contribute, but before I conclude I shall look at the numbers. I consulted the Library, as good Members of this House do, and was surprised and disappointed to find that since 2013 something like 163 convicted terrorists had been released early. By the way, I excluded from my considerations anyone who had been serving a sentence of less than a year, so those are just the people serving a sentence of somewhere between 12 months and more than four years. Therefore, leaving aside short sentences, the more serious terrorist prisoners had been released in significant numbers. Just imagine the effect on our Security Service and police of having to deal with the consequences of those releases.

Some of those released will have been rehabilitated and deradicalised, but we know that that does not always happen. I strongly support the legislation, which strikes the right balance. Ordered societies are built on the protection and promotion of shared public interest and the defence of the common good. To face down terrorism and the fear that it spawns, and to face up to our responsibility to protect the people we serve, we should support this legislation as it progresses through the House. I anticipate that it will be necessary to challenge those who seek to undermine it on the grounds of advocating the rights of certain people. We in the House of Commons must stand together to defend the common good and promote the national interest.

15:19

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I was privileged to work with him when he was Minister for Security—a time he mentioned in his speech.

My thoughts are with the victims of all terrorist attacks and their families, and I recognise the hardship that they have all gone through. It is important, in this debate and in any debate on the subject, that we remember those who have suffered incredibly because of our failures as parliamentarians, failures of our legislation, and failures in the support with which we provide people.

There are two issues to consider: resources for our Prison Service, and the things behind that—the soft power, which we need to get right. It is not enough to extend sentences; we have to put right the things behind that. That is what I want to concentrate on. Of course we should look at the number of prison officers and the support they get—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly made. It is important to ensure the right corrective controls in the prison framework. At the moment, we are failing on that. We need to get that right, get proper resourcing, and move forward.

A lot of Members spoke about imams coming into prisons. The issue is twofold; there is the question of psychotherapy and counselling for the people they are visiting, and the need to tackle those people’s misguided version of Islam. They do not practise Islam; they practise what they believe is Islam. Islam in itself is a peaceful religion.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

As a religious education teacher, I concur with the hon. Member’s viewpoint. In no way do the radical views of this small minority reflect the views of Islam. I am glad he raised this point; it is important that we ensure that it comes across in our national media, and in national debates.

[Mr Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.

How do we assess and work with these radicalised people? A lot has been made of deradicalisation, but we need the right people, theologically speaking, to do it. We do not have a principal education facility to train imams who go into prisons. I had a friend who was deputy governor at HMP Birmingham. The prison brought in an imam to try to speak to somebody who was radicalising the rest of the inmates. After a two-hour one-to-one, the imam came out saying, “I think I agree with the inmate.” That was due to the so-called imam’s lack of knowledge. Just because someone calls themselves an imam, it does not mean that they are able to deal with this important issue.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Is the situation not even a little worse than that? There have been reports of imams from the Deobandi sect of Salafists being allowed access to prisoners.

[Mr Mahmood]

The right hon. Member speaks from experience of these issues. He is quite right to say that. It is very difficult for those who do not understand religion to put people into places of religious control and support. That is my clear point. We should have proper registration of people who go into these institutions. Anybody who goes into them should be required to have the proper qualifications and certifications, yet we let most people walk in, and we say that they can do this job. We have heard stories of radicalisation being perpetuated in certain prisons by some of the people who have gone into them. It is important that we look at how we move forward.

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervene partly to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the good work that he has done in this field over a considerable time. He points out the difference between Islamism and Islam—a difference too rarely identified by our media, as he says. Perhaps a review of all the Prison Service’s work on the appointment of imams and their work in prisons should be part of the Government’s ongoing plans to address the issue.

[Mr Mahmood]

Again, I concur with the right hon. Member. As for the Government moving forward on this, for the past 10 years we have not paid enough attention to what has gone on. We need to look at this seriously. The two incidents we are considering, as well as others, and the potential release of other prisoners have brought the issue to our attention.

A big functional issue in prison is how we position inmates. The Acheson report looks at segregating these prisoners. How to deradicalise is a really big issue. If we put these prisoners all together, they become a group. If we put them with other prisoners, they radicalise them. We cannot keep prisoners on their own, because human rights law does not allow that. There is no magic wand of deradicalisation. We have to take the issue very seriously. We have to get the right people, with the right understanding. Good work has been done in Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on ways of deradicalising. We have to learn lessons from how those countries are proceeding, in order to address these issues. We have to go further in looking at those methods, whether they are relevant, and how they relate to what the community wants to do.

We have to look not just at prisons, but at external departments that deal with the issue. We have to consider education, under what licences we allow madrassahs to operate—if they have a licence at all. The only consideration for a local authority in granting permission for a madrassah is whether it would cause traffic congestion. If an applicant clears that hurdle, they can have one. No heed is given to the qualifications of the imam, there is no proper scrutiny of their past, and there are no security checks. Those are very important issues for us to look at in deciding how we move forward.

As for the people we know of, they are the tip of the iceberg. There is still significant radicalisation taking place, and we need to address that in the community. Radicalisation is progressing in prisons because there is a captive audience there. We need to move forward. We need to look at the availability of resources in prisons, because the resources that are required to deal with this problem are quite significant







While we are looking at Islamic extremism, we also need to look at far-right extremism. If this Bill is to apply to terrorists, it must also apply to far-right extremists —it is important that that is said. The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a lot of sense. I pay tribute to her for the great work that she has done on these issues, including as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She deserves commendation for the great balance with which she has worked on these matters. It is important for that work to move forward.

It is also important to look at how we police these issues. As my right hon. Friend said, we need to look again at control orders for when people come out of prison. In the past 10 years, we have forgotten about control orders. We need to get back to that issue, look at what is valid and appropriate, and see how we can move forward. That is hugely important.

I support the Bill because it is necessary for us to move forward with the resources currently available to us, but we need to have a much deeper look at how to resolve this issue for all our communities in the long term.

15:30

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I will speak briefly about why I welcome the Bill and why I believe it is necessary to tackle the issues on which many hon. Members have made very good speeches this afternoon. May I first congratulate the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and Ministers from the Department on the constructive and decisive action that they have taken? I pay particular tribute to the Labour party and the shadow Solicitor General for supporting this measure, which I think shows the importance of the subject.

As the Lord Chancellor said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe, and this Bill goes some way to increasing the likelihood that that will happen. It increases the likelihood of ending the uncertainty for victims, their families and those who have been affected by these atrocities, and it will go some way to restoring the confidence of my constituents and people across the country in the sentencing guidelines for people who commit these most hideous crimes.

I want briefly to talk about how terrorism affects everybody, directly or indirectly. There are two occasions in particular that stick in my mind. The first was 7/7. I was 15 years old at the time and—I hope hon. Members do not tell me off—I chose that day not to go into school. I remember the breaking news coming through on the television. My father was working in London at that time. In fact, my family were all working in London; I am a Londoner. I remember trying to make some phone calls to see whether they were okay. For some reason, I got a crossed line and got through to a lady when I called my father’s phone. This woman was trying to find out where her daughter was because she was using the tube that morning. She was terrified, fearful and concerned about where her daughter was. We spoke for just two minutes, but I tried to reassure her and she reassured me.

The other occasion was the Westminster Bridge attack, which happened while I was a special adviser to Sir Patrick McLoughlin. I was walking up Whitehall when the shots were fired, and was locked down in the Cabinet Office. Sir Patrick was locked down in here. Members of my family were desperately trying to find out whether I was okay, and I was trying to find out whether friends in this House and around the Chamber were okay. I mention both those occasions to show that we are all affected by terrorism.

Terrorism spreads fear, harms lives and, most importantly, costs lives. But this Bill goes some way to giving some reassurance to the victims, families and people who are affected by terrorism that those who commit these crimes will go to prison and stay there. Sadly, we cannot say with certainty that attacks such as the ones I have mentioned will not happen again. We all know that; I am afraid that it is the nature of the beast.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend spoke extremely eloquently about his own experiences in London. Greater Manchester has certainly experienced its fair share of terrorism, including the 1996 bombing and the atrocity at Manchester Arena just three years ago. Does he agree that the terror does not just stop with the initial act, and that by restricting early release we are at least giving the family some comfort, some measure of protection from the damaging effects of the attacks and a chance to heal?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree. As he represents a constituency from that region, he will have seen the concern and fear that went across the region at the time of those attacks. That is absolutely why the Bill is necessary. May I pay tribute—as I should have done at the beginning of my speech—to the security services, the police and all those in the emergency services across the country who have to deal with these incidents? I also pay tribute and my respects to the victims and their families.

As I said, we cannot say with certainty that something like this will not happen again, but we can give certainty to people across the country that the perpetrators of these crimes are put away and kept away, with the reassurance that if they are, in consultation with the Parole Board, released two thirds of the way through their sentence, they will be monitored properly and in conjunction with the Parole Board.

Colleagues in all parts of the House will have their own memories of attacks like these, as do so many of us who live or work in London. We must never forget those who have lost their lives due to the barbaric actions of terrorists. We must also never let the spectre of terrorism stop us from living well. The aim of terrorism, as I have outlined, is to spread fear. I am enormously proud that the people of London—I am originally a Londoner—are not allowing these attacks to succeed by making us too afraid to go about our daily lives. This Bill goes some way towards removing the fear of victims, because the killers in these cases will serve their sentences and be monitored properly. The involvement of the Parole Board is absolutely essential, and I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for outlining that.

We must question why these attacks happen. The perpetrators of the attack at London Bridge in November and of this month’s attack in Streatham were both released from prison automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, with no involvement from the Parole Board, to serve the rest of their sentence on licence. The fact that they were able to commit these atrocities shows that this approach must be changed, and that is why I am glad that the Government are doing so with this Bill. It is vital that automatic release is not applied to those convicted of terrorism offences and that the Parole Board is involved in each of these cases to assess whether or not these people should be released.

However, I do ask for some reassurance from the Minister on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If the perpetrators of these attacks serve a full sentence or go through release in consultation with the Parole Board, we must not see that as the end of the journey. Rehabilitation, and a reassurance to people across this country that these people are being watched and monitored, is absolutely vital. We do not want another Streatham to happen. We know that this guy was on the records of the security services. Despite these actions being taken, it is absolutely vital that we have some reassurance that we will go further to make sure that these people are being monitored adequately.

These changes will not only make us safer but give the public more confidence in the ability of our criminal justice system to deal with terrorists. This is a valuable and much-needed piece of legislation. Moreover, it is the right thing to do. The Lord Chancellor is right to take action and should be congratulated on doing so swiftly. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.

15:37

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I, too, put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has kept me updated in recent days.

In the wake of the two recent terrorist attacks, it is absolutely right that the Government look at the legal framework to decide whether it is adequate. Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), I was caught up in the 7/7 bombing. I was on one of the tube trains behind the one that was blown up at Russell Square, and I remember the unbearable heat that came from the blast. I was also in this place during the Westminster lockdown. The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us have been affected by acts of terrorism, but with respect, many of us nevertheless come to this debate with slightly different views.

This Bill does three things. First, it brings about an end to automatic release and applies that retrospectively. That is overdue, but very welcome. Liberal Democrats have said before, and we say again, that this part of the law is currently wrong, and it is right that this House seeks to change it. The Government are rushing this Bill through to get to Royal Assent before the end of the month and before the scheduled release of other terrorists. However, this part of the Bill alone, on ending automatic release and applying that retrospectively, would achieve the Government’s goal—and, indeed, the priority of all of us to keep the public safe. This part of the Bill alone would stop the release of terrorists without Parole Board agreement. It would be possible to adopt just that part of the Bill for it to be a change in the administration of a sentence in a way that is compatible with the rule of law.

However, the Bill tries to do two other things that, I think it is fair to say, are problematic. The second thing it tries to do is move the point of release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point for future offences. Of course, it is the natural instinct of all of us to have bad people locked up for longer, but who would want somebody locked up for longer if there was evidence that that could in fact make them more radicalised and more dangerous at the point that they are released?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is not an argument about the length of the sentence; that is an argument about how people are dealt with when they are incarcerated.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Much of the evidence suggests that what helps the deradicalisation process is not only how people are treated when they are incarcerated, but the amount of time they have on licence in order to find a home, rebuild family connections and do all the activity outside prison. There is evidence to suggest that the time on licence can make more of a difference to reducing reoffending rates and deradicalising people.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Can we think about specifics? The last two attacks were very different. As I said in an earlier intervention, the second of the two attacks was by someone who was clearly mentally deranged. The earlier attack was by someone who appeared to have taken all the deradicalisation on board and to be a model prisoner. We have to recognise that we are dealing with a kaleidoscope of personalities, not necessarily people who have been fooled by something and who can reasonably be brought out of that situation.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which relates to both capacity and what can be done in prisons and while prisoners are on licence to ensure that they are deradicalised and to assess their behaviours.

As I was saying, there is currently no evidence that longer periods in prison have any rehabilitative effect, and there is some evidence to suggest that they might be counterproductive. For all of us who put national and public safety first, that should be very worrying.

The third element of the Bill is retrospectivity. Retrospectively applying the first part of the Bill, to end automatic release, is fine, but retrospectively moving the release point is problematic. The Government and some Members today have pointed to individual parts of case law, but there is a long-established principle against the retrospectivity of criminal laws. The Government have suggested that this is only about changing the administration of a sentence, whereas legal commentators have pointed out that the Bill arguably also changes the scope of the penalty. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law said in its briefing circulated to Members this morning:

“By effectively overturning judicial decisions about sentencing the Bill also comes uncomfortably close to legislative interference with the judicial function.”

The last point that I wish to address is the speed with which the Bill moves forward and the reasons for it. As I said, nobody wants these prisoners to be automatically released, and the first part of the Bill would tackle that and keep the public safe, but there is a reason why we debate and scrutinise laws in both Houses and have specialist Committees to look at our laws. We know that fast law can make bad law, and there is an even greater risk of that happening when four of the parliamentary Committees that would have scrutinised the Bill—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—have not yet been appointed.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that, although policy should be based on evidence and research, that is not necessarily a good thing in the context of terrorism, where we have an evolving set of threats? With evidence-based research, it can be four years before we formulate and implement policy, by which time the threat has invariably moved on. We therefore need to employ a broader range of measures, including the use of specialists in interrogation of those who deceive, to bolster the ability of the Parole Board, and training material for prison officers and those involved in deradicalisation. Speed is required in order to adapt, so I support the Government’s position, because an evidence-based approach is not appropriate in this context.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my opening remarks, I made the point that this was a very overdue change. In fact, we have had many years where we have seen the effects of increased radicalisation in prison simply because of a lack of resources both for our prisons and for our parole service, so he is right to point to that element.

That leads me very nicely to my next point: because of the speed of the passage of the Bill, there is not sufficient opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny. I would argue that, in the absence of adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, hon. Members should all sign up to a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Others in this debate have called for a review mechanism. The Government say there is other legislation coming down the line, but we know that legislation can slip, so I will finish by asking the Government to think again about this particular point to make sure that we have sufficient post-legislative scrutiny and that this law—

[Sir John Hayes]

I waited to intervene until a point at which I agreed with the hon. Lady, because I thought that was in the spirit of this debate. She is right about the need to review these provisions, but as she said a moment ago, any number of Committees will be able to do that in the course of time. We can move ahead with rapidity to defend the public, and then look at these matters in the round through the processes she has set out.

[Daisy Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this legislation will of course be scrutinised in due course, but it is vital and right, because we are moving on with it so quickly, that we write into law a statutory review in one year’s time.

I conclude by saying that there is a danger that Bill will become a law of unintended consequences. In summary, we welcome the end to automatic release and doing so retrospectively—that is a good move—but we have concerns about changing the release point, particularly if that ends up allowing people to be released who are more dangerous than before. There are also questions to answer about the impact on the rule of law in applying retrospectivity to the release point.

15:47

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

This Government are putting their money where their mouth is and doing exactly what they said they would do to deal with this urgent and specific problem, and I want to thank everybody who has helped put this Bill together.

Following the attack in Streatham, the Government committed to introducing emergency legislation to ensure that terrorist offenders, including those currently serving, will no longer be released early and automatically. The House would not think that, back in my home of North Norfolk, terrorism is much of a problem. I still remember, many years ago, when we were the first business in the community to take out terrorism insurance, and we wondered at the time why we were doing it. Look how times have changed. It is exactly why we need this Bill today.

Sadly, terrorism continues to be a sickening and cowardly set of acts that ruins lives, killing innocent people and devastating communities in our incredible country. We will not let the terrorists win; nor will we allow extremist behaviour to divide our nation. Many Conservatives are here, and we all stood on a manifesto in which we pledged a raft of measures to crack down on crime and to introduce tougher sentences. I guess I speak for everybody here when I say that we are pleased that these are well on their way.

This Bill is needed to do just that—to ensure our country feels safe. It is a fundamental job of Government to help to protect their citizens. Those who wish to hurt us must not be released early, so I welcome the end of halfway release for terrorist offenders and that offenders cannot be released without serving a minimum of two thirds of their sentence. Indeed, no terrorist offender will be released before the end of the full custodial term unless the Parole Board agrees, and that is absolutely right. I also welcome measures to rehabilitate and deradicalise. Society must always have measures in place to help eradicate ideologies. Education will play a vital role in that, and we need the resources to enable that properly, as well as work on the root causes of terrorism.

For some people, however, there is no way back, and it is right that those terrorists who are considered to be a continuing threat to public safety spend the rest of their time in prison. As we invest in prison capacity, I welcome tougher sentences, and a new minimum sentence of 14 years for the worst terrorist offenders. Sadly, terrorism is still prevalent in the world today, but it must not prevail. The Government must show, not just to the public, but to the terrorists, that we will not tolerate such despicable acts, and that radicals who are prepared to commit such acts will pay for them with longer, tougher sentences, and with the loss of that basic right to freedom that they took away from the people they harmed.

I welcome the fact that the Government will increase counter-terrorism funding to £906 million, which represents a £90 million year-on-year increase. Victims must also be supported, and the immediate investment of £500,000 to increase the support provided by the victims of terrorism unit shows the Government’s determination to ensure that more victims receive the support and advice they deserve. I am always proud of the way that the British people bravely come together in the face of such attacks, and show beyond doubt that terrorism will never defeat the British spirit. I also pay an enormous tribute to the policing forces who look after us day after day, and who risk their lives to protect us—not least those who serve in this building—and I commend the Bill to the House.

15:51

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

For several years now, people in the security world have been privately warning that we face the release of a bulge of extremist prisoners, after the first wave, 10 or 15 years ago, of significant and serious terror attacks in our country. Of those who committed the two recent attacks, one terrorist had a short-term sentence and may not have been part of that group, but one certainly was, and had been through a rehabilitation process.

I wish to raise some issues, and I hope that the Minister will either write to me or respond to them at the end of the debate. I will also refer to recent articles by Ian Acheson, who has pertinent things to say—he has been referred to by a number of Members across the House.

Ian Acheson recently argued that the system for managing extremist prisoners—there are about 220 in our system overall—is still flawed. Indeed, he described it as “broken”, and argued that evidence for that came out at the trial of Mohiussannath Chowdhury, who was recently convicted of preparing acts of terrorism.

Acheson described Chowdhury’s time at Belmarsh as a form of finishing school where he freely associated with other jihadis, including people who were serving a minimum of 30 or 34 years in prison. He said that Chowdhury regarded what he considered to be a crude, de-radicalisation programme as “laughable”, and that within days of his release he was planning new attacks and waiting for others to be released from prison. What reassurance can the Lord Chancellor provide to show that we are moving on from that position?

This issue has been of significant concern to people in the police and other security agencies for some time. Indeed, we know about the remarkable amount of police time that goes into monitoring highly dangerous people when they leave prison, because in the most recent attack that individual was being monitored. Such monitoring is not done just by a single individual; it is done by groups and teams of police officers, and others.

In the past two weeks, I asked the Lord Chancellor—I very much hope he will remain in his job; he is doing a cracking job and he is a superb Lord Chancellor—about separation units. He said that he hoped that although the Government were reviewing the situation, we had got the balance about right. I respectfully ask whether that is still the case, because the separation units we have are not the units that Ian Acheson recommended. He recommended separation units that would take prisoners out of the general prison population to ensure they were completely incapacitated from radicalising others over a significant and sustained period of time, around which individual responses to those individuals would be built. As other Conservative Members have said, the range of psychological conditions of extremists ranges from people who are probably just very mentally ill, to people who are very bad but in absolute, coherent control of their actions and are very good at radicalising and proselytising others. What Acheson describes as a sheep dip approach and generic psycho-social interventions from secular people—people trained in a secular approach to psychology—will not work for people whose universe is extremely different and built on a warped but theological basis.

Acheson said specifically that the Prison Service had unwillingly adopted some of his recommendations. The Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that we were adopting them, but apparently at a lower level there has been some resistance. Out of our three separation units, one was mothballed before it began, one lies or was lying empty, and the third has barely a handful of residents. I would be very grateful if the Lord Chancellor or other Ministers talked to us about the day-to-day life of separation units. Perhaps MPs should visit them. I am visiting one of my prisons next week and I will be talking about the culture in prisons, both in my constituency and more broadly, because this is probably an issue on which we do not spend enough time. Clearly, there are significant problems. If people are coming out of prison and killing our fellow countrymen, we must prioritise this situation and we probably have not been doing so.

Acheson warned of a fear of litigation driving some decision-making. We all have to be mindful of the law, but a fear of the human rights lobby should not be a reason for forcing or allowing people out who then go on to kill and maim their fellow countrymen.

The final point, which I think is valid, relates to the safeguarding of vulnerable prisoners—the vulnerable prisoners being the terrorist prisoners. I sort of get that at a certain level. In the hostage and crisis negotiators course, the police teach that the person trying to kill other people or take hostages is in a state of crisis and in a vulnerable state. Morality aside, that is clearly true. However, in practical and moral terms, treating the person who is sticking a knife to somebody’s throat or walking on to the tube with a bomb as someone in need of safeguarding is, frankly, not as important as treating the people that that person is going to kill. They are the ones in need of safeguarding from that person. When we talk about safeguarding extremist prisoners, I am wary of using that language—I understand why it is being done—because I think it goes down a morally and ethically dangerous route. We are not making a moral distinction between innocence, which is what the term safeguarding should be used for, and people who want to do considerable harm to other people. Indeed, they see it as a perverted and twisted religious duty, as part of a holy jihad, to slaughter other people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that can be a part of the mindset. It is on the spectrum of that mindset.

I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will wrap up on this point. I would very much like to be reassured on some of the questions and issues I have raised, because they are concerns felt by the people who are directly responsible for trying to protect the British public, as well as by Members of this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have had plenty of time for this debate but there have been some very long speeches. We need to leave time for proper wind-up speeches from Front Benchers—many people have asked questions of the Minister that ought to be answered in here, so there should be time for him—so I will have to ask Members to make very short speeches of three minutes.

15:59

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

We in this place exercise our duty to protect the people we represent, amend the law where appropriate and ensure the highest standard of living and safety for everyone in this country. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, which will implement more stringent, preventive measures, ending the automatic half-way release. Increasing the threshold so that two thirds of a sentence is served, as a minimum, provides more justice for victims and helps to protect wider society. I also hugely welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor outlined the role that the Parole Board will further play in such decisions.

A big part of tackling radicalisation and decreasing the frequency and severity of crimes of this nature must be community-led. We need to empower people to report suspicious activity, however great or small the suspicions may seem, and for those reports to be received with the utmost seriousness and investigated thoroughly. The attack on Westminster bridge, in particular, hit close to home.

The terrorist who stole two bright lives on London bridge in November was raised in my constituency. I will not name him and hope that his name is forgotten alongside his hatred. This individual deserves no recognition. I have spoken to faith leaders in my community and they have unequivocally condemned this individual’s actions. As a former religious education teacher, I know that such viciousness and violence is born through extremism, not through religion. Islam is a peaceful religion and the actions of this man in no way reflect on the many millions of loving, law-abiding citizens who also worship Islam.

We cannot and must not be lenient with those who attack the core values of this nation and all that it stands for. One of the victims of the attack in November last year was Saskia Jones. She was from Stratford-upon-Avon, my childhood home. I did not have the pleasure of knowing her but we were raised in the same community. The impact of her death and the grief felt by such a small, close-knit community is virtually unimaginable. My deepest condolences go to Jack and Saskia’s loved ones, and those who were harmed in Streatham.

The best way to honour the memories of all those who have lost their lives as a result of extremist violence is two-pronged: first, we must implement protections on the ground through measures such as this Bill; and, secondly, we must focus on institutional protections to ensure that the time that offenders of this nature spend in prison is used to rehabilitate and reform in a meaningful way, so that prison sentences stop serving solely as a delay of the inevitable.

16:02

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I support the Bill because from my perspective it is a matter of complete common sense. When I was a criminal lawyer and I stood up and mitigated on behalf of defendants, they would get credit for the guilty plea, for showing remorse and for various other factors. It is complete anathema that if somebody gets a 16-year sentence, they serve eight. I have been able to see no evidence to show that having a prolonged period under the supervision of the probation service makes any substantive difference to rehabilitation. My constituents would expect somebody who receives a lengthy custodial sentence to serve that time, or as close as possible to that time. If any Member can give me an argument against that, I would be very interested to hear it.

The Bill is sensible, practical, reasonable and proportionate and it must come into law now. We here, if we have no other duty, must protect members of the public. This must come into law so that no further terrorists are released. How can we as a House possibly continue with the position whereby terrorists are released automatically 50% of the way through their sentences? It is preposterous. Anybody watching this debate would see how preposterous it is, so I warmly welcome the Bill.

I will make two other, brief points. A lot of Members say, with the best of intentions, let us support de-radicalisation work. I have not heard one practical suggestion as to how that is going to work. We use words all the time to describe what we want to happen, but putting it into practice on the ground is totally different.

[Alicia Kearns]

Does my hon. Friend believe that terrorists can never truly be de-radicalised? Having worked in counter-terrorism, I believe that the attributes that make someone vulnerable to extremism and radicalisation never go away; those attributes always remain and that person is always vulnerable, in some way, to some form of extremism or radicalisation, or to membership of groups that would seek to benefit from those attributes.

[James Daly]

I do not know if I would go that far, but I would say that the present programmes being used by the criminal justice system to tackle radicalisation simply do not work. I ask the Minister to look at other options if we are to pursue this.

I have one final point that I feel I have a duty to make, as a constituent and dear friend of mine, Rachel Wheeler, is a probation officer. I have known her and many of her colleagues for many years. The probation service provides a tireless service to the public, but it is not working as it should do, as I think everyone in the House understands. There are issues with staffing shortages and various other matters. We need a probation service that is fit for purpose. I could just say: let’s put more money into it. Money is one thing; let’s get services that work and deliver on the ground, and then we may have rehabilitation successes. As I said yesterday, the success of rehabilitative programmes and sentences in our criminal justice system is negligible. Whatever we have been doing does not work.

16:06

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Streatham is a place that is very close to my heart. I lived there for many years and had the privilege of being the chairman of Streatham Conservatives and working closely with community groups and the police. I pay tribute to the professionalism of the police and the community groups. We know that the people of Streatham will be coming together at this dark hour to support each other. The incident on Streatham high road was especially tragic because it came so soon after a similar incident at London bridge.

That brings us to why we are here. We have been put here by our electors with an understanding, which is both explicit and implicit, that we will keep them safe. We have a duty to keep our constituents safe—I have a duty to keep the people of Milton Keynes North safe—and we have the power to act on this matter. It is our duty as public servants and human beings to act. Let us be quite clear: those who have been proven to have committed or to have conspired to commit acts of terrorism are enemies of the Crown. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) put it, they are traitors, and people expect the full application of the law, of justice and of sentences.

16:08

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

We have heard some incredible speeches from right across the House today, and I am pleased by the cross-party consensus that this is the right thing to do for the security of our country.

Her Majesty, back in 2001, spoke words that still resonate today:

“nothing that can be said can begin to take away the anguish and the pain of these moments. Grief is the price we pay for love”.

Our nation has grieved on multiple occasions, not least following the horrific attack in Manchester, which was referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), in which innocent children lost their lives through terrorism, and more recently—and more relevant to today’s debate—we grieve as a nation following the London Bridge and Streatham terror attacks. Both the offenders had been convicted of terror offences and both had been released early.

In this place, we have a duty to the innocent victims of terrorism. We have a duty to ensure that justice is done through the courts. That is why I welcome the upcoming counter-terrorism Bill, which will help to ensure that sentences really do reflect the severity of crimes, with a minimum sentence of 14 years—although I hope that we will go further still in the case of those who have, to all in intents and purposes, declared themselves enemies of our very way of life. These are not petty criminals; these are people committing some of the most evil, atrocious offences, and it is right that they should receive the very harshest of sentences.

We also have a duty to ensure that the public are protected, and that means ensuring that those sentenced for terror offences are not automatically released early from prison. It is not right that convicted terrorists should be allowed to roam our streets freely before the end of their sentences. This emergency legislation seeks to address that by ending automatic early release, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Some Members have expressed concerns about the swift timetable, but, as the Lord Chancellor rightly pointed out, there are about 50 terror convicts who, under the current rules, would be due for automatic release before the end of this month. That is unacceptable, which is why it is right for us to support the Government’s changes and use our power to keep our streets and people safe, and why we must act now.

Under the Bill, terrorist offenders will only be eligible for early release if they pass a thorough risk assessment by the Parole Board. If they are considered still to pose any threat to public safety, they will rightfully be forced to serve the remainder of their time in prison. The Parole Board makes its decisions on the basis of a variety of factors, including behaviour displayed in prison. I am pleased to see the Government increasing counter-terrorism resources in prisons, ensuring that frontline staff are trained in identifying the behaviour of those who still pose a threat to society, and ensuring that those who do still pose dangers to the public are not able to leave prison early.

However, our duty does not end at the point of release: we must ensure that sufficient monitoring takes place after release. I am pleased that we are introducing measures to strengthen supervision on licence for terrorist offenders, which will be bolstered by a doubling of the number of specialist counter-terrorism probation officers. That means that, on release, terrorists could be subjected to measures such as notification requirements, restrictions on travel and communications, and imposed curfews. All that will help to prevent further offences.

In this place, public safety is our number one duty, but we also have a duty to do all we can to defend the memories of the victims, and ensure that terror never wins. That is why we must pass the Bill today.

16:12

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall wind up the debate, having also opened it.

This has been a wide-ranging debate on the most serious of issues. We have a duty, across the House, to reduce the risk of incidents such as the one in Streatham happening again in the future. We can never eliminate that risk, but we must certainly put in place all reasonable and proportionate measures to reduce it. We must never sacrifice our values—the very values that this Parliament seeks to protect—in tackling these issues. The European convention on human rights and our own country’s common law, which has evolved over centuries, form the framework in which we must act.

I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee, and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who, as a former Minister north of the border, brought his own expertise to the debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for his maiden speech. He paid tribute, appropriately, to his predecessor, Laura Smith—who was certainly a great champion for the constituency during her time here—and mentioned the experience on which she drew as a primary school teacher. I think that, as a true Welsh valleys man, given the choice between the worm-charming championship and watching Crew and Nantwich rugby club, I would go for the rugby club every time, but I do wish the worm-charmers well in their competition. I also thought that the hon. Gentleman spoke very movingly about the struggle that many people have with identity, and I look forward to hearing more contributions from him during the time that he will have in the House in the current Parliament.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke with her usual authority, including on the oversight of deradicalisation programmes, which will be vital in the years ahead. I also thank the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) spoke powerfully about the need for training and expertise for those who are going into prisons and providing the deradicalisation programmes. I also pay tribute to his extraordinary work in this area. I was grateful, too, for the contributions from the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Bury North (James Daly), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). We have had a good-natured and constructive debate in the Chamber this afternoon.

As I said in my opening remarks, we really need a relentless focus on the treatment of extremism in our jails. I am sure that, in a few minutes’ time, this particular piece of legislation will have its Second Reading in this House, but we also need to get the wider issues around this right. We need sufficient numbers of prison officers who are properly paid and supported to work in a constructive environment. We need a prison estate that is fit for purpose. We also have to tackle the problem of increased violence against our prison staff. We cannot continue to tolerate the current level of attacks on them. Many Members have spoken about the awful atrocities at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, but if there is any doubt about the issue of prison staff, let us not forget that on 9 January this year there was an attack on prison staff at HMP Whitemoor by two inmates with bladed articles. That is a reminder of the extent to which we ask our prison staff to take risks on a daily basis.

We need the very best regime to tackle extremism in our prisons. The best expertise, appropriate resources and trained staff are all required. We need a programme to prevent people from falling into a life of terror and hatred in the first place. It must be as effective as it can be, and the Government need, in speedy fashion, to get the independent review of the Prevent programme under way with a reviewer in place. We need stable leadership and a Justice Secretary who remains in place long enough to make a lasting mark on the Department. I hope this Prime Minister will not be chopping and changing his Justice Secretary at every opportunity, so that we can put in place the strategy and long-term planning that are absolutely required in the Department at the moment.

Keeping the public safe is the central duty of Government. We need consistent evidence-based policy making, and even in a fast changing situation we should never lose sight of the evidence before us. What counts in this sphere has to be what works. I hope that this emergency legislation will now reach the statute book in a timely fashion to avert the immediate crisis, but it should mark a beginning, not an end. This should be the beginning of a wider debate on how we tackle extremism in our prisons, and of a real commitment of resources from the Government to secure the very best expertise available in counter-extremism. That is what we must see in the months ahead. The public deserve no less.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

It has been a great privilege to listen to so many extremely fine speeches this afternoon, but I would particularly like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for his excellent maiden speech. There was a great deal in it to think about. He touched on issues of identity, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has just said, but I was especially interested to hear about the worm-charming competition. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich demonstrating his worm-charming skills, whatever form they may take, in the Tea Room later.

However, we are clearly here to consider an extremely serious matter touching on national security and public safety, prompted by two terrible recent cases: the murders committed at Fishmongers’ Hall by Usman Khan on 30 November last year, and the attack by Sudesh Amman in Streatham on 2 February—a little over a week ago. It has become clear to the Government that the automatic release of some terrorist offenders after serving only half their sentence poses an unacceptable risk to the public, and that is why we are acting with urgency with this emergency legislation to end that happening.

The circumstances are, of course, exceptional. Many Members, including the Chairman of the Justice Committee and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), a former Justice Secretary in Scotland, have said that this is not something that any Government would undertake lightly, but where we believe we have to act quickly and decisively to protect the public, we will do so.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The Minister is making an excellent speech on this important issue. I refer the House to the fact that I am a risk assessor with the Risk Management Authority in Scotland. Has he considered, or might he consider, the order for lifelong restriction? It is in place in Scotland for offenders who continue to exhibit a significant risk throughout their lifetime, and offenders can be recalled at any point.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such a thoughtful point. That certainly is something we would be prepared to study and consider, because we are always keen to learn from other jurisdictions. We will be bringing forward wider measures as part of a counter-terrorism Bill in the next few months. One provision we have in mind is greatly extending licence periods following release, which is in the spirit of what she suggested, so I thank her for her constructive proposal.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I have heard Members throughout the debate talking about ending automatic release as if it was a new thing, but the Minister will be aware that the measure already exists in section 9 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Is he confused, like me, as to why the change was not made retrospective then, because that legislation came in direct response to the terror attacks that happened throughout 2017? The Government could have made the change then, which Labour Members would have supported, as we did when they set up the Prevent review.

[Chris Philp]

Of course, the Government and Parliament think carefully about retrospection and rightly take a circumspect view. Several changes to sentencing have been made over the past five or 10 years, including the introduction of extended determinate sentences, whereby release at two thirds of the way through a sentence is a matter for the Parole Board following an assessment of dangerousness by the sentencing judge. Sentences for offenders of particular concern were extended a short time ago to include terrorist offenders who do not have an EDS or life sentence, and SOPCs include a Parole Board assessment at the halfway point. A great deal has been done in the past few years in this area, but the two recent cases, including, of course, the one in Streatham just a week and a half ago, underline the need to go even further than before, which is why this Bill is before the House today.

The number of offenders affected is small. As the Lord Chancellor said in his excellent introduction, only 50 offenders are involved, because all the rest are covered by other sentencing types. Even a small number of offenders, however, can cause a high level of harm, as we have seen, which is why it is important that we go further with today’s Bill. The next such offender is due for release by the end of the month, and that is why we are acting so quickly to ensure that legislation is in place prior to that release.

I thank Members from across the House, including the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the SNP spokesman, for the constructive and supportive tone of their speeches. This is a good example of Parliament working in a cross-party way in the national interest, and I am grateful for the approach they have taken today.

Some of the questions raised today touch on wider issues in this area, one of which is the question of resources, raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen in his opening speech. I confirm to the House once again that another £90 million will be spent on counter-terrorism policing next year, bringing the budget to £900 million. That very significant increase in resources was announced just a short time ago.

We clearly need to do more on the prison estate. Between 2017-18 and 2019-20, the prisons budget has increased from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, a 15% increase, and over the last three years there has been a welcome increase in the number of prison officers serving in our prison estate from 18,003 to 22,536.

Of course, we are also investing in the quality of the prison estate. The next financial year, which starts shortly, will see an extra £156 million invested in the prison estate’s physical condition, in addition to a £2.5 billion programme to build 10,000 additional prison places over and above the 3,500 currently under construction at Glen Parva, Wellingborough and Stocken.

[Sir Robert Neill]

The Minister is making a good speech, and I recognise the various measures the Government are taking to invest in the prison estate and in staffing. On the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), does the Minister also recognise the importance of a comprehensive policy to ensure the retention of experienced prison staff, as well as the recruitment of others, because they have particular skills and knowledge that are valuable in this field?

[Chris Philp]

The Chair of the Justice Committee makes a good point. It is important to retain experience in the prison officer establishment. Prison staff have long expertise and long experience, and the Prisons Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is acutely aware of the importance of retention.

Many hon. and right hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have drawn attention to the importance of a comprehensive deradicalisation programme in prisons—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) also made that point in his excellent speech. We are acutely conscious of the importance of that and of the need to do more. We have the theological and ideological intervention programme, the healthy identities programme and the deradicalisation programme in place, and I am sure there is more that needs to be done in those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) touched on that in his speech, and I know the Prisons Minister would like shortly to take up his offer of a meeting to discuss exactly these issues.

Of course, it is equally important to make sure these offenders are properly monitored after release, whether on licence or otherwise. The TPIM regime was strengthened in 2015, and we always have multi-agency public protection arrangements where necessary. As we saw, those arrangements were effective in the case of Sudesh Amman. After he began his behaviour, it was a matter of seconds before the police were able to intervene, which is an example of MAPPA working well in practice.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I will address the question of retrospection, touched on by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). It is our very firm belief, based on legal advice, that these measures do not contravene article 7. They do not constitute a retrospective change of the penalty, because the penalty is the total sentence. The penalty is the sentence handed down by the judge at the point of sentencing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) elaborated, a wide body of case law says that changing the early release point does not change the penalty. In fact, early release ameliorates the penalty—it reduces the penalty—so changing the early release point does not add to it. The Uttley case makes that clear, as do other cases that have come before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

I do not think the Del Río Prada case, in which the Kingdom of Spain was a respondent, is directly germane because it concerns the calculation of concurrent sentences and a change in how concurrent sentences are handled, which is obviously not the matter before the House today. The Government are clear that the Bill does not contravene article 7 and does not constitute a retrospective change to the penalty; it simply constitutes a change to how the sentence is administered.

Let me touch briefly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I suspect we may debate more fully in Committee shortly. We do not believe that a “notwithstanding” clause is necessary, because we do not believe article 7 is contravened by this legislation—we can debate this more. We are also not wholly convinced that a “notwithstanding” clause would derogate our treaty obligations under the ECHR.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I am conscious of time. I would be happy to give way in Committee to debate this at greater length. I very much look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s further views on this and I would be happy to take an intervention in Committee, but I must wrap up in a minute or so.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked about the MAPPA review and the Prevent review. The MAPPA review is under way and is being led by Jonathan Hall, QC. The Prevent review has a statutory deadline of August 2020, which we intend to abide by. We will make further announcements about its progress—this will include appointing a new reviewer—as soon as possible.

[Yvette Cooper]

Is it actually doing any work?

[Chris Philp]

It is a Home Office matter, but I do not think work has stopped simply because of the issue with the reviewer.

In conclusion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has one and a half minutes, so it is alright.

[Chris Philp]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are extremely kind. I thought I had about 10 seconds left.

I would like to use up my remaining one minute and 10 seconds, as it is now, by saying that although these are emergency measures designed to address a specific problem, we will of course be coming back with a much wider and more considered set of proposals in our counter-terrorism Bill in the next few months and in the sentencing White Paper. Many Members have spoken of the need to think widely and thoughtfully about these issues, and we will of course be doing so. Members will be pleased to hear that in the counter-terrorism Bill we will be seeking to impose a 14-year minimum sentence, with no prospect of early release, for the most serious terrorist offenders. We will also be thoughtful and considered about issues of deradicalisation. Of course, more resources are going into the system: 20,000 extra police officers; £85 million extra for the Crown Prosecution Service; and more Crown court sitting days in the coming year. This is an important emergency measure designed for public protection, and I am pleased to see that it commands support across the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 1

Eligibility for release on licence of terrorist prisoners: England and Wales

16:33

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 4, in page 1, line 12, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 34, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 37, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 2, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 6, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Clause 3 and 4 to 10 stand part.

That schedules 1 and 2 be the First and Second schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of prison deradicalisation programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) may enter any prison premises in order to scrutinise the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme before the end of the period of 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) The person appointed must make further reports at intervals of not more than three months to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(5) The person appointed under subsection (1) may include in any review or report under this section consideration of the adequacy of resources made available to the prison deradicalisation programme, including resources made available for the supervision of probation and rehabilitation work.

(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(7) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), such expenses and allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”

This new clause would require the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme.

New clause 3—Review—

(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 9 to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review, and

(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).

(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when this Act comes into force.”

[Sir William Cash]

I have already canvassed some parts of what I am about to say, but there is more to say, for a very sound reason. Parliament is full of opinions and Ministers are full of opinions. Two Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, no doubt debating the issue before the Committee, but their opinions are not the law, and nor are those of leading counsel, whether senior Treasury counsel or those involved in academic discussion. I say that really seriously. I have been practising the law since 1967 and I know a little about how the law is interpreted. We saw the Gina Miller case the other day. How many times were we told that there was absolutely no question but that the Government were right in their interpretation? I served as the shadow Attorney General and saw the whole of the Iraq and Peter Goldsmith exercise. We were told over and over again in the House this, that and the other about interpretation—“This is what will happen. This is the way it will go.” That is no way to make decisions on matters of this kind of critical importance.

There are occasions on which the question of interpretation may merely be about a modification of policy; this is actually about saving human life. I repeat that: saving human life. Where it is possible for the House to ensure that human life cannot be unreasonably and wilfully disposed of by people who are intent on murdering for no reason at all, we need to take seriously the question of whether or not we can exclude the courts —because this is Parliament, not the judiciary—from making wrong decisions when matters come before them.

I heard with interest the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the various cases he mentioned, and I have just heard the Minister refer to the Uttley case. There is also the Hogben case, which was of course in 1985, before the Human Rights Act 1998. Reference was also made to the del Río Prada case. As a matter of fact, the legislation does not depend on an interpretation of those individual cases by way of precedent, and that is not what we should be worried about; we should be thinking about the purpose and scope of the Bill and its objective, which is to do everything that we can to ensure that human life and public safety come first. I do not want this to become an argument about the interpretation of law, which is why I tabled amendment 3 to clause 1.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On the subject of opinions, does my hon. Friend intend to test the opinion of the Committee, or merely the opinion of the Minister?

[Sir William Cash]

That is an extremely good question on which I have already given an indication. Being a realist, I know perfectly well that this is not a Bill to which an amendment is going to be passed—certainly not today—but I did say that the House of Lords, which is where the Bill is going, is full of lawyers, some of whom I will disagree with and have disagreed with for as many years as I have been in the House, but there are others who will take a different view.

I am interested to hear the views of the House of Lords on the question of my proposal to amend clause 1. The wording of clause 1 currently refers to an offence “within subsection (2)” and a sentence imposed

“whether before or after this section comes into force”,

at which point I propose to insert the words

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The effect of that would be to put a complete bar on the use of the Human Rights Act, by interpretation of the courts, in any attempt, whether it is regarded as misguided or is a matter of culture—there is currently a load of culture in the courts relating to human rights questions that have built up over the whole of my lifetime in the law.

I am deeply concerned that we could allow legislation to go through that could be interpreted in a way that would result in human life being lost and public safety being infringed. That is my concern. [Interruption.] I see the Minister looking at me either apprehensively or with anticipation; I am not sure which it is and I do not really care. What I am saying is that I want certainty. I know that if the words “notwithstanding the Human Rights Act” are brought into the Bill, the effect will be to exclude completely, for reasons that I am about to give, any attempt by the courts to modify the effect that the Bill otherwise would have.

I have other concerns about the Bill that I have already made clear. I do not think that offenders should be considered for release after half or two thirds of their sentence. I have a lot of sympathy for what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) proposes in amendment 1; he says it should be nine tenths. I do not know whether he will address that point later.

The bottom line is that we should not allow this situation if we can avoid it—and we can avoid it, because we are the Houses of Parliament, and as a result of Brexit, we have just regained an awful lot of our sovereignty. This is more a matter of the European convention on human rights than of the charter of fundamental rights—or, for that matter, of Brexit—but the amendment is an indication of the House’s determination to use our sovereignty to make law that will guarantee that we do not face people losing their life, or public safety being undermined.

If we do not include in the Bill the words that I propose in my amendment 3, I believe—as I said before with respect to the Lee Rigby case—that it is not a matter of if such a thing happens again; it is a matter of when. I concede that this is emergency legislation; that is why I support it, but it requires a full, thorough review, perhaps by the Justice Committee, to ensure that we deal with the issue properly and fully.

I applaud the Government for bringing in this Bill on an emergency basis, but I criticise the fact that the Bill does not go far enough. The Minister is, if I might say so, not a lawyer; he can only have received his information from others who are. He is taking a bit of a punt in saying that the words

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

are not needed. He does not know that. I say that with not only respect, but knowledge and certainty. It is very difficult even for lawyers to be sure what the impact would be of allowing the Bill through without excluding the Human Rights Act 1998 from it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, despite my non-lawyer background. I am of course interested in what he says, and have been listening extremely carefully, as he has seen. How does he think his amendment would operate? In particular, does he think it would in any way disapply our ECHR treaty obligations? Even if we passed his “notwithstanding” amendment, could applicants not still go directly to the European Court in Strasbourg? We cannot disapply that route through this amendment.

[Sir William Cash]

I notice that the Minister is reading very carefully from the notes with which he has been provided, and I agree with the sentiment behind them, but I am putting the case in a different way. We are talking about serious questions of human life, and every step should be taken to preserve it. I was originally minded to use the amendment to exclude the European convention on human rights, too. I describe amendment 3 as a probing amendment, but I want proper consideration of it, not just someone saying, “I don’t think the wording would achieve the total effect that the hon. Gentleman would wish it to.”

The risk to human life is serious; we have to take every step to ensure no repetition of the instances of murder and terrorism that we have witnessed, and which, in recent times, from Lee Rigby onwards, have become more and more prevalent. We know that people are prepared to take such steps; it may be that some of them are mentally disturbed. Perhaps people do not think that these things will happen again, but as I said in debate on another counter-terrorism Bill four or five years ago, the question is not whether we have another Lee Rigby, but when. We have had one after another, at regular intervals. They are becoming more and more imminent, and more and more serious. I doubt whether this Bill, however worthy its objectives, will deal with the problem in the manner in which I am setting out and which is necessary.

16:45

There is no doubt that Parliament has the power to legislate retrospectively. I want to make that entirely clear. If the words are clear and express, whatever judges may wish to interpret is displaced by the wording that Parliament actually utters. My authority for this—there are plenty of authorities, but I will give the House this one—are the words of Willes J in Phillips v. Eyre. Those words boil down to this: the courts will only ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by

“express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature”.

That is supported by page 56 of Bradley and Ewing’s “Constitutional and Administrative Law”, which is the greatest constitutional authority that we have in this country and is into its 15th edition. Bradley and Ewing are quite clear that if the words are express in particular, and/or by necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature, there is no argument. The courts, quite rightly, will interpret that law in the light of those express words. This is why I propose the insertion of the words “and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”. We could add “or the European convention on human rights”, for that matter—to answer the Minister’s point directly. I do not mind. I am not doing this as an exercise in academic analysis; I am doing it because I do not want people to be killed and I do not want people to be released in circumstances where they might kill people. There is too much at stake.

For practical purposes, I believe that we need to have legislative clarity and the avoidance of doubt in relation to the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. I am not interested in the possible interpretation of leading counsel, academics, bloggers, senior Treasury counsel or, for that matter—with the greatest respect, and I really mean that—either the Chair of the Justice Committee or the Lord Chancellor himself. In this House we make decisions about the legislation that we are going to pass. On the basis of what Willes J said in Phillips v. Eyre—and other cases—it is crystal clear that by using words that are explicit and express, we can have the effect of ensuring that human life is saved, and that is the main intention behind my amendment.

It is not for me to go into all the criticisms of the Human Rights Act 1998 that I have had over the years, but I can assure the House that an awful lot of distinguished lawyers, including the Foreign Secretary, have had a lot to say about this matter over the years, including Martin Howe QC. There is a huge body of legal opinion on both sides of the debate, and there are those who are inclined to take the view that the Human Rights Act has a lot of merit in it—and the charter of fundamental rights, for that matter, which we have now excluded by virtue of the withdrawal agreement Bill which became the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 only about 10 days ago.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am another layperson —a non-lawyer. Can my hon. Friend see any downside to including the set of words that he is suggesting in his amendment? Would they limit something that might otherwise not be limited? I hear very clearly his arguments about its possibly being superfluous and the legislation being subject to interpretation, but is there any downside other than it being an additional safeguard that might not have been required?

[Sir William Cash]

Indeed. As usual, my hon. Friend is very perceptive. This is really the main purpose of my words on the subject, because there is no downside at all in this context. I can think of circumstances where it might be arguable that there could be, because somehow or other one might be infringing some genuine human right. However, given that we are dealing with this issue for the sole purpose of preventing people from being murdered in the circumstances and in the manner of these heinous acts, and for the purposes for which people indulge in them, there can be no downside in making this absolutely crystal clear, subject to comments that may be made by other lawyers as a result of what I am saying now and, for that matter, what is said in the House of Lords.

I am not pretending that I have all the answers to every question in matters of this kind, but I do think it is our duty, in the context of what we are seeking to prevent, to ensure that we are as crystal clear as we can be in our direction to the courts that they should not and must not allow human rights considerations to allow murder to take place. That is the problem and that is why I am so emphatic about it. I have noted from the Minister’s remarks and from other conversations I have had with senior Ministers that they are perhaps more interested in questions of interpretation than I am. I do not want any interpretation in this context.

The sole purpose of this Bill is to deal with people who are going to commit murder. Let us be under no misapprehension: this Bill has not been brought forward to deal with some questions relating to the whole generality of human rights law; it is specifically emergency legislation to deal specifically with preventing people who, for a variety of reasons or without reasons, intend to perpetrate murder from doing so. Human life is at risk. That is why this is such a good move on the part of the Government. There is nothing negative in my approach; it is entirely belt and braces. If the opportunity is to be given to Parliament to make sure that we have both the belt and the braces, then for heaven’s sake let us take it and not leave it to the vagaries and the uncertainties of judicial interpretation.

I have already referred to the Hogben case. I am not going to go through the analysis, because this is not something that depends on compiling a judgment about the interpretation of law based on precedents. I do not think that any case we put forward, coming back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said, could generate an upside or a downside. I just want clarity; that is the whole point. The words that I have used adopt the “notwithstanding” formula in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, relating to the sovereignty of Parliament. I argued this in No. 10, and the Prime Minister, to his enormous credit, completely backed me. I said, “You have to include the words ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’.” By doing this in a certain manner, one ensures that one achieves one’s objective, without the uncertainty that can arise in the circumstances that I have described.

We need to bear in mind that the Del Rio Prada case was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister referred to the other cases. In the case of Uttley, there was an appeal on which the House of Lords concluded that article 7 would be infringed only if a sentence was imposed on a defendant that constituted a heavier penalty than that which would have been imposed at the time the offence was committed. The ECHR then declared that his application was inadmissible. The Del Rio Prada case was to do with Spanish policy, but there is no doubt that part of the argument put forward by the Government today has depended on administration, rather than the object of the Bill. That is another area that needs to be carefully considered, because the question of administration should not be the basis on which we make these decisions.

There we are—I have made my case. The Government could review the situation when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, and I will be interested to see how people develop this argument from now on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, in my name and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but before I do I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who has had to deal with the awful incident that happened on the high street in Streatham shortly after coming into the House. On her intervention on the Minister on Second Reading, the issue of various sentencing decisions over the last 10 years was touched on in a new clause that was not selected, but more broadly I commend the idea of strategically reviewing the sentencing regime, and I hope that the Ministry of Justice will consider that.

I made clear to the Minister previously that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on new clause 1, but scrutiny of the de-radicalisation programme and giving Parliament confidence that the programme is being monitored is very important, and I hope he will address that when he responds.

The new clause specifically requires the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison de-radicalisation programme. On Second Reading, the Minister mentioned some figures with regard to resources, including £90 million on counter-terror policing and an uplift in the prison budget from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, but that does not tell us specifically how much is being spent on the de-radicalisation programme. That is the sort of information that an independent reviewer would be able to discover and then put in a format that the House could consider.

We have already discussed Mr Ian Acheson’s review of Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice. One of his recommendations was to have an independent adviser on counter-terrorism in prisons who is accountable to the Secretary of State. My new clause goes slightly further than that recommendation. It would require the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint a person to review the operation of the prison de-radicalisation programme, with the power to enter prison premises both to gather evidence and provide scrutiny. There would be a statutory requirement for a report to be laid before Parliament every three months on the programme. That could be regarded as too often, but the general point stands—this House would be in a position to properly judge the effectiveness of rehabilitation work in our prisons.

Subsection (5) of the new clause gives the independent reviewer the power to look into the resources available to the programme, including for probation and rehabilitation work. That proposal of an independent reviewer would give the opportunity for proper scrutiny of this very important programme. The Minister will be aware of the healthy identity intervention and other such programmes that currently exist. Through new clause 1, we seek to build on that and give real confidence in the Government’s work in the rehabilitation and de-radicalisation space. I am not absolutely clear of the extent to which those who have perpetrated these awful atrocities in recent months took part in de-radicalisation programmes, but I hope that will be considered and that the Minister will learn the lessons from that. It is vital that we use the time in prison of whatever length—I had a debate about that earlier with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)—in a constructive way to protect the public.

17:00

The broader point is such an important one. I have throughout the debate indicated that, while of course there is support for the principles behind the Bill, including the principle of Parole Board involvement, there must in addition be a focus on resources and on strategy in relation to de-radicalisation. The proposal I have put forward of an independent reviewer is one way of producing that, but I accept that there are others, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of the Minister.

[Sir William Cash]

Before the shadow Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I am engaged in a probing exercise—I am not going to push amendment 3 to a vote—and I would like to know what the Opposition think about excluding the Human Rights Act 1998 and what reason he would give for saying that it was unnecessary.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am delighted to have a chance to respond. I will do so in a moment, but the first thing I would say is that I remember the criticism of me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in the last Parliament when we were seeking disclosure of legal advice—not from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps from others. It strikes me that Members are now discussing case law across the Floor of the House and Ministers are referring to legal advice, which perhaps shows that there is a change.

I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. First, the point made by the Minister is correct, and even if we put this into the legislation, the right to go to Strasbourg would still exist. The second reason why I am uncomfortable with what the hon. Gentleman is saying—I am quite happy to give way to him again if I am wrong in my interpretation—is that he, as I understand it, wants the House to pass legislation and then somehow prevent courts from being able to adjudicate on it, which surely is not what is meant by having a sovereign Parliament that is accountable to judges.

[Sir William Cash]

I can respond to that very simply by referring the hon. Gentleman to the speeches made on the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. I was in the House at the time, and it was made absolutely clear that this Act would not in itself impinge on the sovereignty of Parliament. That was made clear, and therefore as far as I am concerned—I understand where he is coming from, but I am afraid that his point is erroneous—it is implicit in the passing of the 1998 Act that we are able, if we wish to do so, to take the legislation that we pass in this House as the final word, and the courts are obliged to obey that.

With respect to the European convention on human rights, I would simply make the point that I made just now, which is that I could have included such words—yet again, that is another part of my probing amendment—and they could have been “notwithstanding the charter of fundamental rights” as a matter of fact, but that would have been destroyed by the existence at that time of the European Communities Act 1972, which was binding on us by Act of Parliament.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not an erroneous point. I taught the Human Rights Act for the best part of 11 or 12 years, but I will resist the temptation to give his contribution a grade. Yes, the Human Rights Act contains the power to make a declaration of incompatibility, thus preserving the concept of parliamentary sovereignty —it is absolutely right that Parliament does not have a strike-down power as, for example, the US Supreme Court does—but I have two fundamental problems with his amendment. The first problem is the one I have set out: this House passing legislation that essentially tells the courts, “Well, you can move aside: this is absolutely what we say”, without any scrutiny.

[Sir William Cash]

indicated assent.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I know the hon. Gentleman nods his head, but I am not comfortable with that position.

The second point is that I firmly believe we can tackle this issue of terrorism and remain signatories to the European convention on human rights. That is essentially the Government’s position here today, and I really do not think that we need to get into this debate because the Government have clearly stated that the Act—or the Bill, as it currently is—is compliant with article 7. If people wish to challenge that in the courts, that is a matter for them, but the Government must be confident in their legal position.

Under the Human Rights Act, each Bill that comes before the House contains a sentence on its front page to show that Ministers have considered whether it is compatible with that Act. If they had wished, the Government could have stated in the Bill that they did not think it compatible with the Human Rights Act, but they wanted us to proceed regardless. They did not do that, however, and they clearly state on the Bill their belief that it is compatible with the Act. We have heard a case law of history from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and others, but that is the Government’s position, and for those reasons I cannot support the amendment. I understand that he will not push it to a vote, and the debate will continue in the other place, but this is not an amendment that would have found favour on the Labour Benches.

Let me return to new clause 1. I will not push the idea of an independent reviewer to the vote—I will not frustrate the passage of the Bill in that way. However, it would assist the Committee if the Minister set out how Members will be able to scrutinise the programme of de-radicalisation over the next few years, and how we can have the information before us—whether from the Ministry of Justice directly or in another way—to assess how it is working.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), intervened on the Justice Secretary during his opening speech, and said that she felt there had been a lack of success in the de-radicalisation programmes. She is right, and we need to see some success in the years ahead. I will not push new clause 1 to the vote, but I hope the Minister will provide some assurances about how such scrutiny could take place.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain the Committee long, Dame Eleanor, and the Minister should consider this not so much a probing amendment as a prodding amendment—it is my intention to prod the Minister.

The purpose of my amendments is stunningly obvious. At lines 34 and 37 I wish to remove “two-thirds”, and insert the words “nine-tenths”. In reality, many sentences, even for acts of terrorism such as the possession of terrorist promotional material with intent, give rise to a surprisingly short sentence, such as four years. In such a case, the difference between half the sentence, as currently served, and two-thirds, is a mere six months. Admittedly, extending that to nine-tenths of the sentence does not address the nature of the problem—that is why this is a prodding amendment—but the fact is that sentences are too short.

There is a general problem of honesty in sentencing. When a judge hands down a sentence in court, all those in the know work out on the back of a fag packet what it means in terms of imprisonment, but the public, who are generally not in the know, do not understand that the sentence is not that at all. They would be scandalised if they knew.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend remember a recent case of two treasure hunters who I think got as much as 10 years because they had not declared a treasure trove? Compare that with somebody who is intent on murdering people on the streets of London, or anywhere else.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

That is the random caprice of the judiciary! Returning to the issue before us, on the specific point of sentencing for terrorist acts, we must be clear in our minds about what intention lies behind our whole sentencing policy. I believe that fundamentally it must be to secure the reformation of the offender before he is released. The problem is that existing strategies for reforming offenders, and de-programming them from their ideology, are somewhat untested. Those that are tested—such as the programme run in Saudi Arabia, which has been shown to be effective—take a relatively long time. I suggest, therefore, that that lends itself to an indeterminate sentence to detainment at Her Majesty’s pleasure until a licensing authority, the Parole Board, has decided that the offender is safe to be released. That is the purpose of my amendment: merely to contribute to that debate.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am not seeking to press new clause 3, but I am seeking reassurances from the Minister relating to the purpose behind it and a commitment to post-legislative scrutiny.

In my earlier remarks, I made the point that fast law can be bad law. In the absence of an opportunity for thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, we absolutely must have post-legislative scrutiny. There are relevant examples of where this has happened: the Immigration Act 2014 was controversial, so it contained the same requirement as exists in new clause 3; and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which was rushed in in response to a court ruling, included a sunset clause of 18 months. I am not asking for a sunset clause, but new clause 3 sets out clearly that we would like the opportunity for a statutory review after one year. The person conducting that review should be appointed after consultation with the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and they should have professional experience relating to imprisonment for offences of terrorism.

New clause 3 does not seek to outline the scope of such a statutory review, but I would like to give the Committee some examples of the kind of matters that could be covered by it. Such a statutory review could ask whether the extra time the terrorists spend in prison is being used to de-radicalise them. Are they actually receiving an effective de-radicalisation programme or, on the contrary, are they potentially becoming more dangerous? It could look at whether the Parole Board has the resources to cope with the extra demands put on it. It could look at whether terrorist prisoners are being failed by the Parole Board and whether they are being released at the end of their sentence without any supervision on licence. It could look at whether the probation service has the staff and resources it needs to ensure effective supervision during the shorter period that offenders spend on licence. It could also perhaps look at whether the change in the release point affects the sentencing decisions made by judges.

As I said earlier, there is a risk that because of the lack of opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny there is the possibility that this becomes a law of unintended consequences. I know there are proposals for legislation down the line, but we also know that legislation can get delayed. It would be absolutely right for the House to insist on post-legislative scrutiny by virtue of a one-year statutory review. Who knows, the review might even identify things that could be included in future legislation.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I speak in sympathy with all the amendments for the reasons I shall give. In respect of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), it is important that we anticipate the likely counters to this proposed legislation that will perhaps come from malign forces in the other place and outside it. There are people who will seek to frustrate the Government in their attempt to the right thing.

[Daisy Cooper]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman says there are malign forces. I ask him to recognise that there are those of us who hold public and national security front and centre in our roles in the House, and that some people may be looking not to frustrate but improve the Bill by ensuring it complies with human rights law.

[Sir John Hayes]

We do not have time, and you would not permit us, Dame Eleanor, to have a broader debate about the character of rights and human rights law, but I welcome the opportunity to do so with the hon. Lady at a place and time of her choosing. I have profound doubts about that law and the root of it, which is, essentially, the acceptance of natural rights that I do not believe in. I believe in the lawful entitlements that we call rights, of course. How they should be dealt with legally is an entirely different matter and not one pertinent to these considerations, but I look forward happily to that broader debate. Given that there will be challenges to the Government, malign and otherwise, given what she said, it seems that there is a good case for a belt-and-braces approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described it.

17:15

[Sir William Cash]

In the context of what is developing into a very interesting speech, I refer to Edmund Burke’s famous attack on Thomas Paine in respect of what he really thought about human rights. It was a brilliantly expressed metaphor—that we would not be “trussed” like chickens, or something of that kind, by the human rights proposals of Thomas Paine.

[Sir John Hayes]

Now I might really test your patience, Dame Eleanor, because my hon. Friend invites me to articulate a Burkean case against natural rights, which I will be happy to do, but perhaps on another occasion. Given that I offered the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) the opportunity to have a debate about this, that might be the very occasion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree to be my seconder in such a debate—what a humbling experience that would be for me and an elevating one for him. I hope we will do that on another occasion and we can indeed explore why so many people take for granted the existence of natural rights, as though they spring from the ether. As a Christian, of course I could not possibly take that view, but now is not the time to get into that discussion.

On the specifics of the amendment, my hon. Friend makes a belt-and-braces case, as I said, for a notwithstanding clause. The shadow Minister made the point that that was fundamentally disagreeable and made a constitutional argument against the notwithstanding clause per se. However, he also went on to say that he believed the Government were right, or were likely to be right, in asserting that they were clear that, in any case, this legislation did not contradict any existing rights legislation. We heard that today from the Secretary of State and again subsequently in the debate: the Government do not feel that the proposed legislation is likely to be successfully challenged, as my hon. Friend suggested it might. We have to assume that the Government have taken legal advice to make that claim.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I should make one thing clear: obviously, I have not seen the legal advice the Government are relying on, which I am sure they have sought, quite appropriately. I merely point out that that is the Government’s view and that is what the Secretary of State has put in the Bill. On that basis, article 7 was not engaged—I want to make that point clear to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

[Sir John Hayes]

I would not have wanted to suggest anything other than that. The hon. Gentleman was very clear that he had heard what the Government said about having taken that advice and their confidence that a legal challenge would not succeed on that basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone may be more sceptical than others about that, but it is important to point out that the Government have made it clear that further legislation on counter-terrorism will be forthcoming. That legislation might in itself, on a primary basis, revisit the issue of how counter-terrorism measures interface with and may be contradicted by existing legislation. That would be a very fundamental debate, because of course it will oblige the consideration of exactly the kinds of points that he made. On that basis, I am happy to go with the Minister. Notwithstanding my temptation to follow the example of my esteemed hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I am happy, like the shadow Minister, to err on the side of the Government and to say that if they have taken legal advice, with the further opportunity to revisit these matters in the primary legislation that we hear will be speeding its way to the House, I am prepared to concede the argument about rights.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is going to try to persuade me not to.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend will accept that this is primary legislation and furthermore that I have already said I am looking forward to a proper discussion about this in the future, with a view to getting it right, because the object of the Bill is to prevent people from being killed on the streets of this country.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am talking about the murderous intent of people I described earlier as wicked. I use that word advisedly: not all these people are mentally disturbed. Some may be, and we know from evidence that some are, but not all. Crime is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice, an act of wickedness, and wickedness is entirely different from mental illness. I know it is difficult for some to grasp that, but it is important to emphasise it.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Of course, if an individual were mentally disordered, the pathway for their rehabilitation and punishment would be through a secure hospital, rather than prison, which would deal with that matter.

[Sir John Hayes]

There are well-established ways of differentiating people in those terms, different ways of dealing with them in law, different ways of dealing with them once convicted, and different ways of dealing with them in the community. The psychologists and psychiatrists associated with the probation service and the Prison Service are well-accustomed to that differentiation, but in the public debate we need to be bold and brave enough to say that there are some very wicked people who want to do wicked things, and it is our job not only to deal with those things by anticipating, deterring and punishing them, but to reinforce public faith in the rule of law by saying so. This is an opportunity to do so as the Bill gives that life.

The second amendment is the one proposed by the shadow Minister. Again, I have great sympathy with it. All legislation relating to such matters benefits from pre and post-legislative scrutiny, both because we need to get it right, for the obvious reasons we have debated—its salience, its significance, its importance—and because, in order to build the consensus necessary across the House to proceed in a way that maintains public faith, pre and post-legislative scrutiny is important. As recognised by all the contributors to this debate, the emergency we face is such that that has not been possible on this occasion. I would resist the shadow Minister’s amendment, not because I do not believe in the principle or the sentiments behind it but because there is a very good case for the Select Committees—notably the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—to look at this matter once the Bill has become an Act. I would be surprised if they did not. I know the Minister in his winding-up speech will—I will not say “invite that kind of scrutiny”, as I am not sure it is appropriate for a Minister to ask a Select Committee to investigate or scrutinise the Government—want to say that he would be surprised if they did not. That kind of reassurance would give great comfort to the House in measuring the effect of this important legislation.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are having a very interesting and mature debate about getting this right, and of course it is paramount that we make sure the public are safe, but I do not understand what speaks against a review to make sure we get it right. Even if other legislation comes further down the line, why not have that double security?

[Sir John Hayes]

We have well-established mechanisms, of the kind I have just described, for doing exactly that. Sometimes the Government build a review mechanism into legislation, but much more often the Committees of this House designed for that purpose consider the effectiveness of what the Government do and how legislation is working. Our Select Committee structure is now long established in the House—even longer established than my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and fulfils that function well. Particularly in respect of legislation relating to terrorism, the Intelligence and Security Committee has, time and again, played an important role in considering these matters, reflecting, reporting, and influencing Government policy, as I know from my time in the Home Office. So I think that there is well-established practice. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

[Daisy Cooper]

The issue is not just that there should be a review, but who should conduct that review. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about various Select Committees, which, as we know, have a very broad workload. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that there is an independent review, conducted on our behalf by someone who is independent of the House and has experience in relation to the sentencing of terrorists?

[Sir John Hayes]

We do, in fact, have an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In that context, I was privileged to work with Lord Carlile—a former Liberal Democrat Member of this House, by the way. So that role exists, but I do not want to underestimate the significance or value of the Committees of this House in doing their job. The ISC in particular is a well-respected Committee of the House, which has a very strong track record of looking at these matters empirically and advising accordingly. My argument is not that we should not have that kind of scrutiny; ideally, it would have been a precursor to this legislation, but we should indeed consider allowing it through the mechanisms that I have described. I invite the Minister to embrace the spirit in which I have advanced my argument.

The third and final amendment that we have heard ably articulated during our considerations this afternoon is the one in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Again, I am extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. Indeed, I might even go further, and say that “nine-tenths” is too modest. However, while my right hon. Friend’s amendment is welcome and adds pressure, if I might put it that way—he said “prodding” rather than “probing”, and I have added a third “p”, “pressure”, because I know that alliteration is dear to his heart—given that the Government have made crystal clear that in forthcoming legislation they will look at three matters, minimum sentences, maximum sentences and mandatory sentences, much of what he desires should form part of that further Government policy and practice. I hope that we can increase minimum sentences, that we can increase maximum sentences, and that we can tie to that—as the Government have said they will, as I note from comments made in the statement by the Secretary of State following the recent terrorist outrage—

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will just finish my sentence, and then I will give way happily to my right hon. and distinguished Friend.

The Government have said, and the Secretary of State was clear about it in the statement a few days ago, that tied to those three provisions will be the end of early release for certain kinds of prisoner. I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend before I move to my exciting peroration.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he not think that whatever scheme is ultimately settled upon, there needs to remain some incentive for someone who is in prison to behave him or herself?

[Sir John Hayes]

I note that my right hon. Friend was preoccupied with urgent meetings when I spoke earlier, but if he reads the Hansard report of my earlier contribution, he will see that I am on exactly the same page as him, not for the first time. He is absolutely right that parole has historically always been considered on the basis of an assessment of both risk and worthiness. “Good behaviour” is the term that was once routinely used in respect of parole. When people have proved, through how they behave in prison, that they no longer pose a risk to the public and that they deserve to be released early, they should be. The problem with the current arrangement is the automatic nature of early release, and I resist that per se, not just in respect of terrorist prisoners but more widely. The public would be outraged if they knew just how many people have been released early, including terrorists. Enough is enough; now the time to put an end to that. This is the beginning of it, and I happily support this legislation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Nick Thomas- Symonds.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have already spoken in favour of my amendment. I have said that I do not wish to press it to a Division, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to my suggestion about external scrutiny of the deradicalisation programme in our prisons.

17:30

[Chris Philp]

I would like to respond briefly to some of the points made in Committee, as well as speaking in support of clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill. Perhaps I could start with the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) concerning his proposed “notwithstanding” amendment. I repeat the point I made earlier, which the shadow Minister also made, that the Government have received categorical advice that these proposals are article 7 compliant. Of course there may well be challenges, and I cannot guarantee what the outcome of any litigation might be, but we are confident that the proposals are compliant.

My hon. Friend said that nothing less than certainty would do in cases of public safety, and I entirely understand that sentiment. Perhaps this would best be debated at another time, but I wonder whether his amendment as written would have the effect that he intends, because I do not think that simply writing a “notwithstanding” clause into a piece of primary legislation would abrogate our obligations under a treaty that we have entered into or preclude an applicant or litigant going directly to the European Court of Human Rights—they might go straight to Strasbourg—even if we could somehow prevent the use of the English and Welsh courts. I do not think the amendment as drafted would actually have the legal effect intended. However, my hon. Friend has, as always, raised some interesting constitutional questions, and I am sure they will be debated in the other place in due course. In our manifesto, we said that we would have a think about the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and some of the issues that he referred to in his speech. There will be plenty of opportunities in due course to consider at greater length the issues that he raised. I am grateful for his undertaking not to press his amendment to a vote today, but the whole House has certainly heard what he had to say and will carefully reflect on it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) gave me, in his words, a prod. Let me confirm that I am duly prodded on the questions of longer sentences for serious terrorist offenders and of their serving more of their sentence in prison. As a number of Members have said, is our intention to bring forward a counter-terrorism, sentencing and release Bill in the relatively near future. It is also the Government’s intention to define a cohort of the most serious terrorist offenders and to seek a minimum sentence of 14 years for those serious offenders and ensure that all of the sentence handed down by the judge is served in prison. I think that that will respond to the point that my right hon. Friend was making.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for those indications about sentencing. Does he agree that the review needs to consider all terrorist offences, including relatively minor ones—such as offences under sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to possession of materials—that might in and of themselves not attract a particularly long sentence? Given that they are responsible for almost half of all terrorist sentences handed out, does he agree that they need to be considered as part of the review?

[Chris Philp]

We will consider all terrorist offenders as part of the review. Of course, the sentencing provisions I just described would not be appropriate for all terror offenders—just the most serious—but I assure my hon. Friend that we will be considering the totality of terror offending. Of course, the Streatham offender had committed one of the offences that my hon. Friend just described—possession of terrorist material—so we must be mindful that even when someone commits an offence that, on the face of it, is at the less serious end of the offending spectrum, they can none the less go on to do quite serious things. The Government are extremely mindful of that.

[Sir John Hayes]

There are two points to be made in respect of what the Minister has just said. First, the vast majority of people convicted under terrorism legislation are sentenced to between one and 20 years. Now, he is talking about “the most serious”. What does he mean by “the most serious”? Secondly, a large number of people are convicted for terrorism-related offences under non-terrorism legislation—hundreds, actually, over the years. Will they be included in these considerations?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. In relation to the second part of it, terrorist-related offences do form part of this Bill. Part 2 of proposed new schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is found in schedule 1 to this Bill, covers terrorist-related offences under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and lists the various direct offences, including manslaughter, culpable homicide and kidnapping, that are terrorist-related offences. Such offences are, therefore, in the scope of this Bill, and we will carefully consider the implications for the counter-terrorism Bill that we will bring forward in due course.

Turning to the level of the severity of offending, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), we will review all types of offending, so the whole spectrum will be in scope. As for how we define that “most serious” cohort, the Government are currently thinking quite carefully about the definition. I do not want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a definition today, because that will be a matter for the counter-terrorism Bill, but we are thinking about question extremely carefully, and the House will be able to debate it fully in due course.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), asked about a review of the effectiveness of the deradicalisation agenda. I agree that the review is critical, and several Members raised it on Second Reading. We are setting up a new counter-terrorism programmes and interventions centre within the prisons and probation service that will look specifically at the de-radicalisation problem. We intend to publish further research and reports in the usual way, and I expect full scrutiny from Members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in his speech, we will fully embrace scrutiny of that description, and I would be surprised—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is not in his place—if the Justice Committee did not look at this area in due course. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that proper and deep scrutiny of this area is needed, because the de-radicalisation question is so important.

[Dr Cameron]

The Minister is making some good points. Is there any scope to look at additional types of charges that could be laid against those who actively radicalise others in prison?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important intervention. The radicalisation of one prisoner by another is a deeply invidious phenomenon, and she is right to highlight it. The normal offences that would apply to any member of the public, including things like incitement to racial hatred, would apply to prisoners just as much. I encourage the authorities to use those laws where applicable regardless of whether the person doing the inciting, which is a criminal offence in itself, is in prison.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), in the same vein as the hon. Member for Torfaen, talked about the need to scrutinise the effect of this legislation after it has passed. Once again, I accept the thrust of what she says. It is important that we keep the effect of legislation under review, particularly where it is passed in such a necessarily expeditious fashion. I would expect the Justice Committee to take an interest in this, and the House will have a chance to take a great interest when we come to debate the counter-terrorism Bill in a few months’ time. There will then be a lot more time available for us to debate these matters and, indeed, to review the operation of this Bill, which by then will have been in effect for a few months.

In terms of an independent review that goes beyond Parliament’s Committees and, indeed, this House—as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for St Albans—I expect that Jonathan Hall, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, will be conducting independent reviews of exactly the kind the hon. Member for St Albans described.

I think that covers many of the points raised on the various amendments and new clauses. On the substance of the Bill, it is worth briefly highlighting that clause 1 specifies the release provisions we have been talking about and the two thirds release point for prisoners in England and Wales, at which point the Parole Board’s discretion will be applied.

Clause 1 also references schedule 1, which specifies the kinds of offences that are in scope. Part 1 of proposed new schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines the terrorist offences that are in scope, and part 2 defines the offences that may be determined to have a terrorist connection.

Clause 2 disapplies some historical transitional provisions dating back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those are essentially technical amendments to make sure this legislation works in a way that is consistent with the Act.

Clauses 3 and 4 apply these provisions to Scotland. We are keen to make sure that the public in Scotland are protected as much as the public in England and Wales. In that context, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for his supportive remarks. I hope I can infer from his remarks that our colleagues in the Scottish Government in Holyrood are supportive of the proposals.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation that the Scottish Government support these provisions.

Clause 5 relates to the setting of licence conditions. Clause 6 makes further consequential amendments relating to transitional cases. Clause 7 makes further consequential amendments that apply to England and Wales. Clause 8 makes transitional provisions in relation to offenders in Scotland and, again, clause 9 makes further consequential amendments that apply to Scotland.

Finally, clause 10 specifies the Bill’s territorial extent and commencement. It is worth saying that commencement will be upon Royal Assent, and we therefore hope the Bill takes effect from 27 February, which is important from the perspective of the release of certain dangerous offenders.

I hope that covers the clauses and schedules, and that they will stand part of the Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

As I have already made clear, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment with the restrictions and conditions that I have already imposed with regard to the House of Lords.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

17:45

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

May I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate, on a Bill that, as Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated comprehensively, was timely and necessary? We have a proud history of coming together in times of adversity against people who seek to divide us. Together, we can make sure that the terrorists who seek to threaten our way of life will never win.

I readily acknowledge that we are passing this Bill to a very tight timescale, but the appalling attacks we witnessed at Streatham and at Fishmongers’ Hall made it plain that the time for action was now, which is why I welcome the sense of urgency that has been shared in all parts of the House. That has necessarily shortened the time available to debate these issues, but I will of course continue to engage with Members across the House on these matters. There will be further opportunities to legislate on these issues, both in our forthcoming counter-terrorism, sentencing and release Bill and, more broadly, in the sentencing Bill that we will introduce following our sentencing White Paper later this year.

We will also review the current maximum penalties and sentencing framework for terrorist offences to ensure that they are sufficient and comprehensive. Our underlying principle is this: terrorist offenders should no longer be released before the end of their custodial sentence unless the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a risk to the public.

I take this opportunity to thank all the officials, not only those who have assisted us in the Box today, but all the team at the Ministry of Justice, who have worked at pace and in great detail on complex issues of national importance, to a timescale that is perhaps unusual and almost unprecedented. We do owe them a deep debt of gratitude, and I am honoured to place that formally on the record.

For now, passing this Bill will take a significant step to ensuring that the British public, whom we serve, are being given the protection they need, by ensuring that terrorist offenders spend longer in prison in all cases and are not automatically released without being fully and properly assessed.

17:47

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree with the Secretary of State that we have had a constructive debate in the Chamber on this Bill. As I indicated at the outset, the Opposition support the idea of Parole Board involvement and, indeed, risk assessment for terrorist prisoners across the board.

Clearly, we will need to address an issue of investment in deradicalisation programmes and proper mechanisms to be able to assess how effective they are. We will be holding the Government to account on those issues in the months and years ahead. There is also a wider issue to address on sentencing. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, this of course became an emergency because of the incidents we have seen in recent months, but there does need to be greater long-term planning, which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to provide to the Department in the years ahead.

I also echo what the Secretary of State said about the officials, who obviously had to produce this Bill very quickly. I would like to thank him for his work with me on this over the past week. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and all those right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today.

I should also put on record in Hansard my thanks to Robert Keenan in my office: he has had very quickly to turn around work on the Bill on a very short-term basis since it was first published.

On that basis, I hope that the Bill will pass its Third Reading without a Division.

17:49

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I echo the comments of both the Opposition spokesman and the Lord Chancellor. We have put on record the requirement for unity on this issue. I thank the Lord Chancellor and his staff for the manner in which they introduced the Bill. Legislation is never easy, and this Bill was particularly difficult with regard to the retrospectivity, but as much information as could be provided was provided. As others have done correctly, I put on record our tribute not only to those in the Government offices who have drafted the legislation, but to those involved here at Parliament, because they must have been working long into the night to make sure that information was provided for Members.

With those tributes appropriately made, I simply concur with the thanks to all involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Business of the House (24 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Monday 24 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—

(a) the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, and

(b) the Motions in the name of Secretary Robert Jenrick relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Leo Docherty.)

Marine Licensing

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Leo Docherty.)

17:50

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I am delighted to bring to the House this debate to consider the process for the consultation on marine licensing applications carried out by the Marine Management Organisation on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The process has come to my attention in recent years because the way in which it works has led to widespread dismay among my local fishing communities. They have been left out of the consultation process when it comes to considering important decisions that impact on their livelihoods.

The Cornish fishing industry has recently been highlighted on a national scale, not only in the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award-winning short film “Bait”, much of which was filmed in St Austell bay and which stars local Cornishman Ed Rowe, but in the excellent BBC series “Cornwall: This Fishing Life”. The series has highlighted, and brought to national prominence as never before, the highs and lows of the Cornish fishing communities and the tremendous risks involved in one of the most dangerous professions. Of the six episodes that were shown, I would have to say—although I may well be biased—that the first was the best, because it highlighted the thriving harbour of Mevagissey in my mid-Cornwall constituency and the fishermen who fish out of that port, often in under- 10 metre boats, in all weathers and at all times of the year.

Let me provide some important background information on this jewel in the crown of fishing in Cornwall. Mevagissey is the second busiest and fastest-growing fishing port in Cornwall. Mevagissey harbour is home to a fleet of 62 registered fishing vessels and employs 94 full-time fishermen and dozens more who support the fishing industry. Some 75% of the fleet work very close to or within 500 metres of the shore at some point during the year, and many work exclusively close to the shore. An average year sees around £2.5 million-worth of fish landed into Mevagissey. I believe I can say with some accuracy that somewhere in the region of £1 million- worth of that fish is caught within 500 metres of the shore.

The primary fishing industry aside, Mevagissey harbour relies heavily on associated fishing dues and revenues, but it also attracts 800,000 tourists every year, largely because it is a living, thriving fishing port. As Members can imagine, any issue that would impact on the lifeblood of Mevagissey without consultation with the fishermen would be cause for much consternation in the community.

That brings me to the marine licensing consultation process, as carried out by the MMO, and specifically to decisions that were recently taken about mussel farms. Mussel farms, for colleagues who may not know, are made by intertwining heavy rope with large floats in areas of coastal water. Mussels are attracted to the ropes and grow off them, and can then be harvested.

I have nothing at all against mussel farms; in fact, I am a huge fan of that growing sector. Sea farming is a sustainable way to grow and cultivate shellfish, and the mussels that are farmed from St Austell bay are, of course, the finest mussels in the country. However, naturally, the deployment of mussel farms, which can cover vast areas of the sea, can hinder more traditional fishing activities from taking place in that area. So, when a large mussel farm situated in St Austell bay, in an important area for the Mevagissey inshore fishing fleet, appeared—from their point of view—out of the blue, members of the local fishing community were understandably vexed. The Mevagissey Fishermen’s Association contacted the MMO and asked what had gone on.

It turned out that no individual or organisation in Mevagissey had been consulted by the MMO when considering the application for a new mussel farm—not the Mevagissey parish council, the harbour trustees or Mevagissey fishermen, either through their association or individually. Yet fishermen are constantly receiving information from the MMO, so their contact details would have been readily available, and consulting them would not have required a massive time or resource commitment.

It turns out that the MMO did consult some groups—specifically, the Royal Fowey Yacht Club. The club replied that the original location for the mussel farm would have had an adverse effect on recreational boating and sailing, and that led to the farm’s being moved to a place where it became a hindrance to fishermen. I place it on the record that I have nothing against the Royal Fowey Yacht Club. It is a fine establishment, which can be traced as far back as 1880, and whose patron is no other than the Duke of Cornwall. I absolutely respect the club’s right to be consulted on the application, and to raise its concerns regarding the positioning of the new mussel farm.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

The MMO does not have a great track record on consultation. Its recent proposals for the catch app have not gone down particularly well with fishermen from Padstow. I ask my hon. Friend to consider, when he makes his approach to the Minister, whether we could look at the catch app and see whether any alternatives to that could better serve many of our fishermen in Cornwall.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for raising that point. He makes a very good point about the wider concern in the fishing industry about the lack of consultation that often goes on with the MMO. The specific point that he raises regarding the catch app has been raised by many in the fishing industry in Cornwall, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

The MMO was right to consult the yacht club. However, the Mevagissey fishermen, who have a legitimate expectation to be able to fish in the area where the new mussel farm was constructed, where they have fished for generations, should also have been consulted, and it was wrong for the MMO not to consult the local fishermen. The MMO did not follow their duty to act fairly when considering the application, by not informing the most affected stakeholders, who make their living in the waters in question.

The fishermen brought this matter to my attention, and on appraising the consultation process for marine licensing, I have found it to be out-of-date and not fit for purpose. I have subsequently been in prolonged correspondence with the MMO, with DEFRA and with previous ministerial colleagues, in order to seek to reform the process and ensure that local fishermen are an integral part of the decision making process.

I believe that there is room to improve the MMO’s consultation process to make it more robust and much more like that for planning applications. Maritime licences can, after all, have an impact on their surroundings just as much as buildings on land can have following a planning application, but at the moment there does not seem to be the same level of structure or clear consultation with statutory consultees for MMO licences as there is for planning applications.

The MMO originally replied that it would consider including local parish councils among the statutory consultees for fishing communities. Again, that would be similar to the process followed for planning applications. Parish councils such as Mevagissey’s are integral parts of their community, are well connected with the local fishing community and harbour, and would, in my mind, be natural consultees. However, that was not followed up, as it was apparently considered to involve too much additional work for the MMO. I would challenge that. Particularly in areas such as Cornwall, which has a unitary council and no district councils, parish councils play an increasingly important role in representing their communities. It surely cannot be beyond the MMO’s ability to consult directly with them.

If, however, the MMO is not prepared to consult parish councils, a fair compromise would be to transfer responsibility in the consultation process for checking with local bodies such as fishermen’s associations from the MMO to the local authority, which is already a statutory consultee. This would accomplish the dual outcomes of taking pressure off the MMO and allowing the local authority, which would presumably have a greater knowledge base, to speak to the right people. If that does not happen, the MMO, in conjunction with the local inshore fisheries conservation authorities, should draw up an up-to-date list of all fishermen’s associations and make them integrated statutory consultees for every licensing application.

There is also scope—I ask the Minister to look at this—for modernising the public notice element of the process, which stipulates only that a small and sparsely worded notice be published in a local newspaper. As we are all aware, the readership of local newspapers is falling as more and more people obtain their news online. This method of giving notice of applications seems outdated. The process could be brought up to date; applications could be circulated online, alongside the existing notice, as part of the MMO’s regular communication with fishing communities. Fishermen also tell me that the MMO’s website is difficult to navigate; even when they know that there is a live licensing application, it is difficult to find it on the website.

In conclusion, I hope I have shown that the MMO licensing consultation needs to be reviewed and significantly changed. The MMO needs to change the process to ensure that groups such as fishermen and parish councils are aware of licensing applications and are consulted on them. It needs to modernise the way it notifies the public about applications, and to improve its website, so that live applications can be easily found.

I hope the Minister will take on board the points I have raised on behalf of my local fishermen. I look forward to going back to Mevagissey and giving the fishermen the good news that we in this place have listened to their concerns, and that the system will be reviewed and changed, so that in future, their views are sought on decisions that directly affect their livelihoods.

18:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

First, I think this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking while you are in the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure.

Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate. He is always passionate about his constituency, and is constantly standing up for his community. I agree that the short film, “Bait”, which I have seen, is an invaluable slice of that iconic life in his part of the world. It is really worth seeing.

Let me take this opportunity to recognise the importance of marine licensing and planning, which are vital tools in managing the use of our marine space and the competing demands placed on it. My hon. Friend’s debate is timely, with the launch of the Marine Management Organisation’s consultation on four new marine plans in January. The delivery of the plans is a key aspect of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Marine plans inform and guide marine users and regulators across England. The plans will manage the sustainable development of marine industries, such as wind farms and fishing, alongside the need to conserve and protect marine species and habitats. Economic growth will be supported in a way that benefits society while respecting the needs of local communities and protecting the marine environment.

Marine planning enables the increasing and, at times, competing demands for the use of our marine area to be balanced and managed in an integrated way. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a full set of marine plans in place by 2021, so that we meet the commitment set out in our 25-year environment plan. The plans will be a significant milestone for the Government in ensuring the long-term sustainable development of our seas. Marine development is central to the Government’s ambition. Indeed, everyone seems to want a piece of the blue space right now, so we will keep under review how our approach to marine planning might need to evolve to meet future challenges. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments because this space will definitely be growing and evolving.

Interested parties have been, and will continue to be, engaged in the process, and will have an opportunity to influence how their marine environment is managed. That is very important. The recent marine plans consultation covers my hon. Friend’s constituency of St Austell and Newquay, where the local sea area is recognised to be vital. The draft south-west inshore plan, which covers a total of approximately 16,000 sq km of sea—a big space—will introduce a strategic approach to inform where activities might take place. The MMO has undertaken extensive public engagement in the development of this plan to ensure that it captures local priorities.

The consultation closes on 6 April, and I have asked the MMO as a matter of urgency to ensure that it writes to the relevant coastal MPs to highlight the importance of contributing to the consultation, just in case they have not done so already—or, indeed, to forward it to people that they think ought to be involved. Likewise, I encourage any body or organisation that has an interest in the local sea to respond to the consultation. The importance of stakeholder engagement in this process cannot be overstated, which is why a statement of public participation is in place for these plans, setting out how and when we will engage with stakeholders during the marine planning process. When these plans are adopted, someone applying for a licence or approval will need to show how they have considered the plan, so this will be an important step in the future of marine planning.

Although marine plans play an important strategic role, the delivery of sustainable development in our seas is underpinned by our marine licensing system. Marine licensing covers a diverse range of activities—from depositing a marker on the seabed, through to significant infrastructure developments. Introduced under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, marine licensing is a process by which those seeking to undertake certain activities in the marine environment are required to apply for a licence. This is to ensure that we can promote the economic and social benefits of the marine environment while minimising the adverse effects on the environment, human health and other users of the sea. Under the Act, in England we have delegated the responsibility for implementing marine licensing to the MMO, and our approach to marine licensing is based on evidence-based decision making through which human activities in the marine area are regulated.

My hon. Friend raised some serious concerns about the licensing regime, and he made no bones about it. Let me highlight the recent improvements made to the marine licensing system. Only last year, the Government exempted certain activities from the licensing process to support those who realise environmental benefit—for example, to enable divers to remove marine litter from a marine area without the need to apply for a marine licence. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in this area. This is just one of many steps that we are taking to ensure that plastic waste does not pollute the ocean. Between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tonnes of plastic enter the global ocean every year; it is absolutely shocking. That is why we have to focus on tackling this flow, and hopefully this is one measure that will help. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we set out how we will minimise waste, promote resource efficiency, and move towards a more circular economy.

The MMO has focused its efforts on improving the public consultation process, including making the process of submitting representations via the online system more user-friendly. This has been to the benefit of parish councils and others who have used the system. Where parish councils or any other party have expressed a desire to be included in a specific consultation, the MMO can facilitate that when it is practicable to do so. The MMO has also designated area liaison leads for coastal development to attend coastal groups and forums at a regional level around the country. Through this engagement activity, the MMO seeks to raise awareness and understanding of the marine licensing process. It is really important that people understand how it works and how they can input into it. I take many of my hon. Friend’s points about how that might potentially be improved.

The Government have a commitment in the 25-year environment plan to ensure that all local authorities with a coastal interest are signed up to the coastal concordat by 2021. The coastal concordat is designed to remove red tape and streamline the consenting process for both regulators and applicants. This applies to the consenting of coastal developments in England. The MMO welcomes feedback on how to improve this service, and it will always seek to implement this where practicable.

In 2017-18, the MMO determined more than 800 applications on variations to licences—in 94% of cases, within a 13-week framework. I specifically asked for these figures prior to this debate because I wanted to know exactly what it is dealing with—and it is pretty significant. The MMO always strives to improve its service. On hearing my hon. Friend’s concerns relating to difficulties with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association’s experiences of the consultation, I will urge it to do more in this area, including the website improvements that he mentioned.

I will now focus on the marine licence consultation for the mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I do love a mussel, with a bit of white wine cream—lovely—and a bit of onion, chopped: very nice. My hon. Friend is right to bring to our attention the concerns of the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association on the marine licence consultation for a mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I thank him, the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association and the MMO for their efforts to find an acceptable way forward. It is important that individuals can make their voices heard on decisions that may affect them. I note the concerns of the association and others on how the consultation for the marine licence application was conducted. Those concerns focus on the potential impact on the Mevagissey fishermen and other users of the bay, and the perceived lack of consultation regarding the licence application.

I understand that subsequently the MMO has worked with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association to try to resolve this, and that the MMO had initially explained that its consultation process gave the fishing industry the opportunity to comment through the inshore fisheries and conservation authority or through public representation. Following further correspondence with the association, the MMO has offered to consult it on any future amendments to the marine licence in question. In the light of concerns raised, though, it may be the case that consideration should be given to providing guidance to the MMO about the circumstances where the IFCA should be offered the chance to be a formal consultee. I shall explore this further.

My hon. Friend inquired whether parish councils can be made statutory consultees in the marine licensing process. The Marine and Coastal Access Act does not name specific persons or bodies that have to be consulted on a particular application, but it provides that the MMO may consult any person or body with relevant expertise about a licensing application, in addition to an obligation to have regard to any representations made by any person in respect of a particular application.

The MMO has considered the points that my hon. Friend makes about parish councils carefully. In many cases, other local organisations are equally, or perhaps better, placed to respond to the consultation. A statutory requirement to engage parish councils, which would require primary legislation, would potentially lead to a slower and more expensive service for the applicants. There is a risk that that approach would achieve the exact opposite of the efficient and cost-effective service that the MMO strives to provide. However, I am keen to explore further how local engagement on marine licence consultation can be strengthened with the MMO and other local bodies. If a relevant parish council is key to a particular application, it seems important to seek its views; that is a good point.

I take my hon. Friend’s point about advertising forthcoming applications in local newspapers. Even though I am a great advocate of our local press and have written for many local newspapers, their circulation is unfortunately declining, so all ways of advertising these things should be considered.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is always an advocate for his area and has put it on the map since he came here. The Government acknowledge his concerns, and I hope it is clear that improvements to our marine planning and licensing are being worked on as I speak. I will write to the MMO to ask it to further consider how it consults fishermen’s associations and parish councils, and I shall report back to him.

Question put and agreed to.

18:16

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 12 February 2020

Health and Social Care

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Ministerial Corrections

Children’s Mental Health Week

The following are extracts from the Adjournment debate on Children’s Mental Health Week on 6 February 2020.

[Ms Dorries]

By next year, 70,000 more children and young people will be accessing specialist treatment each year, compared with 2014-15. That equates to 35% of children and young people with a mental health condition, and that is starting from zero.

[Official Report, 6 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 555.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):

An error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct information should have been:

[Ms Dorries]

By next year, 70,000 more children and young people will be accessing specialist treatment each year, compared with 2014-15. That equates to 35% of children and young people with a mental health condition, and that is starting from around 25%.

[Ms Dorries]

We now have, in almost all A&Es across the country—I think it is 97%—a mental health liaison worker. When somebody—a child or an adult—presents at A&E with a mental health condition, they are now seen by an A&E mental health liaison officer.

[Official Report, 6 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 557.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):

A further error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct information should have been:

[Ms Dorries]

We now have, in almost all A&Es across the country—I think it is 97%—a mental health liaison worker. When an adult presents at A&E with a mental health condition, they are now seen by an A&E mental health liaison officer.

[Ms Dorries]

We want more mental health nurses. In fact, two weeks ago, I announced that the grant for those who want to work in mental health nursing will be £8,000—they will get the upper tier.

[Official Report, 6 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 559.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):

A further error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct information should have been:

[Ms Dorries]

We want more mental health nurses. In fact, two weeks ago, I announced that the grant for those who want to work in mental health nursing will be £6,000.

Paterson Inquiry

The following are extracts from questions following the statement on the Paterson Inquiry on 4 February 2020.

[Ms Dorries]

I will say it again: we want people to speak up, we want trusts and the private sector to listen, and then we want to act. It is the case that we can change this culture and let whistleblowers know that we will protect them. We also have a line at the Department for people to ring in on, because we want to hear from them.

[Ms Dorries]

As I say, Paterson practised between 1997 and 2011, and there was quite a long process of reporting and of concerns being raised about his behaviour and his practice. Eventually, somebody listened; I believe that it was a new chief executive at the Spire hospital trust at the time.

[Official Report, 4 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 208.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):

Errors have been identified in my responses to questions following my statement.

The correct information should have been:

[Ms Dorries]

I will say it again: we want people to speak up, we want trusts and the private sector to listen, and then we want to act. It is the case that we can change this culture and let whistleblowers know that we will protect them. We also have a dedicated National Guardian phone line for people to ring in on, because we want to hear from them.

[Ms Dorries]

As I say, Paterson practised between 1997 and 2011, and there was quite a long process of reporting and of concerns being raised about his behaviour and his practice. Eventually, somebody listened; I believe that it was a new chief executive at the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust at the time.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 February 2020

[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]

UK Fisheries

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of UK fisheries.

Since the Fisheries Bill is currently proceeding in the other place, I felt that it was timely to call for this debate to discuss the massive opportunities that a future fisheries regime can provide the UK as an independent coastal state. The Fisheries Bill means that, for the first time in almost 40 years, the Minister will have autonomy under international law to set the rules that apply to fish stocks and access for fishing vessels operating in the UK 200 mile to median line exclusive economic zone. That should be seen as a massive opportunity for the UK fishing industry and allied industries. It will offer great potential for small boatyards such as C Toms & Son and Mashford Bros in my constituency, as well as others in constituencies right around the UK coast.

The purpose of this debate is to explore the many opportunities for the industry, which, although contributing a small proportion to UK GDP as a whole, has a disproportionate impact on the economies of small coastal communities where fishing is a prime industry. I urge the Minister to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated, and that the UK’s new status as an independent coastal state is treated as a great opportunity. I reiterate my message in previous debates: access to UK fishing waters must not simply be squandered to buy a trade agreement with the EU in other areas. I will do my best to keep my points as brief as I can, as I am sure that other Members will have their own points to make.

I welcome the reassurance by the Prime Minister last week that there is no need to abide by EU rules. He went on to say that British fishing grounds are “first and foremost” for UK boats. As someone who has campaigned for almost 40 years to highlight the gross disservice heaped on the industry when we joined the European Economic Community, it is refreshing to hear a Prime Minister say those words. I hope there will be determination to ensure that any future arrangement with the EU looks similar to that of Norway, and that access for non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters will be subject to annual agreements.

The Norway agreement sets a precedent for the way an independent coastal state works with the EU. We must not stray from that. The EU will not be happy, but let us look back in history to a precedent that it set when Spain and Portugal joined: the EU fleet needed to rebalance its size to the available resource, because those two member states brought with them very little resource of their own but very large fleets. The rest of the EU member states had to introduce a number of decommissioning schemes in order to balance the whole of the EU fleet to the available resource. As a consequence, many UK vessels were broken up and scrapped.

Faced with the loss of access to UK waters, the European Union must now reduce its own fleet to adjust. As an independent coastal state, we could be generous and give them time year-on-year to adjust; at the same time, the UK fleet could be allowed to grow. The annually set total allowable catches will allow the Minister and his Department to establish the real catching capacity of the UK fleet, which has been artificially suppressed from achieving its full catching potential because of the share it received under relative stability, set in 1983. Given that there is potential for the UK fleet to expand, fishermen could even invest in newer, more modern, safer and more environmentally friendly vessels.

Much has been heard about the lack of quota available to the under-10-metre fleet. It is worthwhile looking back to what led to that situation. Under the original common fisheries policy, the catches of that sector were estimated, and the fleet fished relatively unrestricted until the total catch was deemed to have been used. There would then be a total ban on landing a certain species, which incidentally also prevented shoreline leisure fishermen from landing that species.

The introduction of the Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005 changed that. Suddenly, it became clear that the present-day catch of the under-10-metre fleet had been underestimated, and officials held a number of meetings around the coast to try to find a solution. It was a former Labour Minister, the former Member for Scunthorpe, who failed to take timely action. After introducing fixed quota allocations for the over-10-metre vessels, he was left with no additional quota to allocate to the under-10-metre fleet. That was the beginning of this travesty. I pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Newbury, who tried to provide additional quota to the under-10-metre vessels by top slicing any uplift in quota gained from each annual Agriculture and Fisheries Council—something that this Minister has continued.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) would like to apologise to the under-10-metre fishermen for the action of her predecessors, rather than simply making statements, as members of her party have in the past, that are no more than political posturing. I remind her and the shadow Secretary of State that Plymouth fishermen, just like my late husband, have long memories: they will remember the proximate cause of the under-10-metre miniscule quota.

I turn to conservation. I recognise that we need to record how much catch each vessel lands if we are to comply with our obligations under international law. While we have protection under the UN fish stocks agreement about minimum fish size and gear that can be used, where we have a median line between us and a member state we must adhere to international law and ensure that any management regime respects the sustainability of fish stock in our waters. We must respect science and the maximum sustainable yields recommended. Larger vessels have a satellite-based vessel monitoring system introduced under the CFP, which has provided and continues to provide information on catch composition.

It is essential that smaller UK vessels receive their fair share of the quota. They should be allowed to fish regardless of quota for a number of days a year, provided that they have enough days to ensure that their annual fishing pattern can continue throughout the whole year. The minuscule share of quota for some species under the CFP for south-west fishermen is often attributed to the lack of historical catch data. I fully understand the intention of the new app the Minister has introduced. However, a trusted friend with vast knowledge of the fishing industry recently wrote to me that the Marine Management Organisation has introduced a new licence condition that requires skippers of under-10-metre boats to estimate, or guess, within a 10%—

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

rose—

[Mrs Murray]

I give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I sincerely congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is talking interestingly about the use of technology in fishing. I am sure she will agree that, as we move into this new era, investing in health and safety on the fishing vessels around our coast must be integral to any measures the Government take to support fishermen, particularly now we know that the investment from the European maritime and fisheries fund is going. We need certainty about how to move forward. Safety on vessels, where many people operate on their own, is crucial.

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree. I know from personal experience that safety aboard fishing vessels is essential.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the app. A number of fishermen have told me that it is difficult to use: certain species are difficult to record on it and, in some cases, it does not seem to work at all. I think it was given a one-star rating on Google for its effectiveness. Does she think that needs to be looked at?

[Mrs Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to that.

To reiterate, my friend wrote that the Marine Management Organisation has introduced a new licence condition that requires skippers of under-10-metre boats to estimate, or guess within a 10% tolerance, the weight of all fish caught, species by species, before the fish have been landed. He went on to say that, with small quantities of fish, it is almost impossible to estimate that reliably within 10%. If a fisherman gets it wrong, he is liable to criminal prosecution, with a maximum fine of £100,000.

Given the mixed catch in the south-west, my friend continued, that could put an extra hour or two on the end of a long working day for an under-10-metre trawler. That is totally unreasonable and is not safe. There is no de minimis exemption for small catches; every fish has to be counted and its weight estimated. Over-10-metre vessels are exempt from having to log catches of less than 50 kg per species, which obviously reduces the problem of trying to estimate the weight of small quantities.

I have used the app myself, so I have seen some of the problems that fishermen encounter. My friend added that there has been a string of technical and practical problems with the app and the contact centre, which is open only during office hours. According to the app, some harbours and landing places do not exist, and it does not recognise that fishermen catch more than 10 different species. People have had problems getting through to the contact centre. As far as the app is concerned, the threat of criminal prosecution for estimating outside the 10% tolerance should be removed, and there should be a complete rethink about the new system.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on landing this timely debate. I apologise to her—and to you, Sir George—that I cannot stay for the whole debate; unfortunately, I have a clash, which I discovered only this morning.

My hon. Friend touches on all the problems with how to fish in a mixed fishery. Does she agree that one of the real horrors of the CFP is the extraordinary level of discards? The industry has said that the level widely across Europe is beyond 1 million tonnes; the House of Lords says it could be up to 1.7 million tonnes.

Our great advantage now is that we can design a system that is tailored to our fisheries and works with the grain of nature, so we can stop that horrendous waste. The only way to do that, which my hon. Friend touched on—it would be great if the Minister confirmed this—is not to trade the allocation of fish stocks in the upcoming negotiations. We must take back 100% control of our exclusive economic zone and all that is in it, and then negotiate—in a friendly, amicable way, as my hon. Friend said—annual reciprocal deals, so we have complete control of what is in our marine waters. That would bring a huge advantage to our coastal communities and, potentially, a massive improvement to our marine environment.

[Mrs Murray]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority. I congratulate him on the Green Paper that he produced. I cannot remember how long ago that was, but I congratulate him on his expertise and on his record as shadow Fisheries Minister. I concur completely with what he just said.

Will the Minister please meet fishermen’s representatives and fish auctioneers to ensure that the app is operated in a way that reassures fishermen? Something that could benefit UK fishermen is being interpreted as a tool to use against them because of the complexity of the app and the worry that it will be used as a tool for prosecution.

There is also an opportunity to introduce a new registration and licensing regime, and to reintroduce the terms of vessel ownership and associated conditions that were first introduced by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. That Act was introduced to stop other nations from benefiting from UK fish quota by registering their vessels on the UK fishing vessel register. People who did that were commonly described as “quota hoppers”. Although the European Court of Justice ruled that that Act of Parliament was contrary to the treaty, the fact that we are now not members of the European Union provides us with an opportunity to ensure that those so-called quota hoppers comply with UK law.

I acknowledge that some measures have been introduced at EU level to provide that an economic link must be shown, but, as is often the case, those measures are at best weak. By restoring the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, we could require individual owners, or 75% of the registered owners of a company, to be UK citizens. We could couple that with a requirement to land all catch in UK ports. That would not only bring economic benefits but allow us to enhance the enforcement of UK catch rules on vessels. Will the Minister speak to the Minister with responsibility for shipping to explore that? I have been considering introducing a private Member’s Bill based on the Merchant Shipping Act.

In summary, I thank the Minister both for his Department’s commitment to UK fishermen and for the Prime Minister’s commitment. I am sure I speak for all wives, husbands and partners of fishermen, present and former, when I say that we have seen the price they have paid while operating under the disastrous common fisheries policy. All they were doing was trying to provide an honest living for their families—fishing provided a comfortable living for my family for 25 years—and that is a tribute to those men and women who put to sea to put fish on our table.

Some of us have seen our husbands pay the ultimate price, but we have never lost hope. I look forward to seeing us adopt a strong stance in the forthcoming negotiations, and I urge the Minister and the Government to never surrender to the unacceptable demands of the European Union. We must not allow the pillaging of UK waters to happen ever again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I am anxious to cast the net as widely as possible. I think there are nine Back Benchers who wish to make a speech. I am not going to set a formal time limit, but if people adhere to a four-minute limit on speeches and are careful about accepting interventions, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Alistair Carmichael.

09:49

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on obtaining the debate, which, as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, is timely. The next few months will certainly be formative for the future of fisheries management. I say gently to the Minister and those who are—at least today—above him in the food chain within government that, as the hon. Member for South East Cornwall said, the fishing industry has a long memory. She referred to Elliot Morley’s difficulties with the under-10-metre brigade. Fishermen also remember use of the term “expendable” from the 1970s and the view taken by the then Conservative Government. I urge caution for two reasons: first, we have to be careful once we start calling for apologies, because they can come bouncing back. Secondly, unless the promises made to the fishing industries and fishing communities are honoured in full, the Government will pay a very heavy political price in the future.

There is no reason why those promises cannot be met; it is simply a question of political will. The House and fishing communities will be looking closely to see whether the Government have the political will to deliver the deal that they promised fishermen. It is as a result of those promises that some Members on the Government side have their seats. I am a little sceptical, because there have already been two tests of that will. They could have shown that political will when the former Prime Minister did her withdrawal deal, but she put this area into the political declaration. They could have also shown it when the Prime Minister did his withdrawal deal, but again he put it into the political declaration. For the fishing industry, in terms of political will, we must hope that it is third time lucky.

The difficulties that have come from management of a quota system under the common fisheries policy are well documented, but let us not pretend that those difficulties were created just because the system came from Brussels. People in the fishing industry and fishing communities the length and breadth of this country know that, when it comes to remote, centralised mismanagement of the fishing industry, our own Governments in London and in Edinburgh—doubtless in Belfast and Cardiff too—are just as capable of treating the industry with that same high-handed attitude we have always complained of from Brussels.

There is an opportunity to reset that the system and put fishermen and scientists together at the heart of fisheries management. It does not matter whether we have a quota-based system, a days-at-sea system or some mix of the two; what matters is that the science on which decisions are made is sound and considered in a timely manner. Advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is two years out of date before it informs a decision, so use of that is wrong and unproductive—and ultimately it is at the root of many of the difficulties we have had with quota mismatch between what is in the sea and what fishermen are allowed to take on to the deck. That is the opportunity the Government face as they construct a future system and the industry will be looking to the Minister and his colleagues in Government to ensure that they actually deliver.

09:53

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for securing the debate—a debate that coastal communities around the United Kingdom, not least in my constituency, have been looking forward to for 47 years. I have spoken in a couple of these debates, and I have spoken about fishing in debates that had nothing to do with fishing whenever I had the chance, but this is the first one since we left the European Union on 31 January.

At the end of 2020—after the transition period—we will be outside the common fisheries policy, we will take back control of our waters and become an independent coastal state like Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and indeed the EU. That is what most British fishermen want, and I trust the Government to deliver it, not least because of the repeated assurances of the Minister, other Ministers and indeed the Prime Minister. I find it surprising how surprised the media are when such assurances are made. That is not to say, however, that we take anything for granted, particularly as we go into the negotiations. To save time, I will not echo the words of my hon. Friend or of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) on the importance of getting the negotiations right; those views have been well represented. We will leave the CFP, but, as Opposition Members often remind us, that is not the end of the story. It is the first, crucial step towards reviving our fishing industry and our coastal economy more broadly. This debate is about what needs to be done to maximise that revival in the years and decades to come.

Under the CFP, British boats catch less than 40% of the fish in our waters—a ridiculously low amount compared with closer to 85% for Norway and 95% for Iceland. With the necessary support of both of Scotland’s Governments it is not unreasonable to expect that, over time, we will meet the objective of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for fishing to be the fastest growing sector in Scotland in the next 10 years. I have made many such representations to the Minister, but what plans do the Government have to support growth of the industry not just in Banff and Buchan but around the United Kingdom?

As has been mentioned, last night the Fisheries Bill completed Second Reading in the other place and will now go to Committee. Opposition Members may be inclined or tempted to amend the Bill when it comes to this House. I tabled an amendment to the previous incarnation of the Bill, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), to ensure that its commencement would take place no later than December 2020. That is now redundant, as we know that commencement will take place at the end of the transition period. In a recent briefing on the Bill, the SFF said:

“It is workable in its current form and should not be rendered unworkable through the addition of unnecessary amendments.”

It is well known that the fishing industry has had difficulty attracting young skippers and crew from local communities—it certainly has in my constituency for most of my adult life—and while exit from the CFP should go some way towards addressing that problem, we must ensure that the post-Brexit system gives opportunities to new and young entrants to the sector. In the short term there will continue to be a need for non-UK crew in the catching sector. In recent years, the industry, already seeing the “sea of opportunity” light at the end of the CFP tunnel, has made moves to attract more new and young entrants, becoming a more professional and safer industry in the process. However, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association estimates that it could take at least another decade before it becomes anything close to self-reliant on local labour. In the meantime, a limited number of non-EEA fishermen can enter the UK to work on our fishing vessels on a transit visa, but they can work only outside 12 nautical miles, which is a particular problem on the west coast of Scotland and the Western Isles—I am sure we will hear about that from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office about that? What can be done?

The future of our fisheries industry is about more than the catching sector. CFP exit can unlock enormous economic potential in our coastal communities. In port towns such as Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff in my constituency, the seafood industry looms large in its own right, and the wider economy also benefits from a thriving fishing industry. Marine engineering and manufacturing, including the only manufacturer of steel-hulled fishing vessels in Scotland, are found in my constituency. The growth of those industries immediately connected to fishing could spur a broader upswing in the coastal economy. More jobs and prosperity will produce yet more jobs and yet more prosperity. Again, we will fully achieve that only if the conditions are right. I mentioned the need for access to skilled migrant workers in the catching sector, but an estimated 70% of workers in the processing sector are born outside the UK. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on what is being done in that space? I would appreciate that.

I am aware of the time and want to allow other hon. Members to speak, so I will conclude. The Government have stood by the fishing industry throughout the Brexit process, bringing an end to decades of neglect under the CFP. If we continue to stand with the industry after December and make common-sense reforms and investments, we will make our coastal communities a great Brexit success story.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for bringing the matter forward, and for her commitment and energy. She is a credit to her constituency. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the selection of the debate. It is essential, during this time of transition, that we get things absolutely right for our fishing industry. I refer to the industry, rather than to fishermen, because it is about more than the livelihoods of fishing families. It is about an entire industry—the suppliers, the hospitality industry, exports and wider matters. I must give credit where it is due—and not simply to the members of the fishing communities, who have been tireless in their work to secure the future of the fishing industry for the benefit of us all. I must also thank the Fisheries Minister; he knows that he is highly esteemed among all of us who are involved in the fishing sector, and I thank him for all his hard work. I also thank the Immigration Minister for his willingness to make himself available. There are four Members present—they know who they are—who have been working hard on the tier 2 fisheries exception. That is something where we want to see the full potential coming in.

Non-European economic area fishing crew has been an ongoing issue, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) referred to it. I look forward to working with him and others to bring forward a pilot scheme, which I hope can be endorsed post-Brexit. Our fishing fleet is competing directly with the EU’s, and that means that in Northern Ireland we are competing with Ireland’s fishing fleet. To reach our potential we must have skilled and experienced crews in place. That does not just happen, but it needs to happen for us to succeed. I am very much looking forward, now that we have left the EU, to the extra quota being dispersed among fishermen within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that we all gain. Just last week, it was mentioned in the press that the Government are to spend some £30 million on fishing enforcement vessels. It is heartening to know that the Government are spending that money, because it means that the EU fishing fleet cannot come willy-nilly into the waters around the UK and take advantage of the fish resources that belong to us here and not to them.

The Dublin Government first introduced legislation designed to resolve the issues around the recruitment of non-EEA fishermen in 2016, but Irish over-15-metre trawlers are entitled under the common fisheries policy to fish anywhere in the waters around Ireland and the United Kingdom. Ironically, non-EEA fishermen employed in Northern Ireland on over-15-metre trawlers are restricted to operating outside the UK’s 12-mile territorial limit. Again, that puts us at a disadvantage. There are not many options outside the 12-mile limit. We can contrast that to the options available for fishermen working, for example, from Peterhead or Fraserburgh, who have the whole of the North sea at their disposal. Even before the UK becomes an independent coastal state, Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet’s ability to operate competitively with our nearest EU neighbour is being compromised. It is clear to me that the fishermen in Northern Ireland—in Portavogie in my constituency and in Ardglass, Annalong and Kilkeel—need to have the same opportunities as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The dominance of the under-10-metre fishing fleet in England Wales is not reflected in Northern Ireland, and it therefore follows that the allocation on that merit does not suit our fleet. The under-10-metre question creates an issue for us, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond on that. I have corresponded with other elected representatives—MPs and those in the other place. Margaret Ritchie, who used to be the Member for South Down, will raise in the other place the fact that each devolved Administration must determine how to allocate the fixed quota allocation to its own industry. I am glad to see that. We have a Northern Ireland Assembly in place now and a Minister, Edwin Poots, who can do it, and make the right decisions.

You have been clear about the timings we should work to, Sir George, so my last point relates to the fact that Northern Ireland’s biggest market, as with most things, is mainly Great Britain. We need a clear view of how the trade will operate. I want to know exactly what it means. Will fishing boats landing their fish in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel have a tariff? Will they not have a tariff if they land fish in Scotland or Wales or England? While I welcome the Government’s commitment to no checks in the trade of food products with Great Britain, I have yet to see how it will work in reality. I urge the Government to give clarity on those essential aspects for the Northern Ireland economy.

The future is bright for the fishing industry, but it is in the Minister’s hands—no pressure. I beg him to work closely with his team, and to work closely with us, the elected representatives, and the regional administrations, so that this once in a lifetime opportunity can be exploited for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

10:04

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) not only on securing this debate, which is so important, timely and relevant, but also on getting elected to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee yesterday—so well done.

I also enjoyed that privilege, so I look forward to working with her in keeping our friend the Minister on his toes.

There is no way to measure the enthusiasm and appetite in Newlyn, the port that I represent, and right around the coast of my constituency, for the end of the CFP madness. There are some asks from west Cornwall fisheries. What they really want is a fair share. No fisherman has ever said to me that they want exclusive access to all the fish in UK waters. What they want is a fair share of quota and fisheries resources. The Government have said all the right things so far, but fishermen are clear about trade and fisheries—arrangements must be kept separate—and about resisting the EU. We hear from a few individual member states that they will exercise a veto, and so on; but not many of the 27 are that concerned about our waters, and perhaps we should stick to our guns. We should hold our position and not give in to any sort of nonsense from people in, say, France.

However, fishermen are also clear about safeguarding access to the zero to 12 miles. I remember the day when the Minister came down to Newlyn and declared that we were revoking the London convention, which meant that we could restrict access to the 12-mile limit. With the end of the common fisheries policy, that is completed. That is valuable to my inshore fleet and to fishermen around west Cornwall. Fishermen and their representatives are asking for co-management, and they welcome indications from the Government about that. They do not want decisions made in Brussels just moving to Westminster or somewhere else. They want, as the Government have indicated will happen, to be involved in decision-making about the future, so that as those involved in the industry contribute to the discussion, debate and decision-making, unintended consequences of the kind we have seen up to now can be avoided

I want to touch briefly on two matters that are particularly relevant to west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. If the intention is to maintain the effectively two-tier system of inshore and offshore fisheries, at some point we need to understand the definition of inshore, but today I am talking about the small-scale, low-impact fisheries—the small fishing boats that go out and do their work each day, land fish in the local port and then sell it, often quite locally. I believe that there is a real opportunity—a hunger and thirst—for a new chapter for that inshore fleet post-London convention and post the common fisheries policy.

There is already a natural restriction on that part of the fishing industry. For example, it is limited simply because of the weather—particularly the weather that we get around our coasts. I am sure that is true around Northern Ireland and Scotland as well. Days at sea are limited because of the weather that fairly small vessels can go out in. There is also the question of the capacity of the vessels and the types of gear they use. Already, before quotas and all sorts of other restrictions and legislation are introduced, there is a limit to what those vessels can catch and to the potential harm they can cause to quota, so I would like to think that we can be really ambitious about what can be achieved within the 12-mile limit for our small-scale, low-impact fisheries. They have an opportunity to provide good food for local communities and to see local coastal communities revived. We should not underestimate the frustration within the inshore fleet, especially since the introduction of registration of buyers and sellers legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall mentioned. UK fisheries policy must deliver a new chapter for our fishing industry.

I will briefly mention infrastructure spend. In Newlyn we could spend £50 million to bring our port really up to where it needs to be. That would deliver an extra quay with deeper drafted vessels, boat lift, boat repair facilities and engineering—all the things that would deliver the kind of fisheries that the UK wants, and that would help to secure skills and revitalise our coastal communities.

10:09

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray): we have been debating fisheries together for about eight or nine years in this very room. Fifteen or 20 years ago, I worked on a couple of fishing boats and, unfortunately, I have also known boys who have lost their lives fishing, which should remind us of the heavy price that people pay in the fishing industry. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall knows personally that heavy price. It is a very heavy price—sometimes the ultimate price.

I will re-emphasise a couple of points; I am aware of the restriction of time, Sir George, and I will try to be under my four minutes, to put a smile on your face by the time I have finished. First things first: what can we do now? As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) correctly guessed, my first port of call has to be the non-EEA crews. We should and we could be helping the fishing industry now. The UK Government have the power. It only takes one stroke of the pen, and many of the problems in Northern Ireland, in the west of Scotland and, I think, in the north-east of Scotland could be cured. If only one of the Conservative Ministers could find a pen, they could write to each other and maybe allow some of the non-EEA crews in that we need.

I have in my hand a report given to me by the excellent lawyer who has been working in this area, Darren Stevenson. It is a “Report on the Government Task Force on Non-EEA Workers in the Irish Fishing Fleet December 2015”, with a foreword written by the Tánaiste, Simon Coveney. It shows a Government that is prepared to work with the industry, with the realities of the industry, and ensure that it facilitates people’s coming in. I did have to smile, however, that the self-reported amount of non-EEA crew was about 9.3%, but when inspections were carried out on 25 fishing vessels in Ireland in 2015, it turned out that the non-EEA crews were up to 42%. That did not seem to be a great problem for the Irish Government, who worked with the grain of what was there. In the CFP or out of it, as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) all know, fisherman have for years been banging a drum at the Home Office to get that changed, and it has not changed at all.

There is something else that we should be thinking about in the fishing space at the moment. The big shout was that the UK will be leaving the CFP “when Brexit happens”. Now, allegedly, Brexit has happened—although at the moment the UK is in this phase of being a rule taker—but we are most definitely in the CFP. This is an opportunity for fishing reorganisation, and that is what people are talking about in the CFP.

When I look to the Faroe Islands and I see the control they have, I think to myself, “Why don’t the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland have control of some aspects of their fishing?” We could have a sovereign wealth fund: our 200 miles in the Hebrides is about the only 200 miles that the UK has, so perhaps we could have a reorganisation of fishing entitlements within Scotland. The big boys of inequality in fishing should perhaps take a warning from that. I would like to see a change and make sure that some of the revenues in the fishery waters of the Hebrides go to the Hebrides.

There is also a danger, as we know, that the UK will trade that away. One way to maybe ensure that the UK Government cannot trade it away is not to give them the power in the first place, to respect devolution and make sure that this goes straight to the Scottish Government—who at the moment will not be at the negotiating table to hand it away, because the UK Government will not let them be there. I say to the Minister, “The EU can’t ask for something that you don’t have, and if you make sure that that’s in Scotland’s hands, it won’t be a problem for you.”

We should also be mindful of the immediate problem we have of selling catch to the European Union and the paperwork that will be required. There have been no full answers and no full guidance given to the fishing community and fishermen on that. I have eight seconds left, so I thank all hon. Members for their many reasonable and good contributions made in this debate. If the Minister is listening, change can come and it can be done well.

10:12

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I apologise to hon. Members, as I have to step out at 10.30 am to chair an all-party parliamentary group meeting. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for securing this debate and for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary fisheries group.

I am extremely fortunate that in my constituency I have Salcombe, Dartmouth and Brixham, making it unquestionably the most beautiful coastline in the country—as hon. Members will all agree. However, within my constituency lie three particularly prominent towns that benefit from our leaving the CFP. In Salcombe and Dartmouth, we have a shellfish industry that is booming, which is looking at exports both within the European Union and further afield, and I hope to be able to support that. I think my hon. Friend has raised some of the issues and concerns with the under-10-metre fleet vessels, especially with the recent introduction of the app. In Brixham, I have the highest-valued port in England in terms of catch.

I will use this opportunity to add my thoughts about the future of the UK’s fishing industry and how we might be able to support it. There is no doubt that the feeling in this Chamber has been that our fishing industry has been let down over the past 40 years and that we now have an opportunity in 2020, 2021 and the years ahead to reignite the relationship that we have with not only with our fishermen, but those waterside businesses, of which many are dependent on a vibrant coastal community infrastructure and economy. It is time that this House, this Parliament and this Government showed their dedication to those fishermen and those businesses.

That potential can be unlocked in a number of ways, first and undoubtedly by securing free and independent coastal waters, ensuring that we are not just talking about the freedom and right of navigation, but the freedom and right for us to fish those waters to the full extent, and allowing us to negotiate and renegotiate on an annual basis. We had colleagues from Norway in this room recently, discussing their arrangement with the European Union; I think that is something we would all like to echo, especially to the Minister, as something that the UK might seek to replicate and enhance in the coming years.

We must also ensure that we create a flexible working model that relies on co-management. Having a variety of multiple voices from different areas across the country feed into how we enact policy across our coastline would be of enormous importance and extremely useful. Having a ministerial representative for our English fishing fleet would be in line with what the devolved Administrations have, and something that I know my fishermen in Brixham are extremely supportive of.

Last year, to much applause, the Government introduced the maritime and fisheries fund. I welcome that for the communities that can bid, but my own port in Brixham—I repeat, the largest fishing port in England—has been unable to bid for that fund because it is a local authority port. I do not believe that it sends the message that we are supporting our fishermen when a Government-announced fund restricts their being able to bid. I hope the Minister and his team will work with me to help me to find a way in which we can support that port and other coastal communities.

As I have mentioned, there are a number of waterside businesses that I would like to explore in the years to come, whether that is boat building, dry dock facilities, fish processing plants, the restaurant trade, tourism or environmental conservation, many of which are included in the Fisheries Bill that is coming before this House. Those are all really welcome opportunities, but we must explore how we can increase infrastructure across the country to allow us to exploit the enormous benefit that they will have for our communities. Our fishermen are the stewards, and their success will breed success for other industries.

Mention has been made of the under-10-metre fleet, and I will touch on that briefly. First, there seems to be a problem for those under-10-metre vessels about where they are registering their catch. The lists are based on EU port data, which means that in my constituency a number of ports are not registered. We are unable to put in applications for bids because those ports are not registered on the EU data app, so when we would like to request funding for, say, winches or any equipment for those ports, there is an inability to do so.

The second thing revolves around digital connectivity: an app that is unable to connect—especially in my constituency, which lags some 9% behind the rest of the country in terms of digital connectivity—makes it near impossible for any fisherman coming in to be able to connect and register that catch before landing. That is something that I would very much like to see delivered.

Finally, Scotland is home, I believe, to a skipper training school, but there is not one within England that I have recognised, although I am very happy to be wrong on that. I am working with my own fishing roundtable, which held its first meeting two weeks ago, to see how we can explore opportunities to create a skipper training school, to encourage people into the industry and to ensure that people can see the vibrancy and opportunity within it. I hope we can explore the different avenues and potential for expanding that.

I will end on this: the Prime Minister is often quoted as saying that he is in favour of “oven-ready” deals or opportunities. It seems to me that there is a perfect opportunity for us to deliver for our coastal communities and to expand on an industry and a trade in which we have a long and fruitful history. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House in doing so.

10:18

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on bringing forward this important debate.

I will make a few points. With devolution re-established in Northern Ireland, the Minister will have a friend in Northern Ireland under the Ministry of Edwin Poots, who has a proven track record in dealing with environmental issues as a farmer himself and as a person who has dealt with the fishing community over the years. I hope that that leads to a good rapport between the Department here and the Department in Northern Ireland, because we require good partnerships between Westminster and the devolved regions to make sure that we get our act together and that fishing interests across the entire United Kingdom are properly and fairly met. That is absolutely essential.

Northern Ireland promotes evidence-based protection of our marine environment, side by side with a sustainable and profitable fishing industry, which can only be done when there is good co-operation between fishermen, producers and processors, industry leaders and advisers and the Department. It is essential that those good relationships are honed and developed.

In the Irish sea, 80% of the UK’s fishing effort comes from Northern Irish fishermen, who need to be treated fairly and allowed to continue to have a profitable industry. The fishing industry expects to be part of realising the full potential that Members rightly alluded to, and the opportunities that people say will exist with Brexit have to become tangible and meaningful. As with Norway 40 years ago, the EU will have to accept a diminution of the share of catches from EU waters, which means that catches for non-EU boats will have to be properly negotiated and shared out. We want to make sure that our fishermen’s rights are properly enforced and protected by our Government; that sovereign British waters remain sovereign British waters; and that we get the lion’s share of the catch in those waters.

The Irish election throws up a particular challenge for Northern Ireland. With Sinn Féin now the largest party in both parts of the island, will it defend the EU policy that annually loots Northern Ireland fishermen’s rights? Let us see if it actually protects the interests of fishermen in the Republic of Ireland against the rights of fishermen in Northern Ireland. That will be a huge challenge for Sinn Féin, and no doubt for the Minister whenever he negotiates arrangements and agreements between our nations. It will be interesting to see what side Sinn Féin falls on. I would not like to hazard a guess; I suspect I know, but let us wait and see what ultimately happens.

There are four or five key issues that the Minister has to address. Crews have already been alluded to by several Members, and I know he will want to speak on that. However, there is a challenge for the Government as to how they will apportion catch within the UK to UK regions. That is absolutely essential. Fishermen are waiting to know the plan, and trust that it will be fair and proportionate. While the crews issue needs to be finalised, remember that Northern Ireland stands on the frontline with the EU, in terms of its land border and its sea border, and it is therefore absolutely essential that Northern Ireland’s fishermen are given protections and the absolute right to fish our sea without being encumbered by threats from Ireland.

A 2018 Select Committee report mentioned that we need a proper processing hub and a new harbour at Kilkeel, and I encourage the Minister to deliver that. Finally, what plans do the Government have to manage catches of lobster, salmon, mussels, oysters and other crustaceans on the north coast for smaller fishermen?

10:23

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate.

Over the next few months, the future of fishing in the UK will be the focus of much attention in Westminster, in the media and, most importantly, in those coastal communities that all here represent. We have a great opportunity to revitalise the industry, so that it can play a full role in the economy of towns such as Lowestoft, where in recent decades its importance has greatly diminished. Time is short, so I will make some brief comments, first on the Fisheries Bill, then on the upcoming trade negotiations and finally on how we should set about rebuilding the industry post Brexit.

The Fisheries Bill provides the framework within which the industry will be rebuilt. Generally, its provisions should enable us to do that, although consideration should be given to amendments to address the following issues. First, we should ensure a fairer distribution of fishing opportunities in favour of those inshore boats, the under-10-metre vessels that make up the majority of the East Anglian fleet. Secondly, full consideration should be given to how best to strengthen the economic link, so as to ensure that coastal communities have every opportunity to benefit from increased landings. Thirdly, the ability to fish sustainably should be ingrained in the Bill, and there must be no loopholes whereby unacceptable practices, such as electro-pulse fishing, can continue.

As the Government commence negotiations on our future trading relationship with the EU, I urge them to bear in mind at all times the importance of fishing in regenerating coastal communities and the role it can play in levelling out the economy right across and around the UK. The Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries report, launched on 17 October 2019 in the Minister’s presence, highlights the opportunity to generate an additional £32 million per annum at the quayside in the southern North sea alone. That can only be achieved by changing the way in which fishing opportunities are allocated between countries, by moving to a geographical-area means of allocation—zonal attachment—from the relative stability rule of the common fisheries policy. It is important that, throughout negotiations, the Government adhere to that principle.

In the coming months, the Government must be proactive not on two fronts—the Fisheries Bill and trade negotiations—but three, because they need to put in place the management systems and infrastructure needed to rebuild the UK fishing industry. The REAF report sets out how we can do that in East Anglia. I am grateful to the Minister for his support for the project, but we need to implement the report’s recommendations. I will briefly outline how we should do this.

First, I would be grateful if the Minister asked his officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Marine Management Organisation to engage proactively with East Suffolk Council, which is supporting the project, to ensure that it moves forward quickly to the implementation stage. Secondly, the Minister has previously advised that the Government will carry out an hours-at-sea pilot. Our request is that this should take place in East Anglia. Thirdly, there is a need not only in East Anglia but all around the UK to invest in infrastructure. The fleet, our ports and our processing facilities are in urgent need of upgrading, and I urge the Minister to ensure that there is provision for that in the 11 March Budget. If the right signals are sent out, they can act as a catalyst for significant private investment. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and we must not squander it.

10:27

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I do not know whether hon. Members have had the pleasure of visiting Fleetwood, eight miles north of our famous neighbour, Blackpool, on the Lancashire coast. The town boomed in the first half of the 20th century, mainly down to the deep sea fishing industry, which at its height employed around 9,000 people in the town. Unfortunately, the second half of the 20th century was less kind to Fleetwood. Anyone who knows anything about fishing will know that the late 1960s and early 1970s saw the cod wars and the decline of the deep sea fishing industry.

Because Fleetwood was a deep sea fishing town, the loss of trawlers and fishing grounds in the north Atlantic hit our town hard. The last deep sea trawler left Fleetwood in 1982, three years before I was born. We now have only a small number of inshore fishing boats in the port. However, there being so few left does not mean that we do not have an emotional connection and a sense of identity around fishing. In fact, there are still many fishing industry jobs in the town, including in fish processing—and, of course, there is the biggest employer in the town, Lofthouse of Fleetwood, which manufactures the famous Fisherman’s Friend lozenges, which I am sure everyone is familiar with.

I cannot claim that the loss of the deep sea fishing industry is alone responsible for Fleetwood’s decline—the empty shops on Lord Street, the lower than average life expectancy and higher unemployment rates. It has to be seen in a wider context, with things such as cheap package holidays taking away from the tourist industry on the Lancashire coast and the Beeching cuts severing us from the national rail network—although I am optimistic that we might see some progress on that. The decline in the fishing industry in Fleetwood is an important part of the story of our town, and why so many of my constituents will be following today’s debate and the Fisheries Bill closely.

There are high hopes riding on the Fisheries Bill. Communities like mine have an emotional connection to fishing, despite many decades of decline. When communities such as Fleetwood voted to leave the European Union, under the banner of “take back control”, many were thinking about the fishing industry. Those people do not want to see us taking back control of our waters only for those waters to be ceded in a trade negotiation with the EU. That is what they fear. If that fear is realised, I cannot overstate the sense of betrayal that will be felt in coastal communities, not just in Fleetwood but up and down the country.

Turning to the Fisheries Bill, which has been the main focus of the debate today, I have two main asks that I would like the Bill to deliver. First, it has to be a requirement for fish caught under a UK quota to be landed in a UK port, because every one job at sea supports 10 jobs on shore. That could be a huge part of the regeneration of coastal communities up and down our islands.

We also want to see a redistribution of the UK quota away from the large multi-national companies, because two thirds of employment is generated by boats under 10 metres, which have only 6% of the quota. It would not take that much of a redistribution to have a disproportionately large effect in terms of regeneration and supporting jobs on shore, as well as at sea.

If we are truly to grasp every opportunity outside the common fisheries policy and to look to the long term, we need to look at how the fishing industry is supported to grow. That will require a holistic approach to issues such as safety: commercial fishing remains one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

I will finish my remarks, Sir George, where I started: Fleetwood. On the Esplanade two bronze figures stand on the seafront looking out to the Irish sea. They are a memorial to all the fishermen who did not make it home. If, as I hope, we see a revival in fishing in the UK, it has to be one in which the Government take safety seriously and that supports the people who fish our seas, to put food on the plates of our nation.

10:32

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this important and timely debate. It gives us all, wherever we sit, the opportunity to set out our hopes and, perhaps, some of our fears over the change that is to come.

I was taken by the hon. Lady’s observations about how Norway and its relationship with the EU could set a precedent. That is a laudable ambition, but I would caution that the Norwegian Government seem to set greater importance by their fishing industry than the UK Government do, given the evidence of recent years. We will see how that transpires.

I was also taken by the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), about the prospect of no longer seeing EU vessels coming into our waters. I will touch on that later. My particular concern, which I share with many colleagues, is about the differentiated relationship that will potentially exist between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and whether we will see fish caught in Scottish waters landed in Scottish ports, or whether they will go through Northern Ireland for seamless access to important EU markets, that might not otherwise be accessed.

The hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) all spoke about the importance of making sure the economic opportunities were fully seized on shore; I completely concur with that.

My group and the Scottish Government will consider the Fisheries Bill carefully, to assess whether it delivers for Scottish fishing communities, in our view. We will seek to improve it throughout the process, wherever we have the opportunity. We will be guided by the sustainable and responsible vision for fisheries management set out in the Scottish Government’s “Future of fisheries management in Scotland: national discussion paper.”

It remains a matter of real concern that UK Ministers have taken power to set quota for Scotland-only stocks. Even if they have no intention of using it, it is a matter of concern that that decision has been taken. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

In preparation for the debate I cast my mind back to a statement issued by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations in April 2018. They set out three criteria by which they would measure the success of the Government’s negotiating outcomes. Those criteria were about

“actual as well as legal authority”

over fisheries; whether

“fisheries management decisions on shared stocks”

would be made through bilateral annual agreements; and about the ability to secure “free and frictionless trade.” I will deal with each in turn.

Regarding the first criteria—

“actual as well as legal authority”—

obviously, even as a coastal state, we will still be subject to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the concept of the total allowable catch, but if all we do is use the legal authority to take back control of the seas and repackage the status quo with a Union Jack around it, that will be very much a missed opportunity, far from the goals set out.

Secondly, I turn to “shared stocks” and bilateral agreements. I apologise, Sir George; at the outset I should have declared an interest. I am vice chair of the North Sea Commission’s marine resources group and had the opportunity to attend a fisheries conference in the Netherlands province of Flevoland. There, I had the privilege to hear Peter van Dalen, a Member of the European Parliament in the European People’s Party group, talk about an earlier stage in Brexit discussions. He thought there should be a link between access to waters and access to markets. We can instantly see the danger with that. Even if we manage to get the relationship right at the outset, given the imbalance in negotiating power and the importance of fishing to the economies of other countries relative to our own, bilateral negotiations are a risk. Access and quotas simply become a factor in annual politicking. I do not have a huge amount of confidence that UK fishermen, wherever they fish from, will necessarily always be the beneficiaries of that outcome.

Thirdly, “free and frictionless trade” depends on what sort of deal is struck, or indeed if one can be struck at all. A no-deal situation, or one that sees divergence or a lack of alignment, could create significant difficulties for exporting a product, whether it is a primary product or one at the value-added stage. For example, I am currently a member of Aberdeenshire Council, which, like all local authorities, provides environmental health officers. There remains a real concern about the need to provide export health certificates for catches, if they are required. That would obliterate small-value exports of single or small numbers of boxes. There are simply not enough EHOs to cope with what would be required. The qualifications to become an EHO are a Bachelor of Science degree and two years’ experience, meaning that people need to have a minimum of five years’ experience before they can sign off their first consignment.

[David Duguid]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and I agree that we do not have enough environmental health officers. As a current—and soon to be recovering—member of Aberdeenshire Council, can he explain why the council has to cut back on environmental health officers?

[Richard Thomson]

The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to direct that question to his colleague Councillor Jim Gifford, who is the leader of the council. As members of the same party they will have ample opportunity to discuss the question. My point was that it takes five years from scratch to build EHO capacity, and without that there is a huge problem, which we cannot gloss over.

There is also a need to have heat treated pallets for exports, wagons and drivers with appropriate credentials, and there is the prospect of delays at ports. For a perishable product, that is bad news, especially as the European Union accounts for 77% of total Scottish seafood exports by value.

The only area of opportunity that I could concede Brexit offers is in terms of the value that could come to fishing and coastal communities. However, that requires investment in skills and training and requires the manufacturers, the producers, to have access to product. As hon. Members said, it depends very much on zonal attachment and getting access to that product. It depends very much on free and frictionless access to markets. It also depends on freedom of movement. I sat through a rather dispiriting Government response to a debate yesterday afternoon in the main Chamber about freedom of movement. We absolutely do need to have that if we are to take full advantage.

It is very clear—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I have no formal power to bring the hon. Member’s speech to a close, but he does need to leave time for the other two Front-Bench spokespersons to respond.

[Richard Thomson]

Thank you, Sir George. It is very clear that we have a Government in Edinburgh who take these issues seriously and are aware of them. I look forward to the Minister’s response to find out whether the same is true in London.

10:40

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am still relatively new to this place, but I know, like many others, the very personal commitment to and passion for the UK fishing industry that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has. Although we may not agree on everything, we stand together on the frontline in the fight for a sustainable, productive and successful fishing industry in all parts of the United Kingdom. I shall take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and say that no apologies will be made today on decisions made over previous decades. Instead, we want to work together to ensure that the UK fishing industry thrives in the new post-Brexit era.

All hon. Members here will know that this is a topical debate. I welcome the opportunity to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall; to share the vision of Her Majesty’s Opposition for the future of UK fisheries; and to highlight some of the areas of concern on which we want real action in the weeks and months ahead.

The UK fishing industry is old and established—it is at the core of many communities up and down the country and in all four nations of the United Kingdom. From Grimsby to Holyhead and from Kilkeel to Aberdeen, many jobs have relied on the UK fishing industry for generations, and many dinner tables in the UK, and right across the European continent and beyond, have been blessed by the catches from our waters.

Hon. Members across the Chamber will remember the campaign slogans used during the EU referendum campaign in 2016 and the most recent general election: we will “take back control”, we will be “an independent coastal state” and we will “leave behind the common fisheries policy”. The Conservative party made so many promises, but there is very little to show for it so far. So many promises were made: it would be a huge betrayal if the Government failed to deliver on them or, worse still, sold out the UK fishers to get the trade deal that we were told was ready to go but that the Government are now furiously trying to secure.

The European Union has indicated that everything will be on the table to get a trade deal; the UK Government say otherwise. There will always be some form of brinkmanship during negotiations, but we cannot play games with our fishing industry. I hope the Minister will make that clear to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the Prime Minister himself.

Time is of the essence. Come 1 January 2021, we need to be ready to go with a new policy, a new approach and a new plan. Yesterday, the other place saw the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) stated. It has been heralded as the Government’s flagship attempt to deliver for the UK fishing industry. As my noble Friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said yesterday, the Bill sets out a framework to regenerate the fishing sector in the United Kingdom. At its core is the UK’s right, following our departure from the European Union, to operate as an independent coastal state under the UN, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) so forcefully expressed. The Government have made much of the potential of that to deliver for British fishers, but we all know very well the challenges that they will face in trying to negotiate a deal with our European partners—a deal that must receive the approval of every one of the 27 remaining nations.

Her Majesty’s Opposition are clear, and as the shadow Minister responsible for fisheries I am clear, that we want UK fishers to get a fair and sustainable deal. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his expert comments on the need for sustainability, which is vital as we go forward. We want a deal based on the best scientific knowledge, and with the strict application of the maximum sustainable yield quotas that were sadly lacking from the common fisheries policy. The Government have an opportunity to create a flourishing and healthy marine environment—one with replenished stocks and that helps to deliver on our net zero carbon ambitions.

I want fishing quotas to be distributed more fairly, away from the select few who dominate ownership and to the smaller boats and fleets that use low-impact gear, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) so eloquently highlighted. Smaller operations create significantly more jobs per tonne of fish landed than the larger companies. We also want high levels of compliance with fishing limits, through the use of compulsory surveillance technology and an increase in inspection vessels to ensure that deliberate overfishing is punished; that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also want to be clear that British fish, caught in British waters, must land in British ports. That brings jobs and maintains livelihoods.

We should see an end to the unnecessary red tape that the Government send our fishers’ way. One example, obviously, is the catch app, which has been well highlighted today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and, of course, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall. It is ill thought out, and we need the Government to pause and rethink.

One job at sea is worth 10 jobs on land. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) highlighted the importance of onshore jobs associated with the fishing industry. We need to empower and enrich areas that have been let down by a decade of Tory austerity, and we can do that by delivering a sustainable and equitable fishing industry. We can do that by setting a requirement in the new licences to land at least 70% of the catch in our ports, supported by UK Government investment in green infrastructure. That will help in turn to grow the marine leisure and recreational fishing sectors.

I want to say a word about Northern Ireland and the real challenge facing the UK Government. The Government have indicated their commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in reality they have put a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that border sits on the Northern Irish ports. It will have a significant impact on the territorial waters of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. These complicated issues will require serious and meaningful negotiation, and I urge the Government to ensure exactly that.

A frictionless border between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe and the world will be key. Our fish and seafood, including shellfish, which the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) reminded us about, are all perishable and will diminish in quality, value and availability if they have to sit in customs for days on end. One major value of British fish today is that it can be anywhere in Europe in a matter of hours rather than days. We need to keep it that way.

I acknowledge the hon. Member for South East Cornwall’s constituency and family commitment to fishing. I hope that she will join me in holding the Government to account on their promises, so that together we can ensure that they do not put our fishers out of business.

10:47

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who, as a number of hon. Members said, has been a passionate campaigner for the fishing industry; her technical knowledge of this sector is second to none. It is great that she managed to secure the debate today, because of course we would generally have an annual fisheries debate in December, in the run-up to the December Council negotiations. Last December, however, all of us had other things on our minds—knocking on doors and delivering leaflets. It is therefore good and timely that we are having the debate now.

My hon. Friend explained in some detail the genesis of our problem with the common fisheries policy. It is essentially that in the 1970s, as we joined the European Union, we gave the European Union the right to control access to our waters—and at exactly the same time, we were being progressively driven out of our traditional fishing grounds in Iceland. The first, second and third cod wars culminated, in 1976, with British fishing vessels, the long-distance fleet, being excluded to 200 miles from Iceland.

My hon. Friend was also right in saying that while the EU was developing catch data in the late ’70s, we ended up with an appalling and unfair share of the catch, under what became known as “relative stability”—partly because our fleet was in Icelandic waters and therefore not fishing to the extent that it normally would in our own waters, and partly because of patchy data and patchy data recording. Relative stability has remained set in stone ever since. It is based on a reference period in the late 1970s that is not representative of the fish in our waters and not representative of what we were catching even at the time; it also it did not take account of the fact that much of our fish was being caught in Iceland.

Ironically, the defeat of the UK in the third cod war in 1976 led to the establishment of an international convention giving independent coastal states control of their exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles or the median line. That was formalised in the UN convention on the law of the sea in the early 1980s. This is often not understood, but our right to control our exclusive economic zone is not something we must negotiate with the European Union; it simply happens as a point of international law, which is widely understood by the European Commission.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, we are clear that we want to be like Norway: an independent coastal state in control of the resources in our waters, holding friendly annual negotiations with our neighbours—a mutual exchange of access as well as an annual discussion on the total allowable catch and who should have what share of that catch, species by species. Our approach will move away from the outdated, unfair and unscientific relative stability sharing mechanism that currently pertains in the EU to a modern, more scientific approach based on zonal attachment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) indicated. In those annual negotiations we will also seek a mutual agreement on exchange of access, deciding what species and areas that should involve, and what sharing arrangements should be attached to any mutual access agreed.

We are making good progress in preparing for this new world. Yesterday, Lord Gardiner took the Fisheries Bill through its Second Reading. It passed without incident. I was there for the closing speeches and I can report that all Members of the House of Lords were content to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Bill sets out several important things about our approach. First, it gives us a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably and observe maximum sustainable yield when taking part in fisheries negotiations, and to have a series of management plans for individual stocks, to demonstrate how we intend to get to sustainable fishing on each. Secondly, the Bill gives us crucial powers to control access to our exclusive economic zone and to require foreign and domestic vessels to have licences—and to attach conditions to those licences when people seek access to our exclusive economic zone. Thirdly, it gives us crucial powers to change technical conservation measures, so that we can make timely amendments—to closures for spawning grounds, to gear types and to nets, for instance.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and others mentioned the new—currently not particularly popular—app, which we have asked the vessels under 10 metres to start using. I believe that is the right decision: if we want to move to a more sophisticated way of managing the inshore fleet—maybe to give them quotas that run for several months, rather than just one month at a time, or to experiment with effort-based regimes—it is important that we have reliable data on catch. Studies carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science have shown that there is a significant mismatch between what is recorded through sales notes and what is being caught and observed on vessels, so we need to improve the quality of the data that we have.

It is worth noting that vessels over 12 metres and those between 10 and 12 metres have a two-stage process. They must record and log their catch data, which can be based on an estimate, but, in the case of the over-12s, within 24 hours they then must submit a landing declaration, which has the precise weight of each species. For reasons I entirely understand, the under-10s said that they did not want the administration involved in a two-stage process when we explored this option with them. They did not want to have to record catch data and a landing declaration.

Our approach—a one-system approach of catch data only—was designed at the request of the industry to make the process simpler. We think most fishermen can make reasonable estimates of their weight; they do not have to do it while at sea. They can do it when they have tied their vessel up. They can weigh the fish and submit the record as they unload it from their vessel. We are working with them to ensure we can make this work in practice.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is obviously linked to the well-known Factortame case, which became an important test case about the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to EU law. It established the principle that while the European Communities Act 1972 existed, EU law had supremacy over UK law. As a Parliament, we have remedied that situation by repealing the 1972 Act; in future, we could look again at provisions such as those in the Merchant Shipping Act. However, as we set out in our White Paper, our clear preference is to review the economic link and to look at whether some of those foreign-owned vessels should be required to land more of their catch into UK ports, rather than getting into a more difficult discussion about whether we should take those rights away from them, given that they bought the vessels in good faith. We do not rule out something like the Merchant Shipping Act, but we have no immediate plans for such legislation.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked why fishing is in the political declaration. It is simply there to say that we will strive to have a partnership agreement with the EU, just as the EU currently has with Norway. We will use our best endeavours to get that by July. If there is no partnership by July, there is no consequence. International law is what it is, and we will still negotiate as an independent coastal state at those critical annual fisheries negotiations at the end of the year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) talked about the importance of having a plan to support the growth of the industry—particularly in his constituency, where there is a great deal of fish processing. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a similar point in respect of the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries project in his area. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan is obviously very vocal on this, since the Prime Minister frequently asks me what our plan is to support our fishing industry and to put in place the infrastructure to ensure we can harness its potential as we leave the EU. We are giving some thought to that area.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of attracting new entrants, which is an area that we are looking at. We are examining some of the approaches adopted in the Faroes and in the USA, and we are working with Seafish and the Seafood 2040 industry group to review a number of recommendations for supporting new entrants coming into the industry.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of resolving some of the questions about the Northern Ireland protocol, to ensure that trade can continue. We are absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs union, but I appreciate that a few minor technical details regarding that protocol still need to be worked through. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made a very good point about the importance of splitting trade discussions from fisheries. We are very clear that there will be a fisheries partnership agreement and then a trade agreement. He also made a good point about looking at the way we define inshore fisheries, asking whether the current definition is appropriate, and ensuring that we think about the inshore fleet as we move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) raised the issue of local authority ports currently being unable to access the maritime fund; that is another area that we are looking at. I am afraid that EU state aid rules are the source of the problem, and will be dealt with in the usual way, but we are considering that issue. Finally, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) asked what we are doing about lobsters and shellfish. We are considering whether technical or catch measures could be put in place to manage those stocks.

10:59

[Mrs Murray]

I thank all hon. Members for attending this debate, which has been one of the best-attended fisheries debates I have seen in quite a long time. I think the Minister has heard the message loud and clear: we want UK fishermen to be treated such that, first and foremost, they can get the majority of fish in UK waters, just as the Prime Minister confirmed. We are looking to both the Minister and the Prime Minister to deliver on that promise.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).

Education and Attainment of White Working-Class Boys

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered education and attainment for white working-class boys.

It is of course an honour, Sir George, to serve under your chairmanship today.

I am pleased to have secured this debate today on an important issue, although I am frustrated that we cannot have more time to discuss it. I will run through it very quickly this morning; I hope that we can consider it in more detail very soon.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up across our country and investing in the communities that need it the most. I do not think that it is controversial to argue that education is one of those issues that we really need to focus on in communities with large areas of deprivation, such as my own in Mansfield, and if we are genuinely to give everyone the opportunity to make the most of their talents, then everybody needs to have access to a good education.

We know that on average boys consistently underperform against girls, and white boys from disadvantaged backgrounds underperform against boys of all other races and ethnicities. I will reel off some statistics: by age five, white boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are already 13% behind disadvantaged black boys and 23% behind disadvantaged Asian girls in their phonics, for example; only around a third of white working-class boys pass their maths and English GCSEs; disadvantaged white working-class boys are 40% less likely to go into higher education than disadvantaged black boys; and in fact, according to UCAS, only 9% of these boys will go to university, compared with around half of the general population. I could go on forever if I had more time, but as it stands these white working-class boys are being let down by an in-built and inherent disadvantage.

I am concerned that this issue has been brushed under the carpet, not necessarily by the Government—I have had conversations about it with Ministers before and also discussed it on a Select Committee, so I know that this issue is recognised—but by modern society, which refuses to see the plight of young white males, even those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am concerned that in too many places this is a taboo subject, and that we cannot talk about the fact that white boys need more help.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This issue is very relevant in Northern Ireland as well. Recently, the Community Relations Council in Northern Ireland stated:

“While there is under-achievement among working-class pupils generally—and this is worse among boys—working class Protestant boys continue to have lower educational attainment than Catholic boys.”

We have continually heard the same thing in Northern Ireland and continually stated it, but instead of accepting this as a baseline fact we need to change the foundation across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with investment in the education of these boys and training in their skills, thereby addressing the imbalance that exists.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for pointing out that this is something that is happening across the country—across the whole of the United Kingdom—and that there is a challenge around getting these boys to engage with school, around parental engagement and around that drive to attain, which I will cover in the rest of my speech. However, he is absolutely right that this issue is not limited to my community, or to the north of England, or to anything like that; it is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom. For example, when we see schools turning down funding that is offered in support of disadvantaged white boys, despite the obvious problems that they experience, then we have a real issue.

The former head of UCAS, Mary Curnock Cook, said that this underperformance is a scandal, but it remains unfashionable to talk about it; in fact, it has become normal. She said that the discussion about white boys from disadvantaged backgrounds has been marginalised, which is why I called for this debate. That situation is not right at a time when boys are falling further behind, indeed when they are already way behind before they even reach primary school, and when they are far more likely to be expelled from school and increasingly less likely to get to university, but twice as likely to commit suicide if they do get there. I recognise fully that we need to support disadvantaged children of all genders and all ethnicities, but I raise this issue in these terms today to make sure that these boys in my community get a fair hearing.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case and we are listening with great interest. Does he agree that if this issue is not successfully addressed, we will have disaffected youth, there will be consequences for local communities and a loss of real potential—of real talent—in our workforce?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I totally agree. The Prime Minister was clear when he said that opportunity is not spread evenly around the country but talent is, and this issue is about how we engage these boys with our education system, to make sure that they see its relevance and to ensure that they see the opportunities they have and can take them.

There is an awful lot to do, and we are already in a position where we have lots of young men in my community who have finished school but will have to go back and receive intervention and support as adults, because they did not receive that throughout their education. We have to understand the lives of many of these boys, in former coalfield communities such as Mansfield.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for raising this issue today. In my constituency, which is a very mixed one, I am aware of the disparities and the inequalities in all communities, which is why it has been very important for us locally to look at disadvantage wherever it occurs.

May I just make the point that the issue extends across the country and that we have to look at different communities? Last year, I hosted in Parliament the event “H Is For Harry”, about a young boy who has problems with literacy that are actually intergenerational. That event was very important in saying that wherever inequality, disadvantage or difficulties with education might occur, we need to address that situation and have a public policy response.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I totally agree. As I say, I fully recognise that the challenges I am highlighting in this speech affect many communities and many children from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race or gender. I have said why I am highlighting it in these particular terms today, but she is absolutely right that there is a broader issue that we need to focus on. She also mentioned that kind of parental drive and engagement with schools, which I will come on to.

As I was saying, we need to understand the communities that these boys grow up in. In former coalfield areas such as Mansfield, not so long ago boys generally left school before they were 16, and they went to work down the pit or in a factory. There was a simplistic kind of certainty to that, in that regardless of what happened at school, they would have a job and a career. If someone was lucky, they might get to take the 11-plus and go off to grammar school to do something different. A few children benefited from that route, but then that was taken away as well.

That certainty of career does not exist any more in these communities, but in many cases they have not moved on. Many parents in the poorest communities do not have qualifications and therefore are not able to extol the virtues of school—indeed, they do not necessarily see the point of that education—and they cannot help their children to study because they do not have that level of attainment themselves.

I have schools in my area where 70% of the children are involved with social services, such is the chaotic backdrop to their lives, so school is very far from the top of the agenda for those children. Boys are far more likely to say that school is a waste of time, so we have to engage them in a different way and help them to see the value of school.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for the case that he has made; I agree with every word he has said. Does he, like me, see the real sadness that generations—multiple generation—of boys from Nottingham and from Nottinghamshire, which we both represent, have had that perception that school does not matter, and as a result there is wasted talent, instead of all the good things that they could be doing in our community if they had had a better education and we had not failed them?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree. I meet a number of young men who are bright, sharp and intelligent, but they do not have many qualifications and are struggling to find work, struggling to make a positive impact and struggling to see where their lives are going. We certainly need to do more to change that situation in the future and, as I have said, to go back to those guys who have finished school already and support them.

We need to prepare children for the 21st century and update our curriculum so that it is fit for the future. Repetitive tasks and memory tests are no longer relevant for study and even top private schools in America have shown that kids simply do not remember such stuff when they come back from school holidays.

The OECD’s programme of international student assessment rankings show that memorisation remains the dominant learning strategy in British classrooms. I could go off on a massive tangent at this point, and if I did I am sure that I would have a huge debate with the Minister for School Standards on this particular issue. However, I only have 10 minutes to cover things today, so I will try to focus on the headline issue, although there is a broader problem.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has highlighted a very important point about working-class communities and white working-class boys. I have noticed in my constituency that those boys fall behind, especially after the school holidays, and we also know that a lot of funding that went into school holiday programmes has been cut, so I am starting a campaign to try to bring back more of that activity.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to think about a cross-departmental policy response to this issue, through housing, education and wider afield, so that we make sure that we can reach into and deal with those families that are most at risk, and so that these young boys have the best chance of success?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I agree. There is certainly a disparity that is entrenched when those boys go home over the summer to a household that is not necessarily pushing them to continue to learn and engage, compared with parents who are perhaps better-off and who drive that engagement. We must bridge that gap and I will come on to some of the potential solutions. The point I am trying to make is that we need to create incentives for these boys to learn and to make space in the curriculum, if needed, for something more relevant to them. It would be wrong if we assumed that everyone’s aspiration was to study to degree level. We would do far better to accept that where these boys are getting nothing currently, giving them something of interest and value would be a step forward.

Whether it meets our middle-class aspiration or not is kind of irrelevant; I am talking about choice and variety. Whether we do that through alternative provision or by giving all schools more freedom by offering more vocational and technical education, we have to do something more to show the career value of what they are learning, perhaps by doing it thematically, rather than in subject silos that do not connect with the real world. Everyone needs a certain core knowledge, but outside of that there are lots of different options.

[Alex Norris]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Bradley]

I will, but then I am going to have to stop giving way.

[Alex Norris]

I am sorry to come back again, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real importance for us in this place to start talking about vocational and technical education with the same emphasis as higher education? That would set the tone that, actually, we think all those paths are just as legitimate and can lead to full and happy lives.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As I have said, less than 9% of boys from tough backgrounds go to university, yet those technical routes are still often viewed as a last resort, despite providing the opportunity to learn valuable skills that lead to job opportunities. In Switzerland, for example, 70% of children undertake apprenticeships, because they are well respected. We talk in the UK about holding such qualifications in equal regard with academic ones, but we do not make them available to all children. When I suggest that we should make them available to all children, I get lots of academics telling me that I am writing off these kids, which does not sound a great deal like equal regard to me.

We need to go in and support apprenticeship routes, which means reforming the levy and supporting traineeships, as well as thinking hard about how we seem to be making even the technical qualifications more traditionally academic now through T-levels and about the other options for those who want genuine vocational or technical education. We need to invest in adult learning and retraining for those we have missed in the system.

We should do more to show these boys the career options out there by offering more meaningful work experience and by giving better careers or skills advice, particularly from professionals who have not taken traditional educational paths to succeed in their career. They need role models who they can look up to, and they need to be aware of all options for their future study. Many do not have those role models at home who they can turn to on education. That leads me on to the next bit of my speech, because it is not solely schools’ responsibility; the issues stem more often than not from home. We are fighting a losing battle if we are forcing boys to be interested in getting GCSEs when their parents think they are a waste of time.

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Ben Bradley]

I have to plough on, or I will run out of time. The challenge, as I have said, entrenches disadvantage, with better-off parents more able to push their children to attain, to do homework and to work hard at school, while those who have the least education themselves or who have chaotic lives struggle to do so.

Early interventions can help. We can refocus where we put our money in early years provision on the most disadvantaged, bearing in mind that currently, a couple earning £200,000 between them can access 30 hours’ free childcare, but a single mum on the living wage working 15 hours a week can only get 15 hours of free childcare. We can encourage nurture provision in a primary setting to ensure children are engaging with school early on and can settle into primary school. That saves all sorts of issues later and draws parents into that school setting early on. We need proper youth work and more trained youth workers to support children and offer direction. Great youth workers are hugely important, and we have the opportunity through the youth investment fund to train thousands more.

When I visit schools in Mansfield, parental engagement is often raised with me as being among the biggest challenges. How do we draw them into the educational environment to support their children at school? The Social Market Foundation, for example, suggests that after-school family literacy classes in primary school would encourage parents to take a more active role in a child’s education. I know some schools do that. My kids go in early for phonics with mum on a Tuesday morning, and I like the sound of that, and I like the sound of using the school setting as more of a community hub to be able to offer other services that push those hard-to-reach parents to come into the school to engage with teachers.

The Department for Education has found that higher rates of exclusions are seen in areas of deprivation. Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals account for 40% of all permanent exclusions. Again, that is boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a reason why boys more than girls can be disruptive or badly behaved in a classroom setting. Simply using detention or exclusion rarely helps. According to the OECD, boys respond more to a school’s environment than girls. When they are in disruptive, chaotic disorganised settings, their capacity for self-regulation suffers. When they are labelled as the bad kid, they become the bad kid. Often these kids do not have male role models at home. They are confused about masculinity and what it means and their role in society. We need to support them through that, not punish them.

We need to take bold steps fundamentally to change failing schools, which can exacerbate problems, rather than help. A few weeks ago an article in The Sun highlighted so-called dumping grounds, where schools have struggled consistently for a long time even to get out of special measures. We need almost a “Supernanny”-style leadership team capable of taking on these challenges and intervening fundamentally in these schools. We need more incentives for the best teachers to work in such schools, which often exist in the same disadvantaged communities and so cannot attract experienced teachers. It is becoming commonplace for children to have lessons taught by somebody who is not qualified in the subject. Great leaders and great teachers can transform failing schools, and we need to equip them with the resource, the flexibility and the curriculum to deliver real and genuine change.

I wonder whether there is a way to build on interventions such as the London Challenge and offer that kind of resource and impact to the most challenging schools and areas outside London, too. I know that the Government have started on some of those kinds of interventions, and I would be interested to hear more about that from the Minister.

To conclude, I hope we would all agree that we are missing a trick if we are not focusing on ensuring that all children of all ethnicities and backgrounds get access to a good education and to life’s opportunities. That means we cannot continue not to talk about the plight of disadvantaged white boys who are consistently at the bottom of the pile.

We hear a lot in the media and in this place about white male privilege—it seems to overtake discussion a lot—and I challenge those people to come to my community, where men spent their whole lives digging coal underground to keep the lights on, and who are now dying early of lung disease as a result, and talk to them about their privilege. It is their children and grandchildren I am talking about today. They need help, and our communities need help. I hope that this Government’s mission to level up the towns and regions in the UK that have the least includes education as a key priority. I am sure that it does. Unless we grapple with the burning injustice that faces white working-class boys in communities such as mine in Mansfield, we will not be delivering the change that is needed.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Before I call Karl MᶜCartney, who I understand has the agreement of both the Minister and the mover of the motion to speak, I ask him to bear in mind that he needs to leave adequate time for the Minister to respond.

11:16

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I rise to make a brief speech to welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) in securing this debate. I agree with every word he said. Three years ago, we had a similar debate in this Chamber on this subject, which I had the privilege to lead.

Secondary school league table data just published by the BBC on 6 February confirms that England’s schoolboys have had worse exam results than girls for 30 years. Another notable fact, reported by Ally Fogg on the politics.co.uk website, is that among every ethnic group, boys perform markedly worse than girls. Among the most deprived children, that effect is greatest. Across the board, a girl from a free school meals background is now 52% more likely to go to university than her male equivalent. Most worrying of all is that while there has been a welcome narrowing of the equity gap in ethnicity over the past two decades, and even the FSM gap has shrunk slightly, the gender gap has been going the other way. The difference in attainment for girls and boys is now markedly greater than that between white and black, Asian and minority ethnic students. The trend is best illustrated by the Higher Education Policy Institute in 2016, which calculated that if current trends continue, a boy born that year would be 75% less likely to attend university than a girl by the time he is 18.

The Men & Boys Coalition has done some sterling examination of this area of education and has unearthed some more stark effects for our colleagues in the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister here today to digest. In 2019, 62.9% of males received grade 1 to 4, A* to C, GCSE grades, while 71.7% of females received the same results. Only 54.2% of 16-year-old boys achieved a grade C/4 English language GCSE, compared with 70.5% of girls. Some 59.9% of boys achieved grade C/4 in maths, as did 59.2% of girls. In the 2018 cycle, 196,105 men or boys domiciled in the UK accepted places at university, compared with 263,180 women or girls, a gap of 67,075 or 35%. The figure in 2008 was 177,780 and 226,075 respectively, a gap of 48,295 or 27%. Those figures are from UCAS.

However, I will end on a positive note. Recently, the head of three Muslim schools that came top in England for progress has vowed to help white working-class children, as analysis shows a widening gap between coastal and city schools. Government tables published recently reveal that the best three schools for progress were part of Star Academies. Although all its schools are in deprived inner cities with higher numbers of ethnic minorities, it is now focusing on deprived coastal areas with mainly white populations. It has taken on schools in Blackburn and Morecambe on the Lancashire coast.

I promoted a career academy in my first term as a Member of Parliament, in partnership with Steve Penney, then deputy head at the City School on Skellingthorpe Road in Lincoln, to assist pupils. I urge anyone with an interest to seek out the rebranded Career Ready charity, which seeks to raise the career aspirations of all pupils of whatever background in our schools, using business mentors and those who wish to offer a hand up the ladder of aspiration. Some universities have tailored approaches to widening participation for different under-represented groups. The national collaborative outreach programme is a national initiative focused on extending higher education opportunities to specifically disadvantaged wards across the country. The programme operates in Lincoln through LiNCHigher, which involves Bishop Grosseteste University and the University of Lincoln, and I encourage anyone and everyone to view their various outreach programmes.

Universities UK is also currently conducting a major review into admissions to look at how to make the application process fairer for all students. It tells me the review will be published in the spring, and I hope it will include the views that many hon. Members have expressed today and in recent debates on the subject. I thank hon. Members for their forbearance.

11:20

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for their passionate commitment to wanting to improve the education and life chances of the most disadvantaged pupils in general and, in this particular debate, white disadvantaged boys. The statistics cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield at the start of his speech have driven the Government’s education policies since 2010. Closing the attainment gap between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more advantaged peers has driven our obsession with ensuring that children are taught to read effectively at the age of four or five, and that every six-year-old can decode words using phonics. It has driven our desire for children to develop a love of reading and our desire to help them develop a wider vocabulary. It has driven our determination to adopt the practice of the best performing countries in the world in the teaching of mathematics in primary schools, and to improve the cultural literacy of all children, regardless of their background or gender, ensuring they have the vocabulary that will not only help their reading, but will mean they have the knowledge required for academic progress.

As Harold Stevenson and James Stigler wrote in their book “The Learning Gap”, the error is,

“the assumption that it is the diversity in children’s social and cultural background that poses the greatest problem for teaching.”

In fact, a far greater problem is variability in children’s educational background and thus in their levels of preparation for learning the academic curriculum.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Gibb]

I am sorry; I will not give way because of the time.

There is a philosophy behind the Government’s drive to close the word gap and the attainment gap, and to level up opportunity, ensuring every child, regardless of background or gender, can fulfil their potential. The philosophy lies behind successful multi-academy trusts, such as the Star multi-academy trust cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln. It has driven our curriculum reforms, our GCSE reforms, and our determination to move this country’s education system away from a so-called competence-based curriculum to a knowledge-rich curriculum.

E D Hirsch, the great American educationist, wrote about the example of France in his most recent book, “Why Knowledge Matters”. He looked at the history of France’s curriculum reforms and the effect of the move away from a knowledge-based curriculum towards a competence or skills-based curriculum in the late 1980s. Comparing standards in 1987 and 2007, all socioeconomic groups saw a decline in standards, with a decline of a third of a standard deviation on average. Strikingly, children from disadvantaged backgrounds saw the greatest fall in standards, with a decline of two thirds of a standard deviation. That is one piece of evidence, but it is part of a pattern of international evidence that competence-based curricula are most disadvantageous to the pupils we are most keen to help.

After 10 years in office, the Government’s education reforms are beginning to show results. Standards are rising and the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils is beginning to close: by 13% in primary and 9% in secondary since 2011. Thanks to our reforms, more pupils are taking core academic GCSEs, more children are reading fluently, and more are attending good and outstanding schools, but, as my hon. Friend so clearly set out, too many pupils still leave school without the qualifications that they need.

We know that synthetic phonics is the most effective way of teaching reading to all children, so we have embedded it in the key stage one curriculum. Following a greater focus on reading in the primary curriculum, England achieved its highest ever score in the 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. The result was largely attributable to increases in the average performance of boys and lower performing pupils. As Her Majesty’s chief inspector said recently,

“In the schools that teach reading really well, really systematically using phonics, the gap narrows or is even eliminated.”

That is the essence of ensuring that our schools adopt teaching methods and curricula that the evidence suggests narrow or eliminate the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils and between girls and boys.

All children, particularly pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, including white working-class boys, need a knowledge-rich curriculum that introduces all pupils to the powerful knowledge that best prepares pupils for their futures. We see it in schools such as Michaela Community School in Wembley, where the school regards knowledge about the world as essential. Its academically rigorous curriculum has enabled pupils to achieve exceptionally well. In 2019, Michaela’s results ranked among the best in the country, with all pupils, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, making well above average progress. Some 41% of pupils at that school were eligible for free school meals at some point in the past six years, but its progress 8 score of 1.53 is one of the highest in the country, and its EBacc entry was 84%.

It is a similar story at Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford with its unrelenting focus on improving the life chances of its pupils. The academy offers a rigorous knowledge-rich and evidence-based curriculum, which has seen it right at the top of the league tables over the past few years. Similarly, we can look at the work of leading multi-academy trusts such as Outwood Grange Academies Trust, which time after time radically improves schools that have had a long history of entrenched failure. That MAT provides long neglected communities in this country with the transformational education that they need.

My hon. Friend noted in his speech that the standard of education suffers when schools lose their grip on behaviour. I absolutely agree, which is why we have bolstered the powers of teachers and headteachers to deal with unruly pupils. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that this country has a world-class technical route for pupils to pursue technical and vocational training. Our reform of apprenticeships puts technical and vocational education on a par with academic study for the first time, in tandem with T-levels.

Apprenticeships ensure that people can gain the training and qualifications that they need to enter the job market and ensure that employers can access the skills that they need to make the country globally competitive. T-levels are at the centre of our plans for world class technical education, preparing students for entry into skilled employment or higher levels of technical education in areas such as engineering, manufacturing, health, science, construction, and digital. They will ensure that all post-16 students can make an informed choice between high-quality options that support progression, whatever their attainment or aspirations. We have made real progress since 2011, particularly in improving the education of disadvantaged children and those of lower attaining pupils as well.

In conclusion, I share my hon. Friend’s deeply held belief in the power of education to transform the life chances of pupils, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Although I know there is more to do, the Government’s school reforms and plans to improve technical education through T-levels and the proposed £3 billion national skills fund are the right ones for every pupil and student in our education system, including the most disadvantaged pupils.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

14:29

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before I call Hilary Benn, may I simply say that 13 Back Benchers wish to contribute? In the event that Mr Benn speaks for 20 minutes, everyone will have three minutes; in the event that he speaks for 10, everyone will have four. He is free to take as much time as he likes, and I will divide the remaining time equally between Back Benchers. Obviously, interventions will take time, but they will not result in more time for Back Benchers. I call Hilary Benn to move the motion.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leaseholders and cladding.

May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies? I am grateful to all colleagues present. I know that a number will wish to intervene, but the more interventions there are, the longer I will take to complete my argument, which I am keen that the Minister should hear. I think the turnout shows her the strength of feeling on this issue.

It is not difficult to understand why there are strong feelings. Imagine that someone has saved up all their money and bought their first flat. It is the home of their dreams. They move in, the future beckons, and then one day a letter drops on the mat. It is from their managing agent, and it tells them: “Your home is in a building that has now been judged a fire risk because of unsafe cladding, and as a leaseholder you must immediately—this day—start paying for a waking watch. Otherwise, all of you will have to move out of your homes.” In one case in Leeds, such a waking watch is costing each flat-owner £670 a month plus VAT, on top of mortgage payments and the service charge.

The leaseholder is probably then asked to meet the cost of putting in a fire alarm system, which may or may not reduce the cost of the waking watch. Then, to their absolute horror, they are asked to pay for the cost of replacing the dangerous cladding to make their building—their home—safe. The problem is pretty obvious to us all: they simply do not have that kind of money. Their home has been rendered completely worthless, therefore they cannot remortgage. Their insurance premium is, in all likelihood, going up, and they worry about possibly being made bankrupt because of all the costs. That could result, depending on what job they do, in the loss of their job as well as their home. Yet none of that is in any way the fault, responsibility or doing of the leaseholders.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have a building in the Tottenham Hale village with 432 people who cannot get a mortgage or remortgage. Is it the view of my right hon. Friend that that is entirely unacceptable, because fire and building regulations are rightly the Government’s responsibility? The Government should step in to support those individuals.

[Hilary Benn]

That is absolutely my view. My right hon. Friend anticipates what I will come on to say.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this immensely important debate. Does he agree that, although the Government’s recent announcement of the aluminium composite material cladding fund is welcome, it does nothing to help blocks, such as the Lexington and Rivington apartment blocks in my constituency, that have non-ACM dangerous cladding or are plagued by other fire safety defects, such as a lack of effective firebreaks? It is distressing to see those residents, who are worried about their finances and security, now suffering sleepless nights and fearing bankruptcy and homelessness. The Government need to help them out.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is correct: there is a fundamental unfairness in the treatment of different types of leaseholders. That is the argument that I will make.

As we have just heard from two colleagues, a growing number of our constituents face this problem—in my case, leaseholders from St George’s building and a number of blocks in Leeds Dock and Timble Beck, who have other types of dangerous cladding. I pay tribute to the Leeds Cladding Scandal group, to all the other groups that have been organised up and down the country, and to the very aptly named Manchester Cladiators, who have really got organised. That name tells us how determined they are to win.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for mentioning the Manchester Cladiators: a network of dozens of blocks in my constituency that are affected by such issues. What the Manchester Cladiators really want is to be at the heart of an ongoing dialogue with the Government to resolve the issues. The period of passing the buck between freeholders, insurers and the Government has to stop.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely, and I hope that today’s debate is part of the dialogue that has already begun. Leaseholders want to feel that they are being listened to, and they want to be able to meet Ministers. I hope that this debate will ensure that more of that happens.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is powerful to hear how the issue is affecting people across the country, including residents of Radnor House in my constituency of Croydon North, which is in south London. Leaseholders are living in a block, converted from offices, that has wooden cladding, so they do not come under the ACM fund that the Government have opened. Yet they, too, face massive bills that they cannot afford, in homes that they cannot sell. It feels to them as if the Government are penalising innocent leaseholders instead of stepping in with real help, which is what they need.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend has painted a picture, as we all can, of the strain, the heartache and the worry, which are not difficult to understand. If we had received one of those letters and it was happening to us in our home, we too would be worried sick. Our constituents who are caught up in that nightmare want our help, and they need it now.

The Minister knows only too well how we got here, following the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, so I do not propose to go over any of that again. The Government had to act in the wake of that tragedy to change what was clearly a wholly defective system. However, having done so, Ministers have put leaseholders in a manifestly unjust position. Were that not bad enough, as more and more building surveys have been done, other problems have come to light, such as missing firebreaks—which mean that the buildings were never built according to building regulations in the first place—or wooden balconies, which the new guidance says have to be replaced.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I have 1,087 developments in the Pulse development in Colindale. A lot of people bought those properties after the building regulations were signed off by the local authority, as recently as 2017. Those people have not been protected by building regulations and now, as the right hon. Member says, simply cannot afford to either remortgage or sell their property. They are in redundant properties. The concern is that the assurances from building regulations were simply not worth the paper on which they were printed.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Lots of my constituents say to me, “But it was signed off under building regs. Surely that means it’s safe.” Well, it does not quite mean that, for reasons that we can go into on another occasion. It is part of the system that has still to be fixed.

Other leaseholders are drawn in because, even though their blocks have not been identified as having a problem, when they try to sell the flat the mortgage company says, “Okay—but, by the way, where’s the certificate that says that this building complies with the new regulations that the Government have, quite properly, put in place?” If they cannot produce it, the property is worthless and becomes unsellable. If that was not complicated enough, just to complete the story, the ownership structure of blocks and the history varies. The developers may have gone bust, the builders may no longer be trading, and some freeholders say, “I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t have the money to replace the cladding on this building.”

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is not simply that freeholders say, “I don’t have the money.” They do not have the obligation. Most freeholders do not have an obligation to mitigate any such problems. Perhaps the only people who do are the original developers—who, as the right hon. Member says, may not be there—or the leaseholders. Is that not the problem? As he rightly says, leaseholders in many cases have no means to pay for that remedial work.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman, who has great expertise in this matter, is correct. I will come to what the Government have said about the responsibility of freeholders, but I think the point we are all making is that this is not the fault of the leaseholders, who never expected when they bought that first dream home that this burden might fall upon them.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

My constituency, like my right hon. Friend’s, has a lot of high-rise blocks—among the highest number in the country. One of the major issues is getting the Government to finance the work that needs to be done ahead of any further tragedies and fatalities, and ahead of the Budget statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that two years after the appalling, horrific tragedy of Grenfell, the Government need to step up and create a fund so that those works can be done, and should then go after the freeholders to make them—rather than our constituents—pay when they are able to do so? That should be our focus and priority, as we said time and again in the last Parliament. I hope that we do not have to keep saying this. I hope that the Government heed our advice and make sure that the Chancellor puts some money into those works in the March Budget.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When the problem of ACM cladding was first identified, the Government quite properly said that it all has to come off and be replaced. Importantly, they also said that however it was done, leaseholders should not have to pay. On 29 November 2018, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said:

“Everyone has a right to feel safe in their homes and I have repeatedly made clear that building owners and developers must replace dangerous ACM cladding. And the costs must not be passed on to leaseholders.”

I agree with that. The Secretary of State repeated that point on 9 May 2019, when he said:

“Leaseholders find themselves in this position through no fault of their own, and this is not morally defensible.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 688.]

Again, I agree. It would be monstrous to expect people who are entirely blameless to pay for the mistakes and errors of others. It has been pointed out that if our constituents had bought cars or washing machines that were a fire risk, no one would dream of saying to them, “Sorry, you are going to have to pay for the cost of replacement.” Their problem is that they bought the home of their dreams.

I acknowledge the responsible way in which some freeholders, including in Leeds, have accepted that they need to foot the bill to replace the cladding. That work has either been done, is in progress, or we are told it is timetabled. However, despite the Government’s policy, there are freeholders who have not lived up to their responsibilities. That is why the Government eventually realised they could not carry on, because otherwise ACM cladding would not be removed.

On 9 May last year, the Government announced the £200 million fund to support the removal of ACM, to protect those leaseholders from bearing the cost. There have been problems with that fund—slow disbursement, bureaucracy and the like—that are for another debate, but I welcome that decision. It showed unreservedly that the Government were determined to uphold the principle they had established: leaseholders should not have to pay. However, what is now happening in respect of buildings with other types of unsafe cladding completely contradicts the principled position that the Government have taken until this point.

Why is this happening? First, the Secretary of State said on 20 January that he had received advice that ACM cladding was much more dangerous than other types of cladding. Anyone who has seen the film of student accommodation in Bolton going up, convulsed in flames, might wonder whether that is the case, since that building was covered in high pressure laminate. It was the Government’s review that brought in the new advice, and that advice toughened the standards, leading to other buildings being peered at, prodded and having bits taken off them when people discovered the problems with HPL and other systems. Nobody knows how many such buildings there may be, but the point is that leaseholders in buildings with other types of cladding find themselves in exactly the same position as people who are living in buildings with ACM cladding, except for one thing: the Government’s fund does not cover the removal of their cladding.

Secondly, the idea of differential risk is not applied by the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. It does not distinguish between different types of cladding when it issues notices that say, “This building is unsafe. Start a waking watch now, or you are going to have to move out. Give us a plan for how you are going to replace this cladding.” The chief fire officer of West Yorkshire fire service put it to me this Monday that

“it is our view that there is no difference between unsafe ACM cladding and unsafe HPL cladding.”

Why, then, are the Government seeking to distinguish between the two when it comes to the position of leaseholders? I say to the Minister that that position is completely unsustainable.

Thirdly, Ministers have rightly been adamant that unsafe cladding has to be removed. They have set up the fund and said that they are going to name and shame freeholders who do not get on and do it. The latest building safety data says that 174 ACM-clad private-sector residential buildings are still yet to be remediated. What is those Ministers’ position on other types of dangerously clad buildings? Are the owners of those blocks going to be named and shamed—and if not, why not?

When the Secretary of State was pressed on that point in the House on 20 January, he indicated that the Government were considering further help. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), he talked about the possibility of loans. If those loans went to the freeholders, that might possibly be a way forward, but only if the Government could guarantee that none of the costs would be passed on to the leaseholders; if they just got a bill for it through their service charge, that would breach the principle that the Government set out. However, it was clear from the Secretary of State’s reply to my hon. Friend that he was talking about loans to leaseholders, because he referred to existing examples of building owners who have provided low-interest or zero-interest loans on a hardship basis. He went on to say:

“There may be a role for the Government in ensuring that that works, that the loans are affordable, and that it is done as quickly as possible.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 33.]

However, that would be another change of policy, because on 9 May last year, when the then Secretary of State announced the grant fund, he was specifically asked about loans. He said:

“We looked at questions such as whether a loan arrangement could work but ultimately, given the complexity, the time that would have been involved and the need for all sorts of different consents, and given that my priority is providing a sense of assurance for leaseholders and getting on with this, we decided to adopt this structure.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 695.]

By “this structure”, he meant grants. If that was the view then, what has changed? Perhaps the Minister can explain in her response. When the Secretary of State talked about hardship, when leaseholders are on low incomes or do not have any savings, the implication was clearly that if a person does not fall into one of those two categories, they will bear the total cost themselves.

The problem with the idea of loans is that it completely breaches the principle that the Government set out at the start of this crisis—and believe me, it is a crisis. That principle was that leaseholders living in buildings with unsafe cladding should not have to pay for the cost of its removal, because that would create two classes of leaseholder: one whom the Government would seek to protect from the cost of replacing cladding, and another to whom the Government would say, “I’m terribly sorry, you’ve got to pay.” That would be completely unfair, which is why many of us are calling on Ministers to extend the coverage and size of the fund to all buildings with unsafe cladding of whatever type. We have already heard those calls today, and I am calling for that as well, because it is the only fair way forward and the only way in which the objective of removing all dangerous cladding, with which we all agree, can be achieved.

Unless that happens, in situations where freeholders cannot or do not find the money and leaseholders clearly do not have the money, the nightmare will continue. They will go on living in an unsafe building; the only way they will be able to stay in it will be to go on and on paying for a waking watch, as the cladding will never be removed because there is no one to pay for it. Eventually, that will bankrupt them.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the case he has set out. Residents of the Lumiere building, in Manor Park in my constituency, tell me that there is ACM cladding on the front side of the building and other kinds of dangerous cladding on the other three sides. Does it not seem particularly absurd that Government funding can help with one part of the building, but not the rest?

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend makes an overwhelmingly powerful case for treating all unsafe cladding as unsafe and needing to be replaced.

The Minister has a tough job, because negotiations with the Treasury are difficult and there are complications. Was building control at fault originally? Can freeholders claim on insurance or building warranties? Can they sue the architects or developers for defects in the original design or construction, assuming there is still someone to sue? Perhaps, but that will take years, and it is not an answer.

I say readily, however, that if a claim is successful and the Government have paid to remove the cladding, the money ought to go back to the Government. I also have no problem with the Government taking equity in the freehold of buildings if they have coughed up for the removal of cladding. What more can the Government do about buildings that have not yet been identified as unsafe but where mortgage companies are asking for a certificate? The EWS1 form has not solved all the problems, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what more can be done.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because many hon. Members want to speak. I see no case for Ministers to move away from the principle they established at the start of the crisis: that leaseholders should not have to pay. I see no case for treating one group of leaseholders differently from another. I see no way for all the dangerous cladding to be replaced other than for the Government to step in and extend the coverage of their fund to all types of blocks that the fire service has identified as unsafe. That is what is needed and it is needed urgently.

All leaseholders on whose behalf we speak today, whose lives are in turmoil, will be watching very carefully to see how the Minister responds. They are not going anywhere—indeed they cannot, because they are trapped in their homes. All they are asking for is to be able to put this nightmare behind them, to go back to living in a safe home and to get on with their lives. Every single hon. Member in this Chamber has a responsibility to ensure that that is what happens, and happens soon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

That will be addressed in three minutes by Sir Robert Neill.

14:49

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing the debate. I agree with the thrust of what he said.

The residents of Northpoint in Bromley find themselves caught in a similar position. They have ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding but, like many blocks, a combination of cladding is used in the system, so they have HPL—high pressure laminate—cladding as well. They need clarity that all the remediation and removal costs will be met.

Whatever the Government’s intentions, which I accept were good, the process is continues to prove costly and bureaucratic. There are still delays. It has been many months since the residents were told that they had the problem, but they have still not been able to access the funds. They are having to fork out for surveys, even though their flats are effectively valueless anyway. They cannot raise any further equity against them, because there is no equity any more; they cannot remortgage or raise any other kind of loan against them.

At the same time, the residents of the block of flats have been obliged to fork out for the costs of a waking watch. So far, by requirement of the fire brigade, they have had to fork out nearly £120,000 between them for the waking watch and fire alarm system, and they have had to find that from sources other than the equity of their properties. That is putting people under massive strain.

In consequence, people’s health is being affected, because they are paying £11,000 a month. There is no sign of that ending, because it is taking so long to get any clarity as to whether they qualify—I hope to God that they will. On the face of it, stone bonk, they should, but it is taking so long and every month is another £11,000. We need to speed up the process and make sure that the inevitable costs of the waking watch and alarms are met, because they flow directly from the unsafeness of the cladding. They would not have them otherwise.

It is essential for all systems that involve dangerous cladding, whether ACM or HPL, to be clearly and manifestly brought within the scope of scheme. I hope that the position around insurance will also be considered, because the residents’ premiums have increased massively. The solution must surely be a grant; a loan does not seem appropriate. In many cases, the freeholders would have a legal entitlement in their freehold agreements with the leaseholders to recover costs from the leaseholders, so we have to get the grant to the freeholders to be sure that they are not out of pocket. They are the innocent victims.

I know that the Minister understands the complexity of the issue and that the Government want to do the right thing. Previous Secretaries of State were clear, but there is a real risk that the good intentions that were set out at the beginning are getting lost in a mire of bureaucracy. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those specific points and on how we could cut through and speed up the process.

14:49

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing this important debate and on his comprehensive overview of the problem.

In my constituency alone, more than 20 privately owned buildings across seven developments were found to have ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding. Far from meeting the Government’s target of remediating them all by June this year, work has been completed on only one, Babbage Point. Although work is well under way at two other sites, New Capital Quay and Greenwich Square, it has not even begun on the remaining four, not least because of the difficulties with the application process for the private sector remediation fund.

When it comes to cost, in two cases—City Peninsula and the Greenwich Millennium Village—the developers have done the right thing and committed to covering the full cost of the remedial works and the required interim fire safety measures. In the case of New Capital Quay, leaseholders are being fully protected from those costs because the National House Building Council accepted a claim to pay the cost in full following an investigation.

Those in other blocks, however, have not been so fortunate. At Babbage Point, the original contractor and building owner, Durkan, has strenuously avoided committing to covering the cost of the completed remedial works should its application to the fund be unsuccessful. It has passed on the full cost of 23 months of waking watch, which has been in place for so long only because it dragged its feet.

As we have heard, the cladding crisis now extends far beyond ACM cladding. My local authority has identified at least 24 buildings, and counting, with a type of HPL—high pressure laminate—cladding where leaseholders are likely to find themselves in protracted legal disputes between building owners and the original contractor. There are an unknown number of buildings that have serious issues with defective fire stopping and compartmentalisation, as in the Barratt Homes-constructed Royal Artillery Quays development. Again, leaseholders there are at risk of being hit with significant costs.

There are also an untold number of leaseholders in scores of local developments unable to sell their homes or remortgage because of the unintended impact of the guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Minister should know that, although the EWS1 process has worked in some cases, in many others it has not. I have cases where large mortgage providers have rejected the form outright and others where forms cannot even be issued because of a lack of indemnity insurance coverage.

It is clear that the steps taken to date have not even begun to address that set of interconnected problems. It is perhaps understandable that Ministers and their officials might be overwhelmed by a crisis that continues to grow in scale and complexity, and baulk at the potentially colossal drain on the public purse, but this crisis is not going to disappear. As we have said time and again, the Government have a responsibility to act decisively to fix it. Ministers must start by going beyond moral suasion and compel developers to do the right thing. In cases where that does not work, they must step in to expand the scope and amount of funding to remediate where necessary, and oversee a nationally co-ordinated response, so that nearly three years after Grenfell, we can finally get a grip on the issue and protect leaseholders, as they were promised in the wake of that tragedy.

14:49

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have individuals in my constituency who have apartments and houses with cladding problems, some of which is ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding and some of which is not; I live in one that has an ACM problem, so I am close to the issue. The problem has been well articulated, and I totally agree with the comments and the explanation of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which were clear. In my three minutes, therefore, I will turn to some of the things that could and should be done differently. Clearly, it is about not just ACM cladding. The Government need to redefine what is covered, which must be everything that makes a building a fire risk.

The size of the pot is too small, as I can assure the Minister from personal experience. From personal experience, too, the portal is impossible to use, unless people have experts in IT and surveying in their leasehold community. The Government expect exhaustion of all other legal recourse, but that is expensive and timely, and most leaseholders have neither the pockets nor the ability. The Government ought to take over those claims so that, effectively, they give the money then take over the right to the claims against anyone they think they can make a claim against. The Government have appointed a regulator, which is brilliant, but we do not have the regulations. We are trying to comply with regulations, but we do not know what they are. They need to be expedited.

The timeline for the work to be done is far too short, which I know from personal experience. The block I am most familiar with has reached phase 2. We are required to give collateral warranties. While warranties are fairly standard, these are being given in favour of the Government, not of the leaseholders, which seems mad. Are the Government seeking to take a lien on the property? Such warranties are normally underpinned by insurance, but no insurance company will touch these with a bargepole. If the Government want this to work, they need to step in with an insurance solution. The state aid forms, which have already been referred to, are difficult and complex. That needs to be addressed. To expect every leasehold owner in every building to complete one is unrealistic.

The Government should step in with the banks, particularly for those with existing mortgages, where the banks are saying, “We will not allow you to borrow more, even at the same rate for this work”—even though it is my security that is being affected, which is the bank’s security. It makes no sense. At the very least, we should require the banks to lend the money to those who already have mortgages, for a start. Likewise, for insurers—insurers will not insure anything to do with cladding—the Government must step in and make it clear that it cannot be a valid exception or exclusion.

There is no point charging VAT, then the Government paying it out again. VAT should be taken off. We should also remember that suppliers in this market are growing in number and that is putting prices up, which needs to be fixed.

15:01

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who summarised what we would all have said, had he not covered it so thoroughly. I want to focus on the costs to individuals and ultimately to the taxpayer—if the Government implement a bailout—and to highlight the impact on many of my constituents.

It is fair to say that after the Grenfell fire, Hackney was relatively unscathed, despite having a large number of tower blocks, because aluminium composite material cladding affected a few blocks, but not many. However, the new rules have affected so many of my constituents.

I declare an interest, as I am a leaseholder myself. All my cladding is being removed and, happily, my developer is footing the entire bill, although no doubt my property is worth nothing at the moment. I argue not for myself but for the many constituents who are not in as fortunate a position as I am.

The costs mount up. There are the survey costs. Hackney Council has been given £88,000 for data collection, which has got to cover more than 200 council blocks. It is inadequate. There are survey costs for all building owners, which fall on the leaseholders. There is the cost of remedial work, some of which needs to happen immediately—for example, new fire alarms in individual flats and in corridors. That work has to happen before removing waking watch can even be considered, and we have heard about the costs of waking watch.

There are the hugely increased mortgage costs. One constituent tells me:

“I can neither re-mortgage or sell my flat. I am currently stuck paying a variable rate mortgage, and am paying £800 more a month than necessary.”

That is on top of the other costs around waking watch and so on.

Insurance costs have gone up for blocks around the country, which the excellent all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform heard about only a few weeks ago. That does not look like it is going away, and the Minister needs to look at that. Insurance companies should not just get away with this. The reality of the risk is probably not as high as their algorithm throws up, but it is punitive for residents. Shared owners are paying the whole cost, not just for the bit that they own, so there is a problem with the shared ownership model.

There are challenges in tracking down owners, and a shortage of skills for surveys and remedial work. Has the Migration Advisory Committee looked at the skills that are needed and whether they could be urgently rushed through, so that more people could be available to speed up the work, which is being done on a riskier buildings first basis?

Then there is the inability to get the paperwork. Some of the properties could get mortgages, but without the right certificate, they cannot, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central highlighted. There are too many mortgage prisoners.

The previous Secretary of State made a bold decision with the ministerial direction to set up the fund to deal with ACM cladding. This Government need to be equally bold. They must make sure that bad developers do not get away with it and, if they are considering loans, that loans are to the developer rather than the owner, because a loan increases the lack of mortgageability.

The certificate of safety would help a lot of my constituents, right here, right now. If the Minister could reassure us on that one issue alone today, that would help a lot of people right now, while we recognise that there are bigger challenges ahead.

15:04

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has been a powerful advocate today for many of my constituents. He said exactly what they and I feel. One of the first surgeries I held as a newly elected Member of Parliament was with some individuals who have been impacted by this issue, who feel that their lives have been destroyed. The Government need to be aware that I will not hold back in doing absolutely everything I can to fight for them. I will be a lion in fighting for their interests and I will not stop until their interests are looked after.

I echo some of the earlier points. Most of us can agree on two key points. The first is to go after the freeholders, not the leaseholders. In the block in Ipswich, St Francis Tower, with 116 flats over 17 storeys, the freeholder who put in the cladding is not the same as the current freeholder. The cladding is high pressure laminate, not aluminium composite material, but my constituents cannot understand why a type of cladding that was said to impose an intolerable risk to life after an inquiry is being treated in a different way to ACM cladding.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his passion for his constituents. Some constituents of mine own a leasehold property in that block in Ipswich. Is it not incredible that the cladding that my hon. Friend refers to is far more dangerous than the cladding used on Grenfell Tower?

[Tom Hunt]

Absolutely. I completely agree.

Communication from the block management company has been pretty poor, and has inflamed the anxiety and tension. Residents have received letters saying that they are required to pay between £21,000 and £24,000. The value of their properties has collapsed, and it is now at the stage where the amount they are being asked to pay is about one third of the value of the properties. The issue is hanging over them. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, they feel trapped.

I ask the Government to appreciate the position of my constituents. More than 100 constituents are affected in that block, and perhaps there are others. I ask the Government to take steps to make sure that the £200 million fund that was set up to support those who live in flats with ACM cladding is extended to provide support for my constituents. The cladding has exactly the same impact, and there is no logical reason why they should be treated any differently to those who live in properties with ACM cladding.

I repeat the key principles: we must go after the freeholders, not the leaseholders, and we must have fairness in the way that individuals are treated. I beg the Government to stand up for my constituents in the way that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has—and that I hope I have—today.

15:07

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. This is an extraordinary issue that is causing terrible problems to many constituents and I am sorry that I will not have the time in this debate to do their cases justice.

I am currently dealing with 31 separate cases, and counting. One of those cases involves representing 57 different constituents in a single block. One local housing provider has told residents they will fund just 20 fire risk assessments a year, in an area where it has more than 100 properties. When I say 100 properties, I do not mean 100 flats—I mean 100 blocks.

In so many cases, my constituents have been left trapped and powerless. Many do not know if their homes are safe. Many have been unable to sell or re-mortgage. Massively expensive retrofitting is often necessary but is not being carried out.

One constituent is living with his young daughter in a one-bed flat. He cannot sell or move somewhere more suitable because his block does not yet have a cladding report. Another constituent split with his partner and cannot re-mortgage to make good that separation. The current mortgage has expired, trapping the couple on a higher rate, and costing an exorbitant extra £450 a month. It is causing severe financial and emotional strain. Another constituent was told it could take five years to provide the cladding report.

Something is desperately and fundamentally wrong with the whole legal structure around the issue, and it is our job in this place to put it right. My speech today has not allowed me long enough to do justice to constituents’ cases; I hope they will forgive me. The Minister can see how many of us there are in this room. She knows the issues. Can she not make some time available for us to be able to debate this in a full-length debate on the Floor of the House?

I have talked about the problems with the practicalities, but my constituents live with the knowledge that the place they are trapped in, which costs them a fortune, might be a death trap. As a child who grew up in a flat in the shadow of Ronan Point, I know the impact of such fear on families. So I want to hear from the Minister today that the Government will intervene strongly to exorcise the spectre of the tragedy of Grenfell that constantly hangs over my constituents’ lives.

15:10

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing this debate. I associate myself with all the powerful arguments that he has made on behalf of his and indeed all of our constituents this afternoon.

I represent hundreds of people affected by the cladding issues, including in the Islington Gates development in the Jewellery Quarter area of my constituency. The 144-unit development has already had remedial work carried out. Residents pay for a waking watch and lighting upgrades, and at the moment structural fire resilience work is being carried out, including around fire compartmentalisation. The work is estimated to come in at a total of £1.5 million—about £5,000 per leaseholder—and that is before they get to the cladding removal. They are trapped by the same problem that many of our constituents have. They have non-ACM cladding, but it is just as dangerous, if not more so, than the ACM cladding that qualifies for Government relief. The bill for the removal of ACM cladding looks as though it will come in at about £5 million to £6 million, so each leaseholder faces a bill of about £40,000 to £50,000.

On the point about insurance, the premium for the building in the previous year was £36,000, but when residents came to renew they found their insurer would not renew the building on its own, so the residents had to go through a broker and a huge amount of stress, trouble and difficulty to find a consortium of five insurers willing to share the risk of insuring the building, and the premium has now come in at £190,000, a fivefold increase. It seems residents have received no credit for the fact that they have carried out a huge amount of remedial work already. No matter what people trapped in such buildings do, the insurance companies are running scared.

The Government could take action, as they have in areas affected by flooding, for example. We already have the good example of the Flood Re scheme. The Government should stand behind our leasehold constituents and force the insurance companies to act. It is unconscionable that such buildings might in the end be uninsurable without Government action. Our constituents are hit with a multiple whammy, where tens of thousands of flat dwellers are uninsured, unable to sell or re-mortgage, and unable to find the money to put their unsafe buildings right, and that has a huge impact on people. I will quote from a constituent’s email:

“Estimates are very loose at the moment but it is likely I will have to pay in the region of...£80,000 to £100,000. I can’t sleep, function or work. I try to be normal with my son but I can’t. I have a constant gut wrenching dread coursing through my blood stream each and every second. I want to cry.”

Real people with real lives are affected by a national calamity. It is morally imperative that the Government finally step up to the plate and act.

15:19

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I do not intend to go over the points he made, but I want to bring some details to the attention of the Minister and describe how the issue affects my constituents, because not only cities are affected; towns such as Runcorn in my constituency are also affected. I want to talk about the Decks development, which consists of six individual blocks of flats.

The Decks was built in 2007. Three blocks are seven-storey and three are six-storey, so they do not meet the definition of high-rise premises. They are clad in high-pressure laminate—HPL. I want the Minister to understand how that has affected my constituents. A building survey identified the following: sections of the external walls of each building are fitted with cladding that will support fire spread; there are cavities behind the cladding systems that do not have the required cavity barriers or fire stopping to prevent vertical and horizontal fire spread; the structural timber frame is exposed within the external wall cavities; the external wall cavity is open to the ground floor car park, permitting fire spread into it in the case of a car fire.

Specific fire safety concerns were raised: there is a risk of rapid fire spread over the external cladding of each building; a risk of rapid fire spread through the cavities behind the cladding; and a risk of fire spread from the car parks to the cladding systems and cavities. The car park cannot be used, so people cannot park their cars. There is also a risk of early structural collapse if the supporting timber frame, which I just referred to, is affected by fire, and a risk that the escape route could be compromised. There is a massive human cost. It is a nightmare and causes stress to the people living there.

Many of my constituents are in negative equity. The 266 homes are unsellable and not rentable. Constituents have been advised it will cost them around £30,000 per household to remedy the issue. They do not have that sort of money. They are worried they will be bankrupted and lose their homes and become homeless. It is through no fault of their own as they bought their homes in good faith according to the regulations that applied at the time.

It is important that the Government really tackle the issue, and they can do that only by setting up a fund to make the buildings safe and comply with the regulations now. Leaseholders are not to blame and should not bear the cost. My constituents should not be treated differently simply because the cladding is HPL.

15:19

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for securing this really important debate, which affects our constituents across the country.

In my short time as the MP for Vauxhall, I have been made acutely aware of how big a problem the issue is for leaseholders in privately rented and owned buildings. In just a couple of months I have had many cases brought to my attention by constituents who have been unable to sell or re-mortgage. Some have been unable to get the safety certificates that they need from their freeholders, and they pay really expensive service charges. The leaseholders feel trapped in their homes, unable to move, while facing the constant fear that the home where they live might catch fire. How can anybody sleep at night knowing that such a risk lies over their head? None of us could.

It is nearly three years since the Grenfell disaster alerted the whole country to the dangers of combustible cladding, and almost a year and a half since the Government banned ACM cladding on new high rises, so there has been plenty of time for remediation and to see plans put in place and the combustible cladding removed.

It is right that the Government have opened a £200 million fund for private sector blocks to remove cladding. To date, of the 56 tower blocks in London that fall within the scope of the funding, only 10 have submitted plans to get the initial costs covered, and none has submitted full cost plans. The fund is therefore not working. As a result, no money has been distributed to any of the buildings in scope in London nearly a year after the scheme started. We really need the Government to take urgent action to fix the funding system.

The Government can and should do things to help make the system fairer. They could provide technical support to block owners who are not used to dealing with large remediation projects. They are not building technicians or surveyors; they are residents living in their homes. Why do they have to deal with this? We could look at helping the people who struggle to get complex applications off the ground. Ultimately, if the Government have no trust in the private sector to make the leaseholders feel safe in their properties, they need to give local authorities the powers to confiscate the blocks and carry out the works themselves. I hope the Minister agrees that the matter is not one of ideology and us making complaints on behalf of our leaseholders. It is a matter of life and death for many of our leaseholders, so I urge the Government to fund the work properly.

15:19

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing the debate, and pay tribute to the work that he has done so far. I want to put on the record my co-chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and the fact that I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which brings its expertise to the all-party group and to the many people left high and dry as a result of the scandal.

Indeed, I wonder who people would have turned to if the LKP had not been there. It has heard, as we have, from many leaseholders up and down the country who have been placed in an impossible position—unable to pay for remedial work or obtain finance for it, and unable to sell their home until the work is done. They have been left stranded and effectively abandoned.

The debate may be technical and at times slightly legalistic, but at the heart of it are people such as those we have heard about today, who are looking for a bit of leadership and hope. There is clearly a tension between what the Government consider to be the moral case for not passing remediation costs on to leaseholders, and the legal position, by which freeholders may be entitled to recover costs from the leaseholder.

Although the Government’s pledges so far have to a significant extent removed the potential liability for some, there are still costs that can be visited on the leaseholder—and not just in relation to ACM cladding. There is a lack of clarity about other types of cladding and about who is responsible for the many waking watches that have now become necessary. At the moment there are serious doubts about whether the private fund is being utilised properly, or at all. Applications continue to be processed, but we do not know how much, if any, of the fund has been spent. Crucially, we do not know what will happen to those sites where no application has been made at all.

It should be clear that the longer it takes to resolve the issues, the more innocent leaseholders will have to pay out to fund the waking watches. That means thousands of pounds, needlessly spent, that they will probably never get back. Statements from Ministers are not enough. Talk about morality is not enough. Saying that there is a strong expectation on freeholders to put matters right is not enough. There is a lottery at the moment. Depending on the insurance company, the freeholder, the developer, the terms of the lease and the type of cladding involved, any outcome is possible. It seems to me, and probably to most people in the Chamber, that in the absence of someone stepping forward to put matters right, if a property was built in accordance with the regulations at the time, but is now considered unsafe, that must ultimately be the responsibility of the Government.

My all-party parliamentary group co-chair is the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who unfortunately cannot be with us today. He joins me in that analysis and says:

“We have been grateful for the initiative of the Select Committee and we ask them to hold hearings—leaseholders’ voices must be heard. Government and parliament have imminent work to do. That is the way to justice. See the evil. Do good. Recognise the people speaking through the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.”

We need to hear those leaseholders’ voices. The LKP recently did a survey of 117 different sites where people are affected by the issues, and the findings are stark: 90% of people surveyed said that the Government had provided “No help at all”. That has to change, and very soon.

15:22

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Time is short, and other hon. Members have covered many of the issues that I wanted to raise—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who dealt with the overall issues so well. I just want to say a little about some examples I have encountered.

A man who came to my surgery lives in a relatively new block. He has got a job in Scotland and therefore needed to move from west London, and wanted to sell his flat. He discovered that the people he was going to sell to could not get a mortgage. He has been waiting for months, to-ing and fro-ing between the builders, solicitors and mortgage company to try to find out why there is a delay, because until he gets things sorted out his life is on hold. It appears that the block does not have ACM, but possibly HPL—he is not getting straight answers.

Secondly, the Paragon development jointly built by Berkeley First and Notting Hill housing association some years ago was featured in Private Eye. After many years in which the residents faced damp, Notting Hill Genesis opened up the cavities behind the walls and found a range of problems, including lack of horizontal and vertical barriers—something that other hon. Members have mentioned—and cladding problems in particular. What is worse is that the scaffolding went up over a year ago, and work stopped not long afterwards. Two building companies have gone bust. The residents—the leaseholders; they are shared owners—have been living with their flats exposed to the elements, apart from a sheet of wood, for months. There are also the security issues of having scaffolding outside the windows. There are 700 students living in the other blocks on that estate, who, given the fire in the student block in Bolton, face the same fear.

Finally, there is a large development in my constituency, built by a volume house builder, and three or four of the blocks were transferred under a long lease, or a head lease, to a housing association. It now turns out that the cladding on those blocks is dubious, and possibly ACM. The shared owners and social rent tenants living in those blocks live in fear and uncertainty. The buck is continually passed between the housing association and the developer whose responsibility it is to pay for the problem.

I concur with many of my colleagues here today. The Government must take responsibility for the problem that existed in the first place—the building regulations and the fire regulations that were inadequate, despite warnings from previous fires. Think of the residents, who not only face the costs and cannot sell and move on, but who live in fear that they could be the victims of the next fire.

15:25

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and all those from across the country who have spoken in the debate to show what strength of feeling there is. I want to join them, to represent my many constituents who feel just as strongly. Their lives are a misery because of the situation—surely an unforeseen result from a fund that is meant to save lives and to be a good thing for people across the country. Actually it has led to dreadful circumstances for residents.

To add to the stories we have heard, I will mention the leaseholders of 66 and 200 flats respectively at two buildings in my constituency—the Swish building and the Riverside Quarter. They have been told by their freeholder that the cladding and other fire safety measures in the building—the cladding is either not ACM, or it is a mixture between ACM and HPL—do not now meet the standard that the Government regard as adequate for the issue of a fire safety certificate, and that recladding is needed. To their horror, they have been told that they need to foot the bill for the work, which comes to tens of thousands of pounds. They have not been told exactly how much the cost is, but they believe it is between £50,000 and £80,000 per flat.

That raises a few issues, the first of which is safety. If the current cladding does not meet the safety requirements for a safety certificate, are the blocks safe? As we have heard today, different blocks are being treated differently. The fire regulations are not up to scratch. Another issue is fairness. To make leaseholders foot the bill is outrageous. They are not multi-million pound landlords, by any stretch. They are normal people trying to live their lives, and they do not have £50,000 lying around. The situation is taking a huge emotional toll.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the unfair cost to leaseholders, which we have all highlighted. Does she agree that, as the taxpayer could ultimately foot the bill, we should make sure that dodgy developers, or those who will not step up to the mark, do not get away with a situation where the taxpayer bails people out just because they will not pay?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. There has to be a way to make the fund easy to use and urgently accessible, so that it is not held up for a long time in red tape, and the right people have to foot the bill. I argue that the Government need to extend the cladding fund to all types of unsafe cladding. That is what it is there for.

As to the emotional toll, one person said:

“The net result for me is that I will lose my home, as I cannot sell it, or raise a mortgage to finance repairs because it is unsellable and I am unemployed, and therefore will lose my lease.”

He will become homeless as a result. Another resident told me that his flat is unsaleable and effectively worthless. It was bought in 2004 in good faith in the belief that it was a safe home. The fact that it is now considered to have the problems in question is not of his making:

“We cannot afford to pay a sum of this size on top of the existing service charge”.

In summary, I am as shocked as everyone else here. I hope that the Minister will urgently tell us some good news. Three years after Grenfell, my constituents are being asked to fork out huge sums of money for a building that ultimately they do not own—a point that relates back to the leaseholder crisis. No leaseholder should have to pay for the work in question, or experience such huge stress and uncertainty. An urgent response is needed. I join those who are asking for the cladding fund to be urgently extended to all forms of unsafe cladding.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their collective discipline in time management, which has given us just over half an hour for the Front-Bench speakers.

15:29

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate you on your expert chairing of the debate, which has allowed many Members to have their say. I will try to limit my comments so that Members can intervene on the Minister, if required.

I approach the debate from a slightly different angle, because we do not have the leaseholder/freeholder issue in Scotland, although we have continuing issues with cladding. We also have issues over which the UK Government have had an influence but have not had the best communication with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government have ended up with a problem not of their making that they are struggling to put right. Finance and insurance are obviously reserved to Westminster, and the Scottish Government have limited influence on the actions of mortgage companies, banks and insurers.

I turn first to advice note 14, which pertains to fire safety in buildings post Grenfell. It was introduced following very limited consultation with the Scottish Government, which means mortgage lenders now insist that cladded properties over 18 metres high have specific documentation to evidence how well they comply with safety standards. Most properties built in Scotland in the past five years comply with the safety standards set out by the Scottish Government. Our fire standards and building regs are better and more comprehensive than those in England, so we do not have a problem of the scale that right hon. and hon. Members have identified. Without the requisite certification, however, people cannot meet the new standards now being imposed by lenders. As a result, surveyors who have been instructed to compile home reports—it is a routine exercise when properties are sold or remortgaged in Scotland—have found that they have been imposed with nil valuations.

Constituents across the country, including many in my constituency of Glasgow Central, have spoken in terms similar to those used by right hon. and hon. Members: about not being able to sell their properties or to remortgage. As right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, in some cases house sales have fallen through, leaving residents out of pocket.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) described how somebody could not take up a job. I know of somebody who had arranged to move to Poland with his Polish wife, but their house sale fell through at the last minute. All the arrangements had been made to move to Poland, but they now cannot sell their home and are stuck. Despite the vast majority of properties being certified by council building control departments, many surveyors refuse to commit to a valuation without seeing specific certification on the cladding.

In response, the Scottish Government have written to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government four times: on 18 October, 8 November, 19 December and again on 27 January. As far as I am aware, that correspondence has not yet been formally responded to, which is completely unacceptable. I hope the Minister will address this issue, if she can. The correspondence from the Scottish Government underlined their willingness to work in collaboration to find a suitable solution that works for the particular set of circumstances in Scotland, but we do not seem to have got very far. The Scottish Government have highlighted that, although they appreciate that MHCLG has introduced the EWS1 form to bring about a resolution, it relies in some respects on a tenure system that does not exist in Scotland. That needs to be addressed.

My constituents have raised their concerns about a number of properties in Glasgow Central, including Lancefield Quay, which was built in phases and has different issues across those phases. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about having different types of cladding on a single building, which highlights that the whole building, rather than just one type of cladding, needs to be considered.

My constituent Lisa Jamie Murray has been working incredibly hard to highlight the situation at the Templeton Building next to Glasgow green, because there is non-compliant ACM on the top two floors alone. As far as I am aware, it was compliant at the time of construction and conformed to the regs in place when the building warrant was obtained, but it seems that some of these things have been missed over time. There has also been a change to the building, which means that there is essentially a line of cladding up its side that would act almost as a chimney. If there were a fire at the bottom of the building, it would scoot up the outside of the building and on to the top, which is terrifying.

It has been incredibly difficult for the residents of the building to ascertain who is responsible for the cladding. Is it the original developer, or somebody who made the changes in between times? Do the residents now have to take this up and face the costs that right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned? It is incredibly difficult to make sure that we can reach a solution. It is very important, particularly because this is based at Glasgow green and there are lots of events there; it is a very busy part Glasgow.

I turn to some of the issues raised by advice note 14. Right hon. and hon. Members have hinted at some of the issues with inspections needing to be carried out by a qualified certificated body, and there are capacity issues in the industry. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned, perhaps we need to consider bringing more experts into the country to address that. We could make adjustments to immigration as well, because the industry does not have the people to do this. Time is pressing and money is a factor, and we need to find a way to reach that point.

The new consulted advice note, issued in January, introduced a fundamental change because it applies to all multi-storey and multi-occupied buildings, including those under 18 metres, which brings a whole load of extra buildings into scope. Inside Housing highlights the increased burden, saying:

“Compliance with the advice note and recovering costs both require expert evidence from a limited pool of fire engineers and forensic architects, and place an additional administrative and financial burden on building owners.”

What is the Minister doing to meet the challenge? Without the adequate people to do that, we will be waiting for a long time.

Listening to residents is fundamentally important. Dame Judith Hackitt mentioned that the Scottish Government have listened well to residents in order to forge their response. The Scottish Government’s Fire Safety Committee is still meeting and taking on concerns. I ask the Minister to listen closely to MPs and residents right across the country, and to bring a response that meets those needs. It is clear that the fund being set up is far from adequate. It is far from being wide enough in what it encompasses, and the Minister needs to consider expanding it very soon so that people can get on with the work.

Lastly, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who called for a VAT exemption. I have asked for a VAT exemption on multiple occasions in the Chamber. The Budget is coming up, and there is an opportunity to remove VAT from sprinkler systems, cladding and house repair systems. If the Government were to do that, it would be a huge help to people who want to get work done quickly.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

We now have the pleasure of listening to my old friend from Croydon Central, Sarah Jones.

3.37 pm

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing what is clearly an incredibly important debate. We could spend many hours talking about leaseholders and cladding, which reflects the scale of the problem right across the country.

As right hon. and hon. Members would expect, I spend quite a lot of time talking to leaseholders, whether through the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership or the UK Cladding Action Group. I have had the privilege of talking to many of them about some of the issues they face. As has been articulated so well, these are lives that have been turned upside down completely due to issues for which they bear no fault. What they bear is the cost, anxiety and stress. Their lives are on hold, and it is incredibly upsetting for everyone who has been involved.

It has been nearly a thousand days since the Grenfell Tower fire, and since then we have had two Prime Ministers, three Secretaries of State and four Housing Ministers—everything but a partridge in a pear tree. We might have another reshuffle tomorrow. Hopefully we will not, because we want the Ministers and the Secretary of State to stay and fix some of the problems.

Most of the issues have been explained well in the debate, so I will focus on some particular questions to the Minister. If she does not have time to answer them all today, it would be great if she could write back to us. My first point is about the remediation of ACM cladding, which has been talked about a lot. We know that nine in 10 private blocks with Grenfell-style cladding are still covered with such cladding.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

There are still several blocks with flammable ACM cladding. My constituents at Sesame Apartments in Battersea are still living in a building that is wrapped in unsafe cladding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should give us some definitive deadlines for when those private blocks will be made safe?

[Sarah Jones]

I completely agree.

We know that 75 private block owners do not even have a plan in place to remove this cladding. Will the Minister confirm that, as the Secretary of State promised on 20 January, the Government will name all block owners who fail to put a plan in place by the end of January? Will she publish those names in tomorrow’s building safety update?

The Government’s £200 million fund for ACM removal on private blocks is nine months old, yet just a single block has so far been accepted for funds, and none has been made safe as a result of the fund. Labour has for years called on the Government to legislate to ensure that building owners cannot pass costs on to innocent leaseholders. Even with the £200 million fund, leaseholders are still exposed to risk, because state aid rules mean that fund payments are capped at €200,000 per property.

As the Mayor of London and the National Housing Federation said, the fact that the fund covers only ACM cladding creates a two-tier system. Will the Minister explain what protections she is putting in place to ensure that leaseholders are not handed the bill in the event that remediation costs exceed the state aid cap? What is she doing to protect leaseholds in blocks with other forms of dangerous cladding from being unfairly passed those costs?

Research from Labour revealed last year that up to 600,000 people are now stuck in unsellable flats because of flawed Government guidance relating to advice note 14, which is compounded by the failure to publish the Government’s tests into suspect non-ACM cladding. In recent weeks, new advice has been issued, and a new form from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—the EWS1 form—for buildings whose cladding status is uncertain. In spite of those changes, in the past few days I, like others, have dealt with constituents who have been able to complete their sale. One constituent is facing major delays and bills over the work that she has been told needs to be done. Will the Minister give some clarity on how many sales are still being held up, how many EWS1 forms have successfully been signed off, and what the Government are doing to ensure that leaseholders are not being ripped off for those forms?

Interim measures such as waking watch, which other hon. Members have mentioned, were put in place after Grenfell as a very temporary measure before remediation works were undertaken. However, nearly 1,000 days on, leaseholders are still paying exorbitant costs—thousands of pounds per year—as a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to hold building owners to account and make their blocks safe. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that leaseholders who cannot afford to continue paying the costs are supported?

On non-ACM and data collection, ACM is the tip of the iceberg. High-pressure laminate and other forms of cladding are just as dangerous and should be removed. However, two years on, Ministers have failed to audit residential blocks, so we still do not know how many blocks are covered in HPL or other types of potentially lethal cladding. Ministers promised that that work would be completed by March this year, but an Inside Housing investigation report revealed that 70% of blocks remain uninspected, meaning that it is virtually impossible to reach that deadline. It is ridiculous that the Government have often shifted their deadline on publication of the non-ACM test results. Will the Minister today commit to a date for the publication of the tests, or explain to us the reason for the delay?

[Meg Hillier]

Does not the delay in getting the data in speak to the lack of expertise available? I spoke to one of my housing associations at the end of last week, and it is having to assess its buildings in risk order. Many people in not so risky buildings will never get the work done to get the necessary paperwork—the data—to get a mortgage, which is also important for the property owners.

[Sarah Jones]

That is absolutely correct. There is a whole raft of areas in which different evidence is gathered and different work needs to be done. There are questions about all those things. We do not know whether the people doing waking watch are doing it properly and are properly trained. We are spending money on things that we are not sure about. The lack of people doing those jobs is an important issue.

The announcement on 20 December that the height limit for removing ACM had shifted from 18 metres to 11 metres means that there are potentially thousands more blocks implicated in the cladding scandal than originally thought. That means that tens of thousands more leaseholders, who previously thought their blocks were safe, have now discovered that work needs to be done and that the Government do not deem their building safe. Additional safety requirements are welcome, but when it comes to building safety, it is unclear why the Government took two and a half years to decide that buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres were equally unsafe. Will the Minister clarify why they took so long to determine that blocks of that height should also have their cladding removed? Does the Department know how many residential blocks of between 11 metres and 18 metres exist across the country? How many are covered in Grenfell-style cladding? If the Government do not know how many blocks are covered, is there a plan in place to collect and publish that information, as has been done with blocks of 18 metres and above?

For two and a half years, we have had a merry-go-round of buck passing, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are suffering as a result. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State was not asked about this more when he was doing the media rounds at the weekend, and that we have not seen more action. It is also disappointing that the Government are not engaging with leaseholders. A meeting in London was recently organised by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and 100 leaseholders were there. They were asked whether they have had regular engagement with Ministers, and not a single hand went up. We need to talk to people so we can understand the issues that they are facing.

If the Government are serious about the claims and pledges they made in the days and weeks following the Grenfell Tower fire, about their role in keeping people safe, about their commitment to homeowners, and about the principle that leaseholders should not be paying, it is time to act. I know this is difficult. It is a very big problem, and it will be very complicated to solve. If the Government act and do the right thing, the Opposition would thank them very much for doing so.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I now invite the Minister to answer all those questions. She has about 12 minutes, and perhaps she can allow a minute or so for Hilary Benn at the end.

15:46

[The Minister for Housing (Esther McVey)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall, and all the Members who have attended. This debate has shown MPs at their very best, bringing issues, cases, concerns and dilemmas to the Chamber and expressing what needs to be said here on behalf of their constituents. Members on both sides of the House want to be here to voice those concerns.

We all know that this issue causes much stress and anguish to residents. How do we support everybody? People can appreciate that issues are evolving as time goes on. We also understand that it is not the fault of the leaseholders who bought their homes that things have happened. We all understand that anybody could be one of those leaseholders; this is happening to so many. I praise what MPs are doing today in bringing this issue forward.

[Dr Offord]

Some of my constituents purchased properties under Help to Buy, so the Government certainly have a claim in this. How much of that responsibility will fall on the Treasury?

[Esther McVey]

That is a very well made point. In January, the Secretary of State said that we are currently considering options with the Treasury on the support that can go to leaseholders. Those are obviously ongoing conversations and negotiations, and I can go no further than that today.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I understand that, but the Minister will understand that people at Northpoint are forking out £11,000 for every month that the conversations go on. They have to be brought to an end, and something must happen soon.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As I said, MPs from both side of the House are raising these issues. The fire risk of tall buildings with cladding was brought to everybody’s attention after the terrible tragedy of Grenfell Tower. It had not been brought to people’s attention before.

[Ruth Cadbury]

With the deepest respect to the Minister, these issues were raised and recommendations made to the Government at the inquests into both the Lakanal House fire in south London, which took the lives of six residents, and the fire in Southampton, which took the lives of firefighters. Grenfell would not have happened had the recommended building standards been put place.

[Esther McVey]

The Government took immediate action straight after the report. The actions that we took included a comprehensive independent review of building safety, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we have accepted all the recommendations of her independent review. We will continue to bring forward legislation to deliver an enhanced safety regime for high-rise residential buildings. As we announced last month, we will begin immediately to establish the new building safety regulator—initially in shadow form, pending legislation—which Dame Judith will chair, to oversee the transition to the new regime.

[Meg Hillier]

The Minister has paid tribute to MPs for doing their best and for showing the best of MPs. What we hoped for was the best of the Minister, doing the best by our constituents. Although we recognise the action that the Government took after the Grenfell fire, our residents need some assurance and action, so they know that they will not have to wait years for the issue to be resolved. Can she give our constituents any comfort today?

[Esther McVey]

I started my speech with the Secretary of State’s remarks about what we are doing, the actions that we have taken, and how we will deliver going forward. I want to ensure that people understand the rigorous work of the expert panel and the advice that we are taking from it. That work is checked and verified, and we are taking it forward at the right pace. Of course, we are here to discuss those issues, which are being dealt with—negotiations are ongoing. What the issue absolutely impresses upon us is how important it is that things are done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.

[Paul Blomfield]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, I wrote to the Secretary of State about HPL cladding after the Bolton fire. After two months, I had received no response. I raised it with him on the Floor of the House and he promised me an early response on 20 January, which I still have not received. Will the Minister give us some assurance about when the work on the risks of HPL cladding will conclude? Do the Government recognise that ACM cladding, about which colleagues on both sides of the House have raised concerns, presents exactly the same issues as HPL?

[Esther McVey]

I will take that message back to the Department and see what happened with the correspondence from the Secretary of State. I know that the Department replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on 6 February, so if she has not already got it, it will be with her shortly.

[Paul Blomfield]

Can the Minister say when that work will be completed?

[Esther McVey]

I will go through exactly what we have done and how we have done it, and note the significant steps that we have taken, including the provision of £600 million to support people and the further work led by an expert panel. We have accepted all the recommendations from the independent review, and are going forward at a rigorous pace, which we can do, obviously, once we have had all those negotiations with the Treasury.

In December 2018, we banned the use of combustible materials in external walls of new high-rise buildings and, after implementing the ban, we checked its effectiveness. In January, we launched a consultation on the ban, which went further and asked whether the limit should be lowered from 18 metres to 11 metres. The Government also announced the fire safety Bill, and the associated regulatory changes, to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report.

[Ms Lyn Brown]

I thank the Minister for the extensive detail that she is giving, but will she address the gentle point that I made? Even if the Minister had another five minutes, that would not be enough to address all the issues, many of which have not been raised simply because of a lack of time. Will the Government consider giving us a proper full-length debate in the main Chamber so that we can better express ourselves and hear more comprehensively from the Minister?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need more time to discuss the matter—this is only a 90-minute debate—and the number of hon. Members who are here shows that. Not only should we have that debate, but we should come together to raise those points and work in a constructive fashion. The hon. Lady is quite right; 90 minutes is not long enough. We also need to, and we will, write back to the hon. Members present, because I cannot give a comprehensive response to everybody in the time that I have.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I take the Minister’s point about ensuring that we all get to express ourselves so she can hear our concerns. It is glaringly obvious from much of the engagement that leaseholders do not believe that they are being listened to or heard by Ministers. Will the Minister commit to meeting leaseholders and some of my constituents so that she can hear at first hand their concerns about their homes being wrapped in unsafe cladding?

[Esther McVey]

The Department has met leaseholders, and we have received and replied to letters from leaseholders. The hon. Lady is right: we have to have a bigger consultation and ensure that we meet leaseholders. Yesterday, Lord Younger met a group, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. It is imperative that we hear from the people who are most affected, and I absolutely agree that we should.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

Time is short—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central might like a minute or so at the end—but I will take any further interventions.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the Minister tell us whether she has spoken to—or will speak to—the Migration Advisory Committee about ensuring that we have the right skills to do the work properly and quickly?

[Esther McVey]

It is absolutely imperative that we have people with the right skills who are able to do the job straight away.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we need to hear more not just about how great it is that we have all come to discuss these things, but about concrete actions? Some of my constituents in Ilford South, including the 100 people in Raphael House, have mental health issues and problems planning their futures and getting their kids into schools, because freeholders essentially have them over a barrel. The time has come to stop the platitudes and take some action.

[Esther McVey]

The Government took the unprecedented step of bringing forward £600 million to support the people whom the expert panel said were in the most dangerous buildings with ACM cladding. I started my speech with the words of the Secretary of State, who spoke about how we can ensure that we have the right support at the right place and at the right time. From the very start, we have taken the advice of experts in the field to ensure that we are supporting the leaseholders.

15:59

[Hilary Benn]

I thank all colleagues for the force and clarity of their arguments. It is no good pretending that the leaseholders listening to the debate will not be very disappointed by the response that they have heard. I hope that the Minister will go back to the conversations with the Treasury and say, “Blimey, we’re in a bit of a mess here—MPs on all sides of the House are not going to go away,” because we will be back. The Budget is coming up, and I hope that on that day, we will hear what the Government will do to ensure that leaseholders do not have to pay.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Support for Hill Farmers

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

16:00

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for hill farmers.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship and to be guided by you today, Mr Bone. It is also a real honour to be asked to speak on a subject that is of massive importance to my constituents and to people across the country.

South Cumbria’s landscape is spectacular. Much of it is within the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, and pretty much all of it has been maintained over generations by our hill farmers. The UK’s uplands are vital to us all, yet they are generally exposed and remote. Furthermore, upland farms are disadvantaged compared with lowland ones due to a shorter grass growing season. Hill farming is therefore often a marginal occupation. My fear is that the unintended consequences of transition to new payment methods and new export arrangements could push hundreds of marginal upland farms out of business. In this debate, I want to help the Government to get this transition right, so that our hill farmers do not pay an unbearable cost and so that Britain does not lose a priceless asset.

I speak regularly to hill farmers in our communities in Cumbria. Many of them are terrified of what is to come and do not have confidence in the Government plans revealed thus far. Right now, their No. 1 concern is the plan to phase out the basic payment scheme from next January, before the environmental land management system is ready to be delivered. The figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tell us that an average of 85% of livestock farm incomes come from the basic payment.

Despite regular calls from the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and others to think again, the Government have not listened so far. A ham-fisted phasing out of the basic payment may see farm failures across the country, especially in the uplands. The stark reality is that the phase-out of the basic payment begins in 10.5 months’ time, but environmental land management schemes will not be available for everyone until 2028. Rolling out schemes before they are ready can have a catastrophic impact. The lesson of universal credit should have taught the Government that.

We have already had the first predictable evidence of slippage in the timetable. The plan to test a national pilot scheme for ELMS this year has already been pushed back to the autumn, yet the Government insists on ploughing ahead with the phase-out before anyone is ready, least of all the Government themselves. Removing the existing support before the new system is properly tested and ready to implement seems reckless and will surely cost many hill farmers their businesses, and many farming families their future.

Projections prepared by the Uplands Alliance using DEFRA’s farm business survey data from the Andersons Centre consultancy suggest significant reductions in farm business incomes by 2024, and further show a net loss of income to the average farm in 2028, even assuming that ELMS is fully rolled out by that stage. Put simply, the Government are asking hill farmers to endure seven years of lost income, seven years of uncertainty, and seven years when we may lose the backbone and future of our industry, with devastating long-term consequences for our food supply and our environment. I simply urge the Minister to delay the phasing out of the basic payment until the environmental land management system is fully operational for everyone. It would be a tragedy if the Government messed up what might well be a positive new scheme by botching the implementation period.

For all that uncertainty, the outline of the new environmental land management system is cause for some optimism. It is right that we should reward farmers for public goods. The industry is behind that and so am I, but let us get the details and the implementation right. The greatest public good that comes from our uplands is of course the production of food: 45% of UK lamb is produced in the uplands, as is 55% of the UK suckler herd and 35% of UK milk. Given that straw and feed grown in the lowlands go to feed animals in the uplands, if hill farming recedes, clearly lowland farming would soon sadly follow. A country that loses capacity to feed itself is a country in big trouble.

An alarming 50% of the food we consume is imported. Twenty years ago, that figure was more like 35%. Our food security looks more and more tenuous as every year goes by, although it is not just the Government’s stubborn insistence on the premature phase-out of basic payments that threatens our food security but the worry that ELMS itself may inadvertently or deliberately see the draining of funds from upland farms.

One mistake would be to fail to use the skills of hill farmers to fight against climate change. For example, commendably, the National Trust wants to increase the amount of its land used for trees from 7% to 17%, but one means of delivering that would be completely to bypass farmers. Indeed, any other landowner might do the same. However, if we bypass hill farmers, we will lose hill farmers, and if we lose hill farmers, we will lose the very people whom we most need in order to deliver the whole range of vital environmental goods to tackle and to mitigate climate change. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that ELMS is delivered only to active farmers. After all, it would be a disgrace if the replacement of the common agricultural policy was a policy that removed agriculture from the commons.

Recently, our rural and farming network took the DEFRA policy team to a hill farm near Slaidburn. The farm is already in a higher-level stewardship scheme and doing all it possibly can, but it is still more reliant on the basic payment than on environmental payments. They asked the DEFRA team what else the farm could do environmentally to make up for the imminent loss of the basic payment. The Department offered no ideas. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure hill farmers that ELMS will not be biased against certain categories of farm simply because of the nature of their landscapes.

In addition, a concern among farmers in my community is that the new ELMS will be much easier for some farms than others by virtue of location and, to some extent, sheer good luck. For example, a grassland farm, with mostly fences for boundaries and not so many walls or hedges may struggle to tick sufficient environmental boxes, compared with a farm with some existing woodland, perhaps a bit of wetland, or hedges.

Hill farmers are essential to the promotion and protection of biodiversity. They maintain rare natural habitats and ensure the upkeep of our rich heritage landscapes. They protect iconic British breeds such as Herdwick, Swaledale and rough fell sheep. We have to be prepared, through ELMS, to count the rearing of such breeds as a clear public good worthy of attracting public money. Indeed, many of the public goods provided by farmers are by-products of the fact that we have viable farms producing food. That is why a major focus must be to ensure that hill farmers get a fair price for their produce.

That is why, to be honest, I am disappointed that the Government are not more forthcoming about plans to expand the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, a piece of machinery that the Liberal Democrats were proud to help deliver in government—but we were sad that the Conservatives chose to water it down before it reached the statute book. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has its remit widened so that it can look at the whole supply chain and act on referrals from advocates such as the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association and indeed Members of Parliament, and so that it is given the power to levy sanctions that will truly hurt those retailers and processors who abuse their market power to pay our farmers a pittance?

Water management work in the uplands is utterly vital—the impact of Storm Ciara over the weekend was a reminder of just how important that is. Farmers protect our towns and villages from flooding. In December, we marked the fourth anniversary of Storm Desmond; the memories and the financial and emotional impact of the devastation it caused are still fresh for many of our communities in Cumbria and elsewhere. Amidst the pain there is much to be celebrated, and we can be proud about how our communities responded and coped. Farmers were a key part of that; they did essential work in places such as Kentmere and Longsleddale. For our farmers to do vital work to mitigate flood damage and, indeed, be part of natural flood management schemes, they need to be equipped. The scope of public goods must be broad enough to reward them for it.

Central to environmental land management schemes must be farm succession. Attracting young people to hill farming, incentivising them to enter the industry and supporting them as they grow their business means allowing older farmers to retire with dignity and to an affordable home. Given the astonishing price of housing in rural communities such as mine, that will take serious Government intervention.

Contrary to popular myth, many hill farmers voted remain—the majority in my patch did—but those who voted leave often tell me that they were motivated by a desire to do away with the red tape and bureaucracy of the CAP—or rather, the British application of the CAP. I trust that the Minister will not replicate or even add to the burdens of bureaucracy, badly run payment agencies, excessive farm visits and insecurity that have been the hallmarks of a hill farmer’s lot in recent times.

To achieve a fair deal for hill farmers, it is essential that the Bill defines public goods to recognise the incredible work that they are doing. The public good that I fear may be in most danger is perhaps the hardest one to quantify, measure or reward: the work that farmers do to maintain the aesthetics of our landscape. I can look down Langdale from the Pikes. I do not know how to quantify and codify a financial reward for the farmers who carefully maintain the view below me, but I know that it takes my breath away.

Those farmers underpin the £3-billion-a-year Lake district tourism economy that employs 60,000 people throughout our county. Our farmers’ work was acknowledged in 2017 when UNESCO granted world heritage site status to the Lake district. It will not be easy to quantify and codify that, which is why the Government should not fool themselves that they will be able to do so competently and without teething trouble in just a few years. The Government need to give themselves time and not rush the phasing out of basic payments.

Britain’s uplands feed us. They give us biodiversity, protection from flooding, carbon sinks, heritage and rare breeds. They underpin a multi-billion-pound visitor economy. They give us space to breathe, to soak up awesome creation in its rawest form; they stir us and they settle us.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has outlined a number of major strategic objectives, and said that farmers are part of the solution, not the problem. Does he agree—I am sure he does—that the four Governments of the UK need to work with our farming community to achieve the strategic objectives he outlined?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The essence is this: farmers manage our landscape and work it as owners or tenants—many of our constituents are tenant farmers who have even more insecurity in the current situation. Without their being able to make a living as active farmers—food production is their primary motivation—we lose their presence on the landscape to deliver all those public goods. First and foremost, the Government must maintain the current farmers on the uplands. If by a slip between cup and lip over the next seven years, we lose a chunk of a hill farming community, we will not get them back. Even if we do, it will be at vast expense.

The delivery of public goods is undoable without the people to deliver them. That seems basic common sense. ELMS fills me with some optimism; the thinking behind the new scheme is positive and the industry as a whole welcomes it. What I am bothered about is that the transition could be so clunky, and lacking understanding of how marginal the incomes of those farmers are, that we end up losing them in the process, and they will see it as a seven-year notice to quit.

We borrow Britain’s uplands from the generations to come, and we are beyond grateful to those who maintain them. We must not, either by design or by accident, threaten the future of our uplands or their stewards.

16:15

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate. He is a champion for hill farming areas, and hill farming is particularly important in his constituency. As he described quite eloquently, hill farming is a critical part of some of our most important landscapes in this country.

Those areas are the home of important heritage native breeds, which I will come on to. The sheep farming industry, which is predominantly based in hill farming areas, using some of those breeds, is large: worth around £1 billion a year. The UK sheep sector, despite what some say, is world leading—we are the largest producer in Europe by a very long way. Over a third of sheep production in Europe is carried on in the UK. Internationally, we are the third or fourth largest exporter of lamb after countries such as Australia and New Zealand. There is a very strong brand for UK sheep production, and we have strong regional brands—whether west country lamb, lamb from upland areas such as the hon. Gentleman’s, or Welsh lamb, which is famous around the world. Let us not forget Scottish lamb for good measure, including on Shetland.

We are going through a big change in our industry as we leave the European Union and chart a different course. The first thing I want to say relates to our trade with the European Union. We export a significant amount of lamb to the European Union: about a third of what we produce nationally. That is why the political declaration—the heads of terms on the future partnership—being discussed envisages zero tariffs on all goods. If that were not to be possible, depending on how negotiations go as far as the sectors affecting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are concerned, getting at least tariff-free access or a tariff rate quota on lamb would be a very high priority. We hope that it will be possible to get zero tariffs on all goods, since that is what both parties have committed to try to achieve.

[Jonathan Edwards]

When it appears in the news that British Cabinet members are talking about there being trade barriers, or the Prime Minister says that he is looking forward to importing Ugandan beef, does the Minister think that alleviates or heightens anxieties in the rural communities we represent?

[George Eustice]

The Prime Minister is also very keen that we open up new markets. There are great opportunities for our lamb sector in markets such as the middle east and the far east, including in countries such as Japan. We should not always take a glass-half-empty view when it comes to trade. We also have offensive interests, particularly in our livestock sector.

We are looking at those opportunities around the world for our lamb sector. I have already had discussions with New Zealand, for instance, about whether together the UK and New Zealand could develop the market for lamb in the United States. There is a very small, underdeveloped market for lamb in the US at the moment, but it is growing, particularly among younger consumers in the US. These are all opportunities that we have as we leave the European Union and take back control with an independent trade policy.

I want, though, to spend most of my time talking about future agriculture policy, as concerns about the loss of the basic payment scheme—direct payments—and the speed of the transition were at the heart of the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I will simply say that, in terms of future policy, I do not think it possible to defend the idea of arbitrary, area-based payments, because in essence they are a subsidy for land tenure or land occupation and land ownership. That means that the biggest payments go to some of the wealthiest landowners in the country. It means that people who perhaps sell a business and get millions of pounds in profits can invest that money in land, to shelter their wealth, and then on top of that claim a BPS payment, a subsidy, from the taxpayer. That just is not sustainable, justifiable or defensible in the long term.

Therefore the premise behind our Agriculture Bill is this: let us get rid of the subsidy on land tenure or ownership and instead pay farmers properly and reward them adequately for the work that they do for the environment. The system will be based on payments for delivering public goods and environmental outcomes and for protecting genetic heritage through rare breeds, protecting water quality and so on.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Minister will know as well as I do that many upland farmers also support some of the tributaries that run into our main estuaries, and we have declining populations of salmon and sea trout in those. Will ELMS be trying to repopulate some of our rivers with salmon and sea trout? Is that something that we can do through upland farming?

[George Eustice]

It is absolutely the case that one key priority of the future scheme and one objective set out in clause 1 of the Bill is about improving water quality. Any measures and interventions that farmers implement that will lead to improved water quality will be exactly the type of project that we would want to support.

I also point out that it seems already to be the case, from some of the work that we have done, that when it comes to sheep farmers in particular, around 30% of them do not actually receive the BPS payment; they are in some kind of contract farm agreement and effectively their landlord takes the BPS payment while they are the ones doing all the work and raising the sheep. It is not at all clear that the current area-based BPS payment is in fact in the interests of the sheep sector.

[Tim Farron]

I want to be very clear that I have agreed with everything that the Minister has said about the area-based payment, its unjustifiable nature and how it is not a basis on which to continue—indeed, I support in principle what we are talking about with the environmental land management scheme. However, my concern is that we have a seven-year transition in which we are about to phase out the current scheme more quickly than we are to phase in the scheme to replace it. That is where we lose the people we need in order to deliver the public goods in the long term.

[George Eustice]

I entirely appreciate that and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not going to skip over that point; I have some time left.

The upland areas in particular are well placed to benefit from a system of support based on the delivery of public goods. Some 66% of blanket bog in England is in “triple SI”s—sites of special scientific interest—and is in those upland areas, so projects such as peatland restoration are certainly things that the uplands could do. Some of our rare and endangered bird species are in parts of the uplands so projects to support their recovery also lend themselves well to such areas. I am also thinking of projects that might mitigate the risk of floods by holding water uphill and projects such as the mires project down in the west country, on Exmoor, that can improve water quality by rewetting some of those peatland areas.

All those things mean that the potential for some of the uplands to be rewarded for what they in some cases already do, but may well do even more of in the future, is very high. The reality is that our current system pays the moorland areas, the severely disadvantaged areas, less money than it does the lowlands, even though they are probably doing most of all for our environment. The change in emphasis to payment for delivering public goods means that those severely disadvantaged areas, which historically have been told, “We will give you less subsidy because your land is less productive,” may actually be able to deliver and achieve far more.

I come now to the issue of the transition. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I agree, that getting the sequencing of the transition right will be very important. Although we have not made final decisions in these respects, I will make a number of points to him. First, the Bill provides for us to make available grants and payments to farmers to help them to improve their productivity, invest in equipment and reduce costs, and that will help farmers to get to a position in which they are less reliant on the subsidy payments that they receive now.

The Bill also provides for us to make several years’ payment in one lump sum to help—aid—the retirement of those farmers who decide that now is the time to leave. Linked to that, we know, from all the work that we have done, that if we want to encourage new entrants into the sector, the critical element is freeing up access to land. That is why, if we want new entrants to come in, we have to have projects and ideas to help farmers, who are sometimes in their 70s or 80s and still going, to make the sometimes difficult decision to retire. The measure gives us the option to be able to do that.

The Bill also gives us the power to modify the legacy scheme, to simplify some of the rules around the basic payment scheme, or indeed to simplify and modify the current pillar two countryside stewardship scheme. The integrated administration and control system that is a requirement of EU law is particularly burdensome on some of the current schemes, and we would have the option, should we wish it, to remove that.

Let me deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. He suggested that the pilot was delayed. The pilot is not delayed: we always intended to go to a full pilot in 2021, and still do, and will. The issue is that we have had trials running. We have 30 trials already up and running—already under way. There has been no delay, and further trials will be added. He suggested that we would not be in a position to roll out the new scheme until 2028. That is not the case. We intend to be rolling out the new scheme to every farmer—a full launch of the scheme—probably around 2024, so we will not be waiting until the end of the transition before we start the new scheme. We envisage that, as the legacy scheme tapers out, we will be opening up versions of the new scheme in advance of that.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we ought to have an active farmer test. I am reluctant to get into that kind of EU rule making, as it was not particularly successful when the EU tried it. However, he makes a very good point: some of the environmental benefits that we need explicitly require grazing, and grazing by the right type of animal, to be taking place on our upland areas, to keep the bracken down and the sward at the right length so that conditions are made most favourable for invertebrates, which in turn helps farmland birds. It is therefore not the case that we want to take land out of grazing; indeed, grazing has an important part to play. We have amended the Bill so that it recognises native breeds and rare breeds in particular as a public good. We changed that in its latest iteration so that we can reward those hill farmers who are using and encouraging the preservation of some of our important genetic resources.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to get farmers a fair price for the food that they produce. Although we chose not to extend the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, we have in the Agriculture Bill taken wide-ranging powers to be able to legislate in the field of contracts to ensure that there is fairness in the supply chain and transparency around what farmers are paid as well as on issues such as carcase classification. There are quite wide powers in the Bill dealing with those things.

My final point is that it is not correct to say that we watered down the GCA. There was a delay in the introduction of penalties for breaches, but those were put in place—I think even under the last coalition Government, but possibly after the end of the coalition Government and under the Conservative Government from 2015. But substantial sanctions are in place and available to it.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we see a vibrant future for hill farming. We believe that hill farmers will be able to benefit from our new system of payment for public goods, and they can look to the future with confidence.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Social Mobility

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social mobility.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to be able to raise this subject, which I believe is vital to our country as we develop global Britain and look to a successful and exciting future. Among other roles outside politics, I have worked as both a teacher and a lecturer, so I am particularly passionate about education and social mobility. I have always endeavoured to be involved in them and to highlight issues and concerns about them.

Ultimately, social mobility is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to build a good life for themselves, regardless of their family background. In a socially mobile society, every individual should have a fair chance of reaching their full potential. Social mobility is good not only from a moral perspective but from an economic perspective: by ensuring that talent is harvested across the social spectrum, we have the opportunity to boost our country’s productivity and GDP.

Social mobility is one of the key reasons for Britain’s historical success in channelling the talents of all sections of our country for the benefit of the whole nation. Margaret Thatcher, for example, came from very humble origins to become, in my opinion, one of the greatest Prime Ministers we have had. She became Prime Minister because of social mobility.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks of Margaret Thatcher coming from a humble background. I wonder whether he participated in a booklet produced about 10 years ago of Conservative Members who also came from humble backgrounds. I was, and I think that was a useful tool.

[Sir David Evennett]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I, too, am a product of social mobility: education and social mobility have characterised my life. I was born into a family whose origins were in the east end of London, but, through family, education and opportunity, my grandparents and parents were able to develop and get on in life. I am therefore always grateful for the opportunities I had from schoolteachers, from the LSE, where I went to university, and from others who helped me to move up, be involved and have a career.

There are also business leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, actors and singers from humble backgrounds who have had the opportunity to move up the social scale and make something for themselves. However, despite some successes, for far too long the UK has not done as well on the social mobility front as I would have liked. Where someone starts in life should not determine where they finish in life. There is a strong link between adults’ income and those of their parents, and people’s educational attainment is closely linked to that of their parents too. That significantly affects opportunities later in life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. This is an important issue, which we have discussed recently in Westminster Hall. Does he agree—I think he does—that it is important that being born into a family of sales assistants should not mean that someone can only be a sales assistant, in the same way that being born into a family of doctors does not mean that someone can only secure a position as a doctor? There must be a better structure to ensure that people can determine their own path, based on their hard work and passion rather than their background and birthplace.

[Sir David Evennett]

I totally agree—and, of course, the opportunities have to be there for people to do it. That is what this debate is about.

Last month, the World Economic Forum highlighted the problem of poor social mobility around the world. It concluded that where someone is born still pretty much determines the opportunities they get in life. It also published a new global social mobility index, on which Denmark is ranked No. 1. The forum found that just a handful of Governments—specifically those in Scandinavian countries—have succeeded in laying the foundations for greater social mobility and more prosperous futures for their citizens. Rather disappointingly, of the 82 countries in the index, the United Kingdom is ranked 21st, behind Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland.

A lack of social mobility not only has a negative impact on an individual but affects the society in which they live. Now we have left the EU, it is more important than ever that we look seriously at how to improve social mobility further to harness talent across the country. I strongly believe that talent and hard work should determine how far people can go in life, whoever they are and wherever they come from. Opportunity should be available to all sections of our society.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this important debate. I want to reinforce his point about the economic cost of a lack of social mobility. We agree that that is a tragic waste of human potential and happiness, but let me quote the Sutton Trust, which said:

“A modest increase in the UK’s social mobility (to the average level across western Europe) could be associated with an increase in annual GDP of approximately 2%, equivalent to…£39 billion to the UK economy”.

[Sir David Evennett]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving us that informative statistic.

Conservative Governments have made considerable progress since 2010, particularly on education standards and opportunities. Education gives us a better understanding of the world around us, helps us to develop a perspective for looking at life and helps us to build opinions. It is key to social mobility. Some 86% of schools are now rated good or outstanding, compared with only 68% in August 2010. That is a real improvement, and the Government should be congratulated on it. More young people than ever go to our world-class universities, and the highest ever proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds participate in education. We will increase the schools budget by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, £4.8 billion in 2021-22, and £7.1 billion in 2022-23, compared with 2019-20. That will help schools to develop the talent of our young people.

We should all be proud of what the Government have delivered so far and what they continue to deliver. In my borough, Bexley, we are fortunate to have many brilliant schools, both primary and secondary, and a wide range of job opportunities, including apprenticeships. Bexley has been listed as a “social mobility hotspot”, as children from both disadvantaged and advantaged backgrounds achieve excellent results at school and benefit from a wide range of opportunities.

However, there is still more to be done, in Bexley and across the country. Clearly, there is still a social mobility postcode lottery in Britain: the chances of someone from a disadvantaged background being successful are still linked to where they live. I am concerned about underachievement. There are areas throughout the UK and in my constituency where many children do not reach their full potential. Young people—particularly young males—in certain areas of the country have become more disengaged from all aspects of society and, regrettably, have fewer aspirations. For some, their teachers, parents and peer groups do not expect them to do well, and there seems to be an acceptance of that. I believe that talent is uniform across all sections of our society, but opportunity is not always so.

I am particularly worried about the underachievement of white working-class boys. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) led a Westminster Hall debate on that subject this morning. I will not repeat what was said then, because he covered the issue very well and the Minister responded, but I share the concerns that were highlighted. We need to give young people from all backgrounds the tools and knowledge they need to succeed; then, the world will be their oyster, and the opportunities to reach for the stars, or whatever, will be there.

The “Elitist Britain” report published by the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission laid bare

“the lack of opportunities for so many young people”.

I will not go through the statistics, because I want others to be able to participate in the debate. Unfortunately, however, the elite still dominates, so we have a lot of work to do to give people an opportunity to rise up.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is setting out his case eloquently and beautifully. May I push him a little on his point about some people not being advised to aim high or encouraged to be the best they can? Does he share my fear that in some parts of the country, as he describes, there is some sort of inverse snobbery, and that some people are just told to aim low because the people around them are not willing to transcend the images they have—social images, perhaps—of the people who should and could aim high?

[Sir David Evennett]

That is a good point, and that is regrettable in 21st century Britain.

The “Elitist Britain” report made a number of policy recommendations, but I want to highlight two of them:

“Recruitment practices should be open and transparent”

and

“Leading social mobility employers should take a sector leadership role and share best practice.”

In the previous Parliament and the one before that, I was a strong supporter of the social mobility pledge, championed by the former Member for Putney, Justine Greening. The pledge is made up of three interlinking commitments. The first is partnering directly with schools or colleges to provide coaching through quality careers advice, enrichment experience and/or mentoring to people from disadvantaged backgrounds or circumstances. The second is access, providing structured work experience and/or apprenticeship opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thirdly, there is recruitment, adopting open employee recruitment practices that promote a level playing field for people from disadvantaged backgrounds or circumstances, such as name-blind recruitment and contextual recruitment. The initiative is backed by hundreds of businesses, because they understand that improving social mobility is good for them as well as for individuals and communities.

The pledge was set up to tackle the social mobility problem, share best practice and ideas and to boost social mobility. It covers more than 3 million employees and 1 million students across the UK. Partners include PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sainsbury’s, BP, the AA, various universities, and some of my local housing associations. That is important and welcome.

I also want to stress the important role that further education colleges can play in improving social mobility as well as helping to solve our country’s skills shortage. Further education has always had close links with local employers, so it is in a unique position to fill their skills gaps, but that needs businesses, local authorities, schools and colleges to work together.

Last week, I visited the Bexley campus of London South East Colleges, which is an excellent college in our area that understands the vital importance of providing good training and education and promoting social mobility and opportunity. I discussed finance, and I do believe that our further education colleges are underfunded. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and indeed my hon. Friend the Minister will take action to fund colleges better. It would be a good investment in our nation as well as for individuals, and it would help global Britain succeed.

As well as speaking with staff and students, I was privileged to meet some inspirational apprentices studying on apprenticeship schemes. Apprenticeships are an engine of social mobility, particularly as they create routes into stable, highly skilled and well-paid jobs. It is important to note that learners from deprived backgrounds may need to be in employment while learning, rather than going on to colleges. A report by Universities UK called “The Financial Concerns of Students” found that living costs to be a more significant concern than the level of tuition fees for undergraduates and that the financial aspects of going to university are more important to those from under-represented and lower socioeconomic groups. Nearly all the apprentices I spoke to there and across Bexley—a very good local authority in promoting apprenticeships—see a tremendous beneficial impact from apprenticeships on their career. The majority were satisfied in their job and felt they were better at doing their job since starting their apprenticeship.

Worryingly, though, the report found—this was repeated at my meetings—that a majority of apprentices said their secondary schoolteachers had not discussed apprenticeships as an option with them. Similarly, a majority of teachers said they would rarely or never advise their high-performing students to choose an apprenticeship over university. That overall experience of the apprentices I talked to is rather disappointing. They felt, and I agree, that we need a more innovative and proactive approach to raise awareness and break down those barriers among staff and pupils in schools.

There is a lot to be done. I know the Government are committed to creating a country where everyone has the same chances to go as far as their talents allow. I am a strong supporter of the Prime Minister’s agenda of opportunities for all across our country. We must now ensure that people are encouraged from a young age to engage with education and training and understand the long-term benefits. Without action—the Government must be involved, as must all the others I have mentioned—social and economic divisions in the UK could widen, meaning our country and our workforce will not be geared up to ensure that global Britain is the success that our PM wants and we all strongly believe we can achieve. This is an important issue and, at this time in our history, social mobility should be top of our agenda.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It might be useful for the House to know that I have four Back Benchers wanting to catch my eye and we will begin the winding-up speeches at 5.10 pm.

16:45

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on his excellent introduction. I begin by declaring that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility. This is an issue I feel passionately about, and I am afraid that each time I speak on it I see little sign of progress. We need an overarching cross-departmental Government strategy, which is sadly lacking at the moment.

I have long held the view that many of the frustrations and factors that led to the Brexit vote are connected to declining social mobility. That was reinforced by findings published a few weeks ago by the Social Mobility Commission, whose survey showed that 78% of people in London thought they had good opportunities to progress, whereas only 31% of people in the north-east did. Those figures ought to make us all sit up and take notice, because they show just how disconnected we are from voters and how little confidence the public have in our being able to address their concerns.

A number of recent reports tell us about the scale of challenge we face. One is from the Sutton Trust and even its title, “Elites in the UK: Pulling Away?”, pulls no punches. It said that one in five men in professional occupations born between 1955 and 1961 became socially mobile, but the figure for those born between 1975 and 1981 was only one in eight. In other words, we are a country where opportunity is declining. The pull of London was prominent, with the report finding that two thirds of the most socially mobile people built their careers close to home, rather than by moving away, but people in that group were more likely to come from London. Of course, London is the political, economic and cultural centre of this country, and it has much to offer, but that report and others show that it is over-dominant to the detriment of other places. It is no wonder that three and a half years ago so many people sent us a message in the ballot box that they wanted something fundamentally different in the way the country works.

As the right hon. Member said in his introduction, there is an international comparison of social mobility from the World Economic Forum, which ranks the UK 21st in the world. Unfortunately, as was mentioned, the majority of countries above us are our western European neighbours. We see that the top performers combine

“access, quality and equity in education, while also providing work opportunities and good working conditions, alongside quality social protection and inclusive institutions”.

I do not think we can begin to understand the scale of the problem until we see words like that, which show how social mobility is about far more than just education.

[Jim Shannon]

It is very much more than education. There is also a need to have education at an early stage. The schools in my constituency, and probably in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, try to focus on career opportunities, and it is important that teachers involved in careers give the full picture of opportunities and what may need to be done. Pupils may see some other options for work and they need to know that opportunities are there.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member. We have talked many times about the need to raise levels of aspiration. One of the sad things we have seen in recent times is how quality careers advice has slowly drained out of the education system. It is not just about 14 and 15-year-olds; it is about getting five and six-year-olds to think about what they can achieve. The evidence shows that the countries that tend to be more socially mobile are those where the gap between the bottom and the top is smaller, demonstrating that social mobility and inequality are closely linked. In 2019, it is a scandal that where you were born and who you are born to are still the biggest influences on your prospects. If we are ever going to move forward as a nation, everyone should have the same opportunity to achieve their potential. I think everyone in the room agrees with that.

When he resigned as the chair of the Social Mobility Commission, Alan Milburn said he was doing so because the Government were

“unable to devote the necessary energy and focus to the social mobility agenda.”

When he gave evidence to the Education Committee, he said:

“After the change of Prime Minister, following the European referendum, that whole conversation frankly went into the void. There was no conversation. There was no response.”

Those are damning word that were barely met with a shrug.

The new chair—not so new, now—Dame Martina Milburn is bringing real focus and drive to the commission which only yesterday produced a fine set of recommendations for the workplace, including internships being openly advertised— something that the all-party group on social mobility has called for for a long time. It recognises, as we do, that informal networks, which do much to stifle social mobility, creep into recruitment, even at the internship stage, for which money is a vital in order to make the first step through the door. While we are on that subject, why do we still allow internships to be unpaid? That is an invitation for exploitation.

We rightly focus on education, but addressing inequalities beyond the education system, including factors such as access to work, tax, welfare, housing, transport and health, is vital. We need to look at the world of work, particularly. For how much longer will the most likely experience for young people be casual work, low pay and insecurity in the workplace?

The Government need to stop treating social mobility as a niche issue that is the role of just one Minister. They need to make it a mission across all Government departments, with a focused and consistent approach that transcends the day-to-day world of politics and reshuffles. That is an issue to which I hope the commission can add value.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly about the importance of each Government Department taking this issue seriously. He may recall that under the coalition Government there was a Cabinet sub-committee specifically on social mobility, which entrusted and tasked a Minister from each Department to take forward initiatives in their Department. Does he agree that that is something we can recommend for the Minister to take away and feed back, particularly in advance of events that are likely to occur tomorrow?

[Justin Madders]

I hope the Minister stays in post and is able to take back today’s messages. Government focus has not been where it should be, but in the early part of the last decade we saw a real drive, with the introduction of the Commission on Social Mobility, which has unfortunately now stagnated. We need much greater accountability and transparency across Government in this area. It seems incredible that there is no automatic impact assessment about the effect that new legislation will have on social mobility.

Our central aim and mission should be to create a society where everyone has the same opportunities in life, regardless of their background. We know we have a long way to go. As long as three quarters of senior judges, half the top 100 news journalists and two thirds of British Oscar winners are privately educated, we will not have a fair society. The kids from the council estates will still get the message that those jobs are not for people like them.

The economic imperative speaks for itself, but the moral urgency of the task is clear. The commissioners are making the case, as am I, and many other Members. The question now is are the Government listening? What happens if the commission’s many worthy recommendations are not acted on? How much longer will we expect things to stagnate? Will anyone in Government take personal responsibility to improve social mobility? It is not an easy nut to crack and it will take many years to see real improvements, but someone senior in Government, with authority and resources, is needed to build a cross-departmental approach that is clearly lacking at the moment.

16:53

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) for introducing this important debate.

In my intervention, I mentioned a booklet that was produced during my early years as a new Member and in which I appeared. Its purpose was to try to attack the caricatures that were made of Members on this side and to show that they, too, had participated in social mobility in their own lives. I am a good example of that, having come from a poor family and worked my way through education, at school and three times at university. It is not that I got it wrong the first time, and had to go back and do it again; I can explain that on another occasion. It is important to show that Members on this side have personal experience of social mobility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will have heard what I am going to say, in a debate yesterday about the apprenticeship levy. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said about apprenticeships; I agree with him. My point yesterday was that I do not think the levy has helped to achieve social mobility. The figures from 2015-16 show that the deprived 20% accounted for around 21.9% of level 4 apprenticeships and above. That figure has now dropped to 16.4%, so there is a long way to go. We need to build into the apprenticeship levy—into apprenticeships generally—the idea that they are not an excuse for trying to fob off other sorts of training, particularly for graduates, who may feel they are able to do something better.

Education played a major part in my own experience. Universities have changed enormously over the past few years. The percentage of people who received free school meals who are going to university now is much larger than it was even five years ago. That is very welcome. Combined with the emphasis on apprenticeships, that shows that there are good opportunities for young people to engage in aspirational activities, which will help them to make the most of their lives in the future. Society today is much more dynamic than it was even in the 1990s. There are good examples of that in the Chamber. However, I fully accept that the work has not yet finished and there is still much to be done to take the issue forward.

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) rightly pointed out, education is not the only factor. Housing plays a major part in increasing social mobility. When people come to me and say, “I don’t want any more houses built in my area”, I am naturally very caustic with them, because that goes against everything that I believe in terms of social mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) is laughing because there is a dispute in Oxfordshire at the moment over the building of houses, of which he is fully aware. Even social housing plays a major part in being able to provide people with the experience we want them to have, in order to take social mobility forward.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for introducing the debate. It is an excellent subject for debate. As he has already picked out, and as I did in the apprenticeship levy debate yesterday, the subject has been something of a theme this week. Having a theme is good for this place because we can bring in different aspects of the subject as we go along.

16:58

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I agree with his comments about the apprenticeship levy, which he made in the debates yesterday and today. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate.

Social mobility is about young people’s chances in life. It is about creating a society where kids can aspire to anything, and about giving them the tools and resources they need to achieve their dreams. I will speak about the current gap between aspiration and opportunity that exists in areas such as mine, and advocate for long-term, sustained investment in our schools and industry, so that children and young people from places, such as Barnsley, have as much chance to succeed as those elsewhere.

Former coalfield communities, such as Barnsley, have been left to weather the devastating impact of the loss of the mining industry and decades of deindustrialisation by themselves. Our economy has lagged behind that of the rest of the UK, affecting how many and what kinds of jobs are available. Older industrial towns in coal-mining areas tend to have fewer higher paying jobs, which obviously has a knock-on effect on the amount of schools and, in particular, on transport infrastructure. A stark geographical divide exists in this country. A child from Cudworth in my constituency is five times less likely to go to university than one from Chelsea. In Barnsley, only 9% of kids who receive free school meals go to university, compared with the national average of 26%.

Accessible vocational education is an important part of overcoming disadvantage, giving young people the tools and employment experiences to get on in life. Right now, in my constituency, there is not one sixth-form college. That is not to take away from the fantastic work of Barnsley college, which is not too far away—it is a fantastic institution and provides fantastic education—but obviously the inability to stay on in a school setting has an impact on encouraging young people to do A-levels.

It is not just about A-levels, but about vocational education; there has been more than one debate on that in this place this week, and I agree that it is incredibly important. But our communities have been left behind and I do not believe that that should or must be the case. This should not be the first generation that is worse off than the one before. Social mobility can be fostered so that children from all backgrounds and areas can reach their potential.

A fantastic example of encouraging that is the world-class Barnsley Youth Choir, which provides choral training, regardless of financial or social background. The choir was set up 10 years ago from absolutely nothing, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic Mathew Wright, who set it up. Now we have hundreds of kids of all ages from across Barnsley coming together, and the choir is ranked fifth in the world. They go all over the world performing. That is a fantastic example of an opportunity that gives young people the ability to express themselves, to sing, to show off their talents and to see more of the world. It is a reflection of the community spirit of Barnsley, and it is particularly inspirational.

Volunteer-run programmes such as the Barnsley Youth Choir show the commitment of parents, teachers and volunteers to giving young people the best start in life. Last week I met the head of Netherwood Academy, one of the schools in my constituency, to discuss its efforts to increase the aspirations of young women. They want successful women from different industries to go and meet young girls and to speak about their careers and ambitions. As a former teacher, that is a project that I welcome, and I hope to welcome them here to the House of Commons.

Sadly, it is not just about having aspirations for more, but about having the opportunity to act on those aspirations. Social mobility should not be a postcode lottery.

The Government can and should support working-class communities such as Barnsley by investing in its people, the local economies and the manufacturing industry, so that people are not stuck in low-paid, insecure jobs with no prospect of development, with the only alternative being to leave their local areas.

We need to invest in the skills of our workforce, which will aid recruitment and increase productivity. We need to invest in education and qualifications to enable people in Barnsley to pursue jobs that are higher paid and more secure and, crucially, we need to fund transport projects to connect our towns and communities across the UK. I believe the Government need to take urgent action if young people from my community are to be given the best start in life.

17:03

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock); I particularly agreed with her remarks about university and encouraging participation. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) for allowing us to debate this today.

Given the time, I will talk about one specific thing: the importance of going to a good university in driving social mobility, and what more we can do to encourage that. I should declare an interest at the outset; I am a Sutton Trust girl and am now an ambassador for the trust. It has been mentioned a number of times, which has been a pleasure to hear.

We know that university places correlate with success; that has been shown again and again, in study after study. The Browne review showed that people are more likely to be employed, with higher wages and greater job satisfaction, if they go to university, but it is the top universities that confer particular benefit. We know that many of our top employers only recruit from a certain select number of universities. On average, they target the top 19 of our 115 universities, so it is not only university attendance that we need to focus on, but which universities our deprived kids are going to.

That has been slightly overlooked in the debate we have been having over time about university attendance, which has been more about the quantity of people going through university, rather than the quality of the education that they get and what impact that has on their educational outcomes. We have found that not enough children from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to those good universities. There have been huge upticks in the numbers over time, which is of course to be welcomed; the Government have done a huge amount to encourage that, and the Office for Students now has a plan in place for each university to encourage it further. However, the most advantaged 20% are still seven times more likely to attend the most selective universities than the most disadvantaged 40%—a statistic that we urgently need to address.

Over time, we have put a lot of emphasis on universities. That is obviously right, and there is a place for that, but, as someone who came from a comprehensive school and was lucky enough to get into Oxford with the help of the Sutton Trust, I know how difficult it is to make that transition from a comprehensive education that was good, but not amazing, to university, and the extra help that was needed once I got there. We can do more at school level to help with that transition and to raise aspiration for our kids as they are going through school.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of raising aspiration, but it is not just about raising aspiration a year or 18 months before the transition to university. It is about raising aspiration towards the end of primary school and at the very beginning of secondary school. There is good evidence that if that takes place, and is done effectively, we hugely increase social mobility and the aspiration of young people and their ability to attend good universities.

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is right. We cannot just do this at sixth form: we need to focus on it throughout a child’s school career.

Successive Governments have tried to fix careers advice, and none has been effective in doing so. Careers advice varies hugely throughout the country and, despite the best efforts of successive Governments, evidence shows that it is not really getting much better. In our levelling-up agenda as a Government, we really need to focus specifically on that.

We also need to look at subject choice. The subject choices that children from more deprived backgrounds make tend to be less academic and I do not think they always realise how much that will drive future choices. There were people at my school who did A-levels, but did not study all the sciences, and then realised that that restricted their ability to study medicine at university. They did not know that beforehand. It is crucial that we look at how schools guide subject choices and consider what different career paths require at an earlier stage.

We come to the fundamental question of the quality of education. The education reforms that the coalition put through and that have been pushed by this Government have been critical in driving up standards in schools. We need to focus on the fact that children need to be able to read and write when they leave school; everything else that we talk about—music education, for example—is all well and good, but we must have those fundamental basics. The reforms that have been made to GCSEs and A-levels are critical and I believe will, over time, make a difference in social mobility terms.

We cannot lose sight of that. We cannot allow our Ofsted regulators to inspect everything under the sun, rather than examine quality of education. It has become a Christmas tree over time, which has diluted the focus on the quality of education in schools. We cannot allow that to happen. If we are to really succeed in changing social mobility, we need laser-like focus on quality in schools, which I know we will have. The increased funding will help with that.

In summary, we must get more disadvantaged kids into good universities. We need to highlight opportunities and instil aspiration in them throughout their time in schools.

17:09

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett). Is it not good that another further education lecturer is responding for the Scottish National party? We both know the importance of further education and how it helps to increase social mobility.

The latest state of the nation report says that

“social mobility has stagnated over the last four years at virtually all stages from birth to work”,

which is an utterly shocking indictment of the UK Government. It highlights the way in which inequality is entrenched in Britain, with someone born privileged likely to remain privileged, while someone born disadvantaged may have to overcome barriers to improve their and their children’s social mobility. Urgent action needs to be taken to close the privilege gap. The report also praised the Scottish Government for making Scotland

“more socially mobile, as a person’s occupation is now less determined by the occupation of one’s parents”,

and for

“giving consideration to improving social mobility by introducing a duty on public bodies to reduce socio-economic disadvantage”,

which we do not have in the rest of the UK.

I, too, am socially mobile. My dad was a corporation milkman and my mother was a cleaner. I was the first in my whole family to go to university, in 1967. A lot of what happened to me was because of my parents’ belief in education and the fact that their children should get the chances that they did not. However, it was also because they worked hard, and got the rewards of working hard, in a way that families nowadays do not. We hear so much about work being the best way out of poverty. That is not entirely true—not for someone in the gig economy on what is not, in fact, a living wage. Most people on benefits are in working families, and there are children in poverty across the United Kingdom in families in which both parents work. This scandal should not escape us, and we should do everything we can to end it. The Scottish Government are working to help Scottish families—the Scottish child payment is about to come on board—but only 16% of social security is devolved to Scotland, so they cannot do everything that they would like. Children are the start; and if we give children across the UK the best possible start, social mobility should follow.

Education has been mentioned. As I said, I was educated and became socially mobile. I was economically inactive for a number of years—I had three children—but was able to go back into the workforce at a far higher level. If we educate women especially, we educate generations after them. That is an absolute fact, and I stand here as proof of it. The SNP Government have invested record amounts in schools, to close the poverty-related attainment gap. Hon. Members should not listen to everything said against education in Scotland. It is improving. I know from my experience in further education that giving money helps, but it is also about the commitment of the people who work in education.

The Scottish Government have a uniform fund, enabling children to go to school and be like their peers. A child who goes to school and is like their peers will learn better, learn more and will feel able to progress. The Scottish Government have also expanded the education maintenance allowance in Scotland, but it has been scrapped here. We have to ask why, given that it is socially advantageous to give children from poorer backgrounds money to allow them to stay at school and increase their educational abilities.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). Yes, going to a good university is really important, which is why places like St Andrews, one of the leading UK universities, actively encourages children, and is actively encouraged by the Scottish Government—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but because we are very close to time, Opposition spokespeople should only have five minutes. You have exceeded that, so I am sure that you are about to bring your speech to a close.

[Marion Fellows]

I was indeed. Will the Minister tell us whether her Government will follow the Scottish Government and commit to a socioeconomic duty in England and Wales, and whether they will look at steps that the Scottish Government have already taken to increase social mobility?

17:14

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I welcome the Minister to her new role. I know from my time on the Front Bench that she takes a keen interest in education. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing the debate. He has a long-standing interest in this matter and has raised it on the Floor of the House on numerous occasions. I just hope that his colleagues at the top of the party will continue to listen. He is right that it is a moral argument, which was made crystal clear in his comments.

I am a First Generation ambassador for Manchester Metropolitan University and have trained numerous working-class young people at A-level about going to university for the first time. Several of them will visit Parliament in the next few weeks. We raise money from the private sector to help the programme, and I am proud of the work that I do as a constituency MP on this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned social mobility. I have to say that I disagree with his saying that London is the economic and cultural capital of Great Britain. As a Manchester United fan, he should know better. However, it was an excellent speech. He said that opportunity has gone backwards and social mobility is going backwards. I thank him for his work in Parliament on this the subject.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), as ever in education debates in Westminster Hall, made really good points about apprenticeships and how important they are to working-class communities getting on. I visited Airbus in Broughton recently and saw working-class young men and women obtaining level 4 and 5-equivalent degrees on the shop floor and coming out with no debt whatsoever. He also spoke about social housing, which was key for me. I had a secure tenancy growing up, even though I grew up in a council flat on a council estate in Manchester. How many young people nowadays get that?

What my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said about music resonated with me. She has one of the best choirs in Europe in her constituency. Music, arts and culture are a great way to raise aspiration. She is a fantastic representative of a coal-mining community, and she said that those communities need sustained and long-term investment. I thank the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her ambassadorship for the Sutton Trust. She is right: we need more working-class kids going to Russell Group universities. I have some appalling statistics of free-school-meal kids who cannot really get into my fantastic local Russell Group university. The numbers are so few. We have to work harder.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) clearly said that the education of women is key to raising social mobility. However, with austerity, the economics we have had and the lack of social justice, it is no wonder that it is stalling. It is worth noting that there was no explicit reference to social mobility in the Queen’s Speech. It has stagnated. That is not my view; that was the view of the Social Mobility Commission, which is part-sponsored by the Government. Members may recall that the board of the Commission resigned en masse in 2017 because it thought that the Government were not taking this seriously enough.

A 2017 Social Mobility Commission report stated:

“There is a fracture line running deep through our labour and housing markets and our education system.”

In other words: our society is divided and unequal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed out, the then social mobility commissioner stated that appointments to key commission roles were left vacant for years, and went on to say in an interview in The Sunday Times that the Government had shown

“indecision, dysfunctionality and a lack of leadership”.

It took more than six months for the Government to appoint a new commission, so there was no doubt at that point that the Government were not prioritising the issue. However, the new commission revealed that more than half a million more children were living in poverty than in 2012. Furthermore, levels of social mobility remained “virtually stagnant” since 2014—almost five wasted years.

I am extremely proud of my country, but the report by the United Nations special rapporteur that was published last year made me feel ashamed. The report described how our social safety net had been badly damaged by drastic cuts in Whitehall, how the glue that held British society was coming unstuck, deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh, uncaring ethos.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, as this is an important debate, but we have limited time. He is over his five minutes.

17:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Michelle Donelan)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate on social mobility, the issue which inspired me to enter politics—to enable others to get on. Social mobility is a top priority for this Government and a challenge that requires action across the whole of society and Government. My right hon. Friend is right that the Government must play a key role in improving opportunities across our country.

My right hon. Friend highlighted the important role of the Social Mobility Commission. I want to reassure hon. Members that I regularly meet the chair of the commission to discuss where we can effectively work closely together on our shared agenda. I vehemently believe that education is the key to expanding opportunities and everybody has the right to a good education. As my right hon. Friend said, while education has the power to grow skills and knowledge, it is also about fostering self-belief and expanding horizons. It really is the key to social mobility.

Improving this country’s education system starts in the early years. Giving all young people the best start in life is a top priority for this Government. We are committed to improving access to early education and supporting parents to improve their child’s outcome. Hungry Little Minds is a three-year campaign to encourage parents to chat to their children, play with them and read to them, and to help them be ready for school and life. The other week I visited the Wirral, where I saw how different sectors of the community—businesses and charities—have got involved in that campaign.

Schools are essential ladders of opportunity, as my right hon. Friend noted when he quoted the statistics showing the success of the current reforms. We have focused our attention on raising standards, because all children, wherever they live, deserve high standards of education, which are the best way to allow young people to make the most of their potential. My right hon. Friend will know that this has done much to improve the academic improvement and wider educational outcomes of pupils from financially disadvantaged backgrounds.

We provide additional funding through the pupil premium. Since 2011, we have distributed over £17 billion in pupil premium funding. Through the groundbreaking work of the Education Endowment Foundation, schools can now freely access a growing body of high-quality evidence on what really works, so they can make informed decisions about how best to spend that money effectively. We will continue to support all groups that are held back and ensure that schools can address the needs of each individual pupil. That is why we have injected so much more money into our education system recently.

My right hon. Friend mentioned social mobility hotspots. While we are working to improve the life chances of disadvantaged pupils everywhere, we recognise that some parts of the country face particularly significant challenges. We have used the Social Mobility Commission’s 2016 social mobility index and the data from the Department for Education on school capacity and performance to select 12 areas for targeted initiatives. Those 12 opportunity areas are a mix of coastal, urban and rural areas across the country. The commission’s report on the state of the nation, which has been referenced several times, recognised the important work of opportunity areas for levelling up society, especially in deprived parts of the country. We were, therefore, delighted to announce a one-year £18 million extension to the programme last October, bringing the total funds to £90 million. Additionally, we are working with leaders from education, local government and business, and we are investing up to £24 million through Opportunity North East.

My right hon. Friend made an important point about the need of young people to access a range of activities, inside and outside the classroom. In 2017-19, we invested £22 million in an essential life skills programme to help engage disadvantaged young children in extracurricular activities, to develop confidence in leadership and support life skills critical to raising their aspirations. Last year, we published guidance to help schools to improve character education and the personal development of their pupils.

[Justin Madders]

Several hon. Members mentioned the World Economic Forum rankings. Do the Government want to set a target to improve our position in those rankings, and if so, over what time period?

[Michelle Donelan]

We have not yet set a target. I think the aspiration should be that the sky is the limit. This is an extremely important debate that, unfortunately, we did not have enough time for today. It is the key priority of this Government to level up society across the country and ensure that every child and young person has the opportunities they deserve.

Going back to the point I was dealing with on, I wanted to say that it linked with the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who talked about the role of the voluntary sector in levelling up society. Further education is a great driver of social mobility, and we are reviewing qualifications to ensure that our reforms in that sector help all students. We will provide £3 million in extra funding to pupil premium plus, on top of the additional investment we have made in the further education sector.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that high-quality apprenticeships are essential to social mobility. That is something that we all recognise, and something that we debated in this Chamber yesterday. We want to ensure that people from all backgrounds can access the benefits of an apprenticeship, and our Opportunities Through Apprenticeships project was specifically targeted at helping disadvantaged young people. That is something that I am looking at, to ensure it is an even playing field.

Higher education has been referenced, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). I agree with her, but I stress that higher education is not the only route for social mobility. However, our reforms, including the establishment of the Office for Students, open access to higher education. They are about bringing in greater competition and choice and promoting higher-quality education for all. I take her point about it depending on the type of institution that young people get into, and that is something we have specifically been targeting over recent years. The figures have demonstrated success: in 2019, 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds were 62% more likely to enter full-time higher education.

Finally, turning to the world of work, I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that privately educated individuals continue to be over-represented in professional occupations. That is something we have tried to target through our career education reforms. We have made great strides in recent years to improve careers advice for young people based on the Gatsby benchmarks. Through the Careers & Enterprise Company, we have established 40 career hubs. The latest state of the nation report concluded that schools and colleges have improved in every aspect of their career provision, with some of the most disadvantaged communities among the highest performers.

In conclusion, and to allow my right hon. Friend a moment to sum up, I thank him for calling this important and crucial debate, which has rightly ranged across the actions that we are taking to spread opportunities at all stages of a young person’s life. The Government and I are committed to providing all young people with the tools that they need to reach their full potential and access the opportunities that they deserve.

17:28

[Sir David Evennett]

I thank the Minister for her comments and for the information she has given us, and I also thank everybody who has participated in today’s debate, which is vitally important. We need to work together across parties to ensure that we achieve what we all want, which is to make sure that the deprived areas have the best opportunities for young people and to create aspiration and opportunities for people to maximise their life chances. We need to do that in many and varied ways.

We have had a very good debate this afternoon on how we view social mobility, how we think about it and how we should go forward. Members from all parts of the House have raised many issues, and I thank them for giving us more food for thought. There should be more opportunities to discuss the issue, and it should be a top priority. I welcome the Minister saying that the Government have social mobility as a top priority. We should all be working to ensure that all young people have real opportunities to make the most of their lives and the most of the opportunities that we can give them. Through that, they can succeed and then our country and our communities can succeed. By working together, they will have a fulfilled life and really achieve their maximum potential.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered social mobility.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

Wednesday 12 February 2020

Online Harms

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, has made the following Statement:

DCMS and the Home Office are today publishing an initial response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation. This is an important step towards our aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business.

There is widespread public consensus that online platforms must do more to ensure their services are safe for all users, particularly children, while promoting freedom of expression online. Furthermore, a recent Ofcom report showed that 61% of adults and 79% of 12 to 15 year old internet users reported having had at least one potentially harmful experience online in the previous 12 months.

The White Paper set out world-leading proposals to tackle these issues by introducing a statutory duty of care. This will ensure that companies have appropriate systems and processes in place to improve the safety of their users. The duty of care would be enforced by an independent regulator.

We consulted extensively following the White Paper's publication. Today’s initial response reflects the views of a diverse range of stakeholders, including organisations, industry experts, civil society, academia, and the public.

In the response, we set out the direction of travel on a number of the key themes from the consultation. In particular, we are announcing that we are minded to appoint Ofcom as the online harms regulator. Ofcom is a highly respected regulator, possessing the expertise, experience and independence needed to take on this new role.

The Ofcom board have appointed Dame Melanie Dawes as its new chief executive. Given that the Government will be considering the detail of this new regulatory agenda and the role Ofcom will have, and now that the new chief executive is in place, the Government would like a chair to be able to oversee the successful implementation of any changes in full. Lord Burns has therefore agreed to step down to enable a new chair to be in place by the end of this year. He has also agreed to stay on until the new chair is in post to ensure a smooth transition.

The response also sets out some of the explicit safeguards and measures which the regulator will take to protect freedom of expression, and to ensure that the online environment remains one in which open and vibrant discourse can take place. As part of our proposals, we will ensure there are safeguards in the legislation to ensure companies and the new regulator have a clear responsibility to protect users' rights online. We will also introduce greater transparency about the removal of content, with the opportunity for users to appeal, which we are confident will help to safeguard freedom of expression.

Additionally, the consultation reinforced the importance of clarity and certainty for businesses. We are mindful of the need for proportionate regulation, and our regulatory framework will target those platforms which present the greatest risk. The “duty of care” will therefore only apply to companies that facilitate the sharing of user generated content, for example through comments, forums or video sharing. Our analysis so far suggests that fewer than 5% of UK businesses will be in scope of this regulatory framework. Moreover, business to business services, which pose a low risk to individuals and have limited opportunities to address harm, will not have requirements placed on them.

Our proposals will introduce higher levels of protection for children. We will expect companies to use a proportionate range of tools including age assurance and age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate or harmful content. This would achieve our objective of keeping children safe online, and would also fulfil the aims of the Digital Economy Act to prevent children from being exposed to online pornography.

This is a complex policy area, and work is not yet complete. We will publish a full response to the consultation in the spring, setting out further policy details ahead of legislation. We will continue to engage with interested parties as we shape future proposals.

Our proposals to tackle online harms is part of the Government’s wider work to develop a strategic approach for governing digital technologies. We will ensure our overarching regulatory regime is fundamentally pro-innovation and agile, adapting dynamically to the rapid emergence of new technologies.

I am placing copies of the response in the libraries of both Houses, and it will also be available on gov.uk.

[HCWS113]

Children’s Social Care

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)]

Children and young people who need a social worker, and who are in or have left care are some of the most vulnerable in our society. It is a priority for this Government that these children and young people have the support, protection and care they deserve. I want to update the House on recent developments in this space.

Review of care

The importance of children’s social care was signalled in the Government manifesto. We must challenge ourselves to do all we can in making sure every child who needs a social worker and who enters care has the best possible chance to succeed in life, realising the benefit to individuals and society of overcoming such adversity in childhood.

That is why we are committed to undertaking a review at the earliest opportunity. I can confirm that this review will be bold and broad, taking a fundamental look across children’s social care, with the aim of better supporting, protecting and improving the outcomes of vulnerable children and young people.

I can confirm that we are moving forward with plans for this review, and that it will be independently led. We will ensure the review reflects the experiences of those who have needed a social worker and been in care, putting children, young people and their families at its centre. We will set out further details in due course.

Reforms to unregulated provision for children in care and care leavers

The review will allow for careful consideration of challenges faced across children’s social care, and while it is an early priority, we will take time to get this right.

There are, however, issues that cannot wait and require immediate action. Every child and young person should have access to a stable and secure placement in accommodation that can meet their needs and, most importantly, keep them safe.

These placements are an important step towards independence for older children. However, we are concerned that independent and semi-independent settings are not always good enough, putting children and young people at risk. We are particularly concerned about increases in the number of children under the age of 16 being placed in this type of provision, with 660 children who were aged under 16 when their placement started placed in this provision during 2018-19. This is why we are consulting on banning the use of independent and semi-independent placements for children and young people under the age of 16.

Reform is needed as a matter of urgency to ensure this provision is being used appropriately and meets the needs of the young people placed there. I will today be publishing a consultation that invites views on a set of new measures to ensure appropriate use of these placements. The proposals include introducing new checks and balances into the system, including national standards for providers and measures to drive up the quality of provision.

Our proposals include:

banning the use of independent and semi-independent placements for children and young people under the age of 16;

driving up the quality of support offered in independent and semi-independent provision, through the introduction of new national standards, and ensuring that these standards are enforced, and that young people’s interests are appropriately represented by their independent reviewing officer (IRO);

introducing new measures so that local authorities and local police forces liaise before a placement in such provision is made; and

giving Ofsted new legal powers to act against illegal providers.

We are keen to hear views on the proposals and their impact. The consultation will be available at: https://consult. education.gov.uk/unregulated-provision/unregulated-provision-children-in-care/. It will be open for response until 8 April.

[HCWS110]

Learning Disabilities Mortality Review

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)]

Government response to the third annual learning disabilities mortality review (LeDeR) report.

Following the publication of the third annual report from the learning disabilities mortality review (LeDeR) programme on 21 May 2019, and the statement I made at the time, I am today pleased to be publishing the Government’s response to that report. A copy of the response can be found at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/

The LeDeR programme was established in 2015 to help reduce early deaths and health inequalities for people with a learning disability by supporting local areas in England to review the deaths of people with a learning disability and to ensure that the learning from these reviews lead to improved health and care services. The programme is led by the University of Bristol and commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England.

The programme has found that the quality of care offered to people with a learning disability sometimes falls short of the standards we expect. The existence of the LeDeR programme demonstrates our ongoing commitment to ensure that people with learning disabilities can access the best possible quality care and support.

The third annual LeDeR report covers the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2018, with a particular focus on deaths in 2018. From 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2018, 4,302 “in-scope” deaths were notified to the LeDeR programme. The majority of these, 2,926, were notified in 2018. In 71 of the cases reviewed, people received care that fell so far short of expected good practice that it significantly impacted on their well-being or directly contributed to their cause of death.

Based on the evidence from completed LeDeR reviews, the third annual report made twelve recommendations for the education, health and care system. As I said at the time of the LeDeR report’s publication, it is essential that we take appropriate actions to learn from the issues raised by the LeDeR programme. In the Government response, we have set out how we and our system partners are taking action to deliver the improvements to services that will make a real and significant difference to people's lives. Actions identified relate to reviewing guidance; publishing new data on the progress of LeDeR reviews and sharing best practice.

In November, we set out our most significant action in response to the third annual LeDeR report, when we committed to introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism for all health and social care staff. This training is named after Oliver McGowan, in recognition of his story, his family’s tireless campaigning for better training for staff, and to remember him and others whose lives were cut tragically short.

The Government remain committed to gather learning from deaths reviewed under the LeDeR process ensuring that measures are put in place to address the persistent health inequalities that people with learning disabilities experience. Since the start of the LeDeR programme, nearly 3,200 reviews have been completed and over 2,700 are currently in progress. Although increases in the number of reviews carried out is welcome, we acknowledge that the pace with which reviews are conducted needs to increase further.

The LeDeR programme was introduced to ensure that local, evidence-based action is taken to improve support for people with a learning disability, and while we clearly have a great deal further to go to improve outcomes, we must continue to build on the momentum of the past five years and work together to learn from the past. Our response, published today, sets out how we will do that.

[HCWS112]

Jermaine Baker: Public Inquiry

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

I am announcing today the establishment by the Home Office of an inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the circumstances of the death of Jermaine Baker during a Metropolitan Police Service operation on 11 December 2015.

Establishing an inquiry is important to ensure that all of the relevant evidence can be properly considered as part of an effective investigation into Mr Baker’s death.

The inquiry will be chaired by His Honour Clement Goldstone, QC. HH Goldstone is a retired senior circuit judge who was appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on 21 March 2019 to conduct the investigation and inquest into the death of Jermaine Baker. In accordance with section 3(1)(a) of the Act, this inquiry will be undertaken by HH Goldstone alone as chair.

It has been necessary to establish an inquiry so as to permit all relevant evidence to be heard. The inquiry will have the same scope as the current inquest, which will be suspended after the establishment of the inquiry.

I will place a copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry in the Libraries of both Houses.

The arrangements for the inquiry will now be a matter for the chair. The Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources that it needs.

[HCWS111]

Light Dues 2020-21

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A strong and growing maritime industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom and it is critical that we treasure and protect this vital artery if we are to remain a world-leading maritime centre.

The work of the General Lighthouse Authorities, which provide and maintain marine aids to navigation and respond to new wrecks and navigation dangers in some of the busiest waters in the world, is crucial to underpinning that vision whilst maintaining our vigorous safety record and continuously improving standards of safety.

Reductions in the three General Lighthouse Authorities’ running costs have enabled the UK to reduce light dues on four occasions since 2014. For 2020-21 I intend to freeze light dues rates at 37.5p per net registered tonne. This will mean that light dues will have fallen by 30% in real terms since 2010.

Light dues rates will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the General Lighthouse Authorities are challenged to provide an effective and efficient service which offers value for money to light dues payers.

[HCWS109]

House of Lords

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 12 February 2020

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:06

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to this House.

Disability Employment Gap

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Touhig]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in reducing the disability employment gap.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, the employment rate for disabled people stands at 53.2%, having increased by 9.8 percentage points over the past six years. The employment rate gap between disabled and non-disabled people has fallen by 5.6 percentage points over the same period.

[Lord Touhig]

I welcome, as I am sure the whole House does, the improvement the Minister just told us about, but there has been no increase whatever in the number of autistic people in work—for the last 10 years. Just 16 in every 100 people who are autistic are in full-time employment. Addressing the lack of understanding about autism across business and industry is key to trying to solve this problem. Will the Government establish an information hub, providing employers with support and information to improve recruitment of autistic people? Could I tempt her to be even more daring and perhaps consider creating an autism accreditation scheme so that participating companies get full recognition for the efforts they put in?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Lord makes very accurate and real points. I spoke to the National Autistic Society this morning. Some 16% of autistic adults are in work and 32% of them are in some kind of paid work, but the real statistic is that 77% of unemployed autistic adults want to work. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that we must get to that figure. The disability hub is a great idea. I will go back to the department with yet another idea—their eyes roll now when I walk in, but I will do it. I will not be put off by that. I can confirm that the Government are also working with the Supported Business Alliance and the British Association for Supported Employment to help them develop a new quality mark for supportive businesses and develop a long-term element of access to work to continue the support. However, there is no doubt that we have a lot more to do and I will take both those ideas back to the department.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, we do not have any flesh on the bones of the national disability strategy yet. There are many issues involved in closing the disability employment gap: suitable housing, adequate care and better education opportunities, to name but a few. Will the Minister consider hosting a round table with Members of this House who have expertise in this subject, so that we have as much consensus as possible going forward?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

How can I say no to the noble Baroness? That is another great idea. It fits very well with the national disability strategy, which will, I am pleased to say, be developed with disabled people and disability charities and organisations, and will cover the areas outlined by the noble Baroness—housing, education, transport and jobs—so that people can improve their lives. I will be delighted to go back to the department, not to suggest a round table but to say that we are having one.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, can I add another idea to my noble friend the Minister’s list? It is testament to the influence of your Lordships’ House that only last week I introduced a Bill on exactly this issue, which already has the backing of major corporates such as EY and Enterprise Holdings. They know that there must be a level playing field for rewarding and incentivising best practice. Will the Minister take this idea back not just to her department but to the Government as a whole, for incorporation in the forthcoming employment Bill, so that the mandatory gender pay gap reporting duty is extended to other protected characteristics, including disability?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am going to start singing “I’ve Got a Little List” in a minute. I congratulate the noble Lord on his tenacity in this area. His work on Able to Excel and his Private Member’s Bill were excellent. In 2018, the Government published a voluntary reporting framework on disability, mental health and well-being in the workplace, aimed at large employers—those with more than 250 employees. In November, we announced the new level 3 of Disability Confident. We must work with businesses to crack that 77% of people who want to work. Employers create jobs; we must work closely with them. My noble friend’s work will help with this. I will arrange for him to come in and do the sell on that one.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, in following up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, about information for employers, does the Minister agree that often we are not asking for something profound or difficult? It is just tackling basic information about the subject. We could do a great deal with very little effort.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I was on a project recently where a young girl with bags of potential who had epilepsy thought she would never get a job because she thought that nobody would risk having her in their establishment. The people running the project found a lady who ran a business and who was epileptic. She said, “You send her down to me.” She is now employed as a legal secretary. That did not take a great deal of effort. The way for us to make headway with those statistics is by remembering that everybody is an individual and by spending time working out a strategy for the individual.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, in this important area Britain is proud to be a leader in many ways—in technology, computing and so on—and many of these projects, which are transforming the lives of some people with certain kinds of disabilities, have been run across Europe, so there are worries that some of these projects may not continue. Can the Minister assure the House that priority will be given to helping this world-leading development continue? It is making an impact on people with disabilities not only in our own country but right across the world as the technology is rolled out.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Whether our people have a disability or they are well able, the jobs that we want them to get into will focus on technology in the future. I cannot give a categoric assurance that those projects will continue, but I can give a categoric assurance that we will continue to focus on the tech industry. I will go back and ask another question and, if I survive that, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate and let him know the outcome.

Bahrain: Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked by

[Lord Scriven]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to continue to provide funds for Bahrain through the Integrated Activity Fund following the decision of the Fourth Supreme Court of Appeals in Bahrain to uphold the death sentence in respect of Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, progress on human rights reform has been made, but there remains more to do. The United Kingdom is committed to supporting Bahrain-led reform, including through carefully targeted assistance and private and public engagement. We are clear that disengaging or criticising from the sidelines is less likely to deliver the positive reform that Bahrain and the international community seek.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have been given the official dossier from the Bahraini Special Investigations Unit, which reveals that its investigation into the torture allegations of the death row inmates Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa was inconsistent, contradictory and contravenes international standards. The dossier shows that the SIU, which the noble Lord maintains is transparent, is quite the opposite and implicated now in human rights abuses. In the light of this, will the Minister agree to a meeting with me and representatives from the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy to discuss this dossier, the IAF funding and why these two men transpire to have been deemed guilty by the Bahraini authorities even before they went to the dock?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am always happy to meet and we can look into that. On the noble Lord’s more specific point, I beg to differ. It was because of the United Kingdom’s investment in and provision of technical support, particularly for the oversight authorities, that the cases of Hussain Moosa and Mohamed Ramadan were looked at again. The noble Lord shakes his head but that is a fact. Of course, we regret the fact that the death penalty prevails as a form of sentencing in Bahrain. In that respect, I assure the noble Lord that I, the ambassador and my right honourable friend Dr Murrison, the Minister responsible, have made it known that we do not believe the death sentence should prevail, and we will continue to make that case to the Bahraini authorities.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes the point about positive engagement and seeking change, and I know that the UK is funding the alternative non-custodial sentencing programme. However, we now have a report from eight UN experts on this programme, saying that it discriminates against human rights defenders. What does the noble Lord say about that when he is the Minister responsible for human rights and his own programmes are discriminating against them?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Given his background, I am sure the noble Lord will know that we worked directly with UNDP on that programme and we have been working on this issue. He raised the issue of alternative sentencing and we have seen positive outcomes: up to 1,000 people have now been looked upon for alternatives to prison sentences. The noble Lord rightly raises genuine concerns about human rights and those continue. As I said in my original Answer, we are far from where we want to be but our continual engagement with the Bahraini authorities is producing results.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the British judicial system is one of the best in the globe, if not the best, and that many countries have benefited through training from our judicial systems? Can he offer additional training to some of the countries that we know well have uncertain outcomes of their judgments? I know how much judges of the countries I serve in welcome visits, support and training from our judicial system.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes a helpful suggestion, but we are seeking to do more. In this respect, judges from Bahrain have visited Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts in the United Kingdom and we continue to engage with the judiciary on this point.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, in the past hour the UN has called on Bahrain to prevent the execution of these two men, saying:

“Admission of evidence obtained under torture into any proceeding violates the rights to due process and fair trial and is prohibited without exception. If carried out in these circumstances, the death penalty would constitute an arbitrary killing.”


Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am aware of those reports, but I have not seen the full detail. On a previous occasion last year, when the death penalty was also passed, I made a direct intervention. Unfortunately, that death sentence was not reversed. Subsequently, at the Human Rights Council, we made specific reference under Item 2 on the death penalty and will continue to do. I will review the report the noble Baroness mentioned on my return. It remains the consistent position of the United Kingdom Government that the death penalty should not be part of sentencing policy. We continue to make that case with Bahrain and elsewhere.

Referendums

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:20

Asked by

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the rules for referendums.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the rules on referendums are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and the Government have no plans to review or change them. An Act of Parliament is required before any UK-wide referendum can be held. This means that all referendum legislation is thoroughly debated, and Parliament can decide to legislate for different rules for each referendum.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

I do not like referendums for governing this country, but if we are going to have them, particularly on major issues, is it not important that we have a minimum turnout and higher level of approval in order to make major changes? The horrors of the way that politics and economics were divided in this country on Brexit were bad precisely because it was a narrow division, and it would be even worse if the same happened in Scotland or, particularly, in Northern Ireland. We need to think about minimum turnout and a maximum in order to make a major change acceptable. That needs to be agreed, and everybody has an interest in agreeing it.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord’s consistent interest in this topic. However, Parliament would need to go down that kind of road with a good deal of care. This country has no history of applying thresholds to the making of laws, for example, or the electing of our representatives. Both those things require a simple majority. To start applying special thresholds for referendums would require special and clear justification.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on 24 April, I will be producing a Bill for the House to discuss the very issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley? Will my noble friend commit to approaching that debate with an open mind, bearing in mind that referendums are incompatible with representative parliamentary democracy?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I look to debating my noble friend’s Bill when it comes before us for Second Reading. I think it would be premature for me to set out the Government’s position on the Bill today. We will do so, as we do with all Private Members’ Bills, at the Second Reading, but I can assure my noble friend that we shall approach it with an open mind.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government accept that the worst failures with the 2016 referendum were concerned with transparency and funding? We still do not know who paid how much and for what and whether some significant sums were from illegal foreign sources. Strong recommendations have been made by a number of official bodies that the Government need to act on this, yet we have had no response. The long-awaited ISC report on Russian influence may be very relevant here. When will the Prime Minister authorise its publication?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the first duty of government is to safeguard the nation, and we treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. We have no evidence to show that there was any successful interference in the EU referendum. However, as I said, we take any allegations of interference in our democratic processes extremely seriously. My understanding is that the report referred to by the noble Lord has been released by the Prime Minister.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

When we look at the last three referenda—on the voting system in 2011, on Scottish independence in 2014 and on EU membership in 2016—one of the bizarre characteristics is that, before the ink was dry on the results of those referenda, the losers were campaigning for a second referendum to reverse the first one. Therefore, should one characteristic of future referenda not be a minimum interval before the same question is asked again? Otherwise, you have an absurd situation where referenda designed to be for a generation are in danger of being reversed within six months.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Of course, there was a very considerable interval between the first devolution referendums at the end of the 1970s and the second ones in the late 1990s.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that there has been some change since 2016? Although it is true that we have limited information about the success of the campaigning from without the UK on that occasion, and limited information about what happened in the election of President Trump, there is today much more evidence about disinformation campaigning and there are many reports, including by the Oxford Internet Institute, which give us great cause for worry about the future of democracy. Does the Minster agree?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are very concerned and absolutely determined to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections. As I have said, we are doing that by addressing in particular the mechanisms for electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and by banning postal vote harvesting. We have already announced a range of measures to strengthen and protect our democratic processes. These include commitments to launch a consultation on electoral integrity and to implement a digital imprint regime for online election material.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I express considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, about referendums. I have long held considerable doubts about using a 50+1 mechanism for bringing about significant constitutional change. I am also incredibly fearful of using that method to bring an end to the union with Northern Ireland and establish a united Ireland; the consequences are likely to be severe. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at thresholds in referendums? There is a precedent in 1979, when the referendum in Scotland required not just a majority of those voting at the ballot box but 40% of the electorate as a whole to back the proposals.

[Earl Howe]

That is true, but we have never gone down that road in any of the subsequent referenda. There would be serious challenges in doing so. First, Parliament would need to decide what level of participation confers legitimacy; I do not think that is a straightforward issue at all. If one had a threshold related to voter turnout, the inflexibility of such an arrangement could easily prove counterproductive and have the paradoxical effect of equating non-participation with no vote, because low levels of participation can void a given result. That could cause a great deal of disquiet among the public.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Prime Minister has released the report on Russian potential interference in our electoral process. Can he say whether it has been published or, if it has not, when it will be published? If it has been published, can he make sure that copies are available in the Printed Paper Office?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the call from this House was for the Prime Minister to clear the report for publication. It is not the function of the Government to publish; that is the function of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I can give no further news other than that.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the digital imprint scheme that was announced last May. However, the Government announced that they could not possibly bring it in for the election that we just had in December. When will the Government bring in this imprint regime that will allow voters to have financial transparency and assess the credibility of online advertising? Will it be in place for the elections in May?

[Earl Howe]

We are absolutely clear that we want to introduce that mechanism as quickly as we can. It will ensure greater transparency. As the noble Baroness said, it will make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and promoted online political materials. I would love to be more specific about the timing. Unfortunately I cannot, beyond saying that we will make an announcement in due course and will do so as speedily as we possibly can.

Fishery Protection Squadron

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) ships, and (2) other vehicles, will be used to strengthen the Fishery Protection Squadron; and when such vehicles will be ready for active service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, in England the Marine Management Organisation has contractual arrangements with the Royal Navy for two offshore patrol vessels. The Royal Navy will be increasing its offshore vessels from four to eight over 2020. In addition, the MMO has two vessels and two aircraft as well as 22 patrol vessels from the inshore fisheries conservation authorities at its disposal. The MMO works closely with the devolved Administrations, which have their own fisheries enforcement assets.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that very full response. It is important that we get this right. We have 80,000 square miles of water to look after and as experience shows, that sometimes going wrong; some 28 frigates were involved in the cod wars. As an aside, I gather that the Government are reducing our number of frigates to nine by 2036, which is a bit of a shock.

My questions relate to the OPVs. We will find them difficult to man because they are being run extra to what was originally intended. Has there been any consideration of using RNR crews to man them and tying those crews specifically to RNR units? Is HMS “Clyde” going to be used? Lastly, will we get the MMO co-located with the NMOC so that they can co-ordinate these operations?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am answering for the Government but from Defra rather than from the Ministry of Defence. I shall run through the ships because I think it will be helpful. HMS “Forth”, HMS “Medway”, HMS “Trent”, HMS “Severn”, HMS “Tamar” and HMS “Spey” are either in operation or coming forward. With regard to HMS “Clyde”, the lease ends on 31 March 2020. So, as I have outlined, this will be additional to HMS “Tyne” and HMS “Mersey”. They are specifically directed to help us with fisheries, and those ships will be engaged in a number of duties.

On the point about co-ordination, as I have mentioned before, one of the advances is the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre, which exists precisely to ensure that we optimise and co-ordinate the development of UK maritime assets across government agencies, including the seagoing craft owned by Border Force, the Royal Navy, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, the MMO and others. I will look at all the points the noble Lord has made, but there is a lot more co-ordination. In addition, the MMO now has 75 marine enforcement officers working with the Royal Navy.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the key to fisheries protection is to catch foreign vessels in the act of fishing? To what extent will the Government use remote electronic monitoring, and are they considering making this a qualification for issuing a licence to foreign fishermen?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, access for foreign vessels will be subject to negotiation but clearly, as the Fisheries Bill states, they will require a licence. One important additional point is modern technology. A monitoring system has been in force for vessels over 12 metres since 2013, and we will be introducing VMS for vessels under 12 metres as well so that we get a more accurate picture of fisheries’ location and activity. The noble Lord and I went up to Newcastle to see the MMO. It can detect all vessels in operation in our waters, so that we are in a better position to ensure that our waters are properly fished.

[The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister inform us how the Scottish waters, under the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, will be integrated with the English and Welsh, and even Irish, waters? How will the three Scottish fishery protection vessels be integrated with MMO?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As I said in my first reply, co-ordination and collaboration with all the devolved Administrations—indeed, the four fisheries administrations —is absolutely key. Marine Scotland is represented on JMOC. In addition to the three vessels referred to by the noble Earl, it has two aeroplanes for aerial surveillance. The point is that there is collaboration with all four fisheries administrations to ensure that all UK waters are better protected.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that fishing vessels are very sophisticated nowadays? They know when a large, grey naval vessel is about to go over the horizon, so surely, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, we must put more investment into electronic surveillance—aerial surveillance and satellite surveillance. We must also ensure that all vessels fishing in UK waters are on an equal footing, and that all comply.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

This issue goes back to the very essence of sustainability and the reason why we need to do this. Heightened surveillance is in the long-term interests of the fishing fleets—for all vessels, whether they are foreign and subject to negotiation, or our own. It is about ensuring that sustainable stocks are in our waters and are fished properly. That is why, as I outlined, we have the electronic reporting and data system, the vessel monitoring system and even more innovative technologies to complement what we already have. This issue is really important.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government thought of ordering these new fishery protection vessels from Appledore shipyard, which needs some more orders? I believe that it built some vessels for Ireland. If not, where are these new vessels being procured from?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I cannot speak of Appledore, although I have heard of it, but under the terms of the Fisheries Bill there will be opportunities for varying grants, including for port infrastructure. We will clearly need to think about this area because we want to have vibrant coastal communities, not only through vessel repairs and construction but by having vibrant fishing fleets in sustainable waters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

Highgate Cemetery Bill [HL]

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:37

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time and referred to the Examiners.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

15:38

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to put on record the considerable disappointment on these Benches that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will not be making an Oral Statement on the Government’s initial response to the White Paper on online harms. I seek an assurance from the Government Chief Whip, or indeed the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that government time will be made available for a full debate on the response to the White Paper.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has to say and I will discuss it with my noble friend the Chief Whip.

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.

Motion agreed.

Clause 12 agreed.

Schedule 8: General police powers and prison powers relating to unmanned aircraft

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

24: Schedule 8, page 64, line 9, leave out “controlling” and insert “in control of or has operation of”
Member’s explanatory statement
Probing amendment regarding whether an unmanned aircraft flying automatically on a pre-programmed route is the responsibility of its operator, even when it is not being manually controlled at the time from the ground.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 26. These are probing amendments about the phrase, in lines 8, 6 and 16 on page 64,

“the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft”

and seek the Minister’s response to a query I raised at Second Reading as to whether it would encompass all instances concerning an airborne unmanned aircraft where a constable required a person to ground it. As unmanned aircraft and drone technology advances, there may be pre-programmable types that, once airborne, will no longer be under active control from the ground.

As we advance into 5G, it might be possible for two or more individuals to have apps on their smartphones able to handle more than a single drone and passing control of them from one person to another. On a bigger scale, and as we know, this is what happens now when RAF operators controlling an RAF Predator UAV in the air over Syria from their base station in the United States pass monitoring and control to another operational team at RAF Waddington in the UK. Such control-sharing activity, scaled down, must be widely available soon, if it is not already.

With an app on a smartphone, I and many others can already turn lights or other devices on or off in our home at any time and from anywhere in the world with a wi-fi link. It will surely be possible for AN Other on the ground to switch from one UA onboard programme to another with just a smartphone. Noble Lords may have further suggestions of how and in what way drone and other unmanned aircraft capabilities will advance.

My amendment seeks to probe whether the present wording of Schedule 8, about an individual “controlling”, is sufficiently embracing to meet present and future possibilities of unmanned aircraft operational misuse that a constable wants to stop. The amendment would cover more than in-hand control while airborne, which smacks merely of attempting to deal with the single hobby-type user. Until an incident has been investigated, it may not be clear whether the operator is just a lone nuisance type, as may have happened at Gatwick, or a member of some terrorist team with advanced technology at their disposal. In other words, is the present wording of the Bill sufficiently comprehensive for a constable to act to cover all types of possible future operation that could be unlawful? Indeed, what should the constable be required to do if the operator is not physically controlling the flight of the UA? Perhaps this, too, needs to be covered for completeness, for I doubt that even my amendment would be adequate.

This is my second amendment and, as I mentioned, it is purely probing, to seek a response from the Minister to my concern that the present phrasing may be overly restrictive and so inadequate. I beg to move.

15:45

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I was unable to play a part at Second Reading, or indeed earlier in Committee, but I have a professional background in aviation, which some noble Lords will know about and which is declared in the register of interests, so I was particularly interested in the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment.

One thing that the civilian helicopter community does is patrol pipelines for gas, oil and all sorts of other things. Something that has begun to worry some of us is that a helicopter, for example, following a pipeline to inspect it and ensure that it subscribes to all the parameters the oil company wants of it might meet either a drone coming the other way—because drones can do that job—or a drone that is crossing the route because it is doing something else. If the necessary controls are not there, how can we ensure that the conflict is removed? Who will have responsibility for it? If the drone is autonomous and not within the geographical boundaries that have been set for it, where does responsibility lie?

These are real issues and it is the responsibility of all of us in aviation to ensure that airspace is properly managed. It concerns me, as chairman of an organisation that flies aircraft—helicopters, particularly—on these pipeline patrols, that a drone coming the other way, or crossing a pipeline and not under adequate control, could cause an accident. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House knows that I used to be an RAF pilot. I express some disappointment that the clerks’ department, somewhere along the line, did not add my name to this amendment and a number of others—but I have accepted the apologies of that department.

There is a vast difference between “in control” and “controlling”. I live on a hill in Sandy, Bedfordshire, and so far I have collected two drones that were, by definition, very close to being over the 400 feet and certainly not in the line of sight. I think it is very important that we differentiate between those who are actually flying the drone and those who might technically own the drone or control the company that is flying the drone, or some other definition. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will recognise that this is not a superficial difference but a very significant one and that we must make sure that there is a clear definition. I thank my noble and gallant friend for raising the matter now.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a remarkable similarity between the discussions on this amendment and the discussions we have had over the years on self-driving, autonomous cars. The only difference is that this is three-dimensional and the other one is generally two. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, both gave examples of a question I have long had. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, mentioned two drones meeting over a pipeline or something, but the problem remains: how does a constable identify the person who is in control, or whatever? He is sitting in his car with his machine—or however he is going to do it—but how will he identify that? He cannot really arrest either the drone or the person unless he can identify them first. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain this rather simple bit of logic which has escaped me so far.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing this small group of amendments and giving us the opportunity to probe this wording, because it is incredibly important that we understand that the wording is fit for purpose. While I understand the intention behind his amendments, after careful consideration the Government believe that the existing wording in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 regarding a person or persons controlling an unmanned aircraft is fit for purpose in relation to both manual and pre-programmed operations.

On Amendment 24, regarding the power for a constable to require a person to ground a UA—unmanned aircraft—a constable could exercise this power in relation to a UA performing a manual or pre-programmed operation if they had reasonable grounds for believing a person or small group of persons to be controlling that aircraft. Where this reasonable belief exists, the constable could require a person to ground the UA regardless of whether it was pre-programmed or not— hence the existing wording is sufficient for the power to be effective in the circumstances envisaged by the noble and gallant Lord.

A similar issue arises in Amendment 26; again, “controlling” refers to the UA when it is being flown either manually or in a pre-programmed mode if it is capable of that. It is therefore our view that the distinction that the amendment seeks to make would have no discernible benefit, since the description implies a person controlling a UA in line with the existing wording in the Bill. However, the Government recognise that UA technology is constantly evolving, and we will continue to keep our policies under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur about helicopters and pipelines, he is quite right that unmanned aircraft will increasingly be used for tasks such as patrolling pipelines, railways and all sorts of other things. However, under the current regulations drones should not fly over 400 feet and must remain within line of sight—to go beyond line of sight is against the regulations. They must have permission to do either of those two things. To get that permission, one would assume that those operating the helicopter would be aware that there might be drones operating in that area.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about identifying the person, the constable must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft. That is not infallible, but a reasonable suspicion is not certainty. Therefore, given that the drone must remain within line of sight, a person will probably be able to be seen.

I hope that, based on this explanation, the noble and gallant Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I thank the Minister for her reply, which I shall obviously want to look at. I am still left very unclear about the depth of thought that has been given to this. She talks about situations where somebody is obeying the law and this does not matter, but I am concerned about the individual who is not obeying the law—who is flying above 500 feet and beyond sight of their drone. It seems to me that more is required than is presently available in the Bill—but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

25: Schedule 8, page 64, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) In requiring a person to ground an aircraft under this paragraph, a constable may also exercise the power to confiscate the unmanned vehicle.( ) A person whose unmanned aircraft is confiscated under this paragraph may apply to the magistrates court for an order for its return.”

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, this too is a probing amendment, as it does not fully capture the intention behind the issue that I raised during Second Reading on confiscation of equipment. The Minister at the time led me to believe that she would seek to answer in correspondence the issue that I raised, but the letter that Members have received does not refer to it. I do not blame her; perhaps she might deal with it today.

I have carefully read the Explanatory Memorandum and the Bill, and the only reference to confiscation is paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8, which states:

“A constable may seize anything that the constable discovers in the course of a search under this paragraph if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence in relation to a relevant ANO offence or a relevant prison offence.”


That part of the Bill seems to relate only to condition C under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8; in other words, it relates only to prison intervention by drone-related offences. My Amendment 25 would add only a right of appeal for restoration of property. I am worried that I see no reference to confiscation under any other schedules to the Bill. I will concentrate my remarks on the links between Schedules 8 and 10, which is the subject of a later reference in this group—or it was until this morning, when I came here and found that there had been a regrouping.

Before doing so, I will make a few general comments. First, have we any estimate of the numbers of drones available for use in the United Kingdom, of all types, commercial and recreational? We have an estimate of 530,000 drone sales in 2014—that came out of one of these documents; I found it very hard to believe—and a further estimate of 1.5 million to be sold in subsequent years. Again, I do not know where this information comes from, but it is in one of the publications. Do the Government have any real stats on the availability of this equipment?

Secondly, I am not too worried about commercial operators. They will, generally speaking, keep within the rules and the law—although there is some evidence of the need for some commercial operators to be more knowledgeable, and for some airport operators to be more flexible and understanding about charging and issues of access, in particular regarding the size of restriction zones. My primary concern is the rogue operator, using sub-250-gram UAVs, and large equipment used privately by individuals, whether they are plain stupid in the way they use this equipment, or are drug dealers arranging for the carrying of drugs, crime gangs involved in illicit surveillance, potential terrorists who may wish to deploy weapons even in very small quantities or using small drones, or those who breach personal security where privacy is involved. Mr Geoffrey Hirst, a drone user, told a Commons committee recently that even a proportion of the recreational drone community are reckless, whether intentionally or not. We know that these small, sub-250-gram drones can be dangerous. When a joint test between the Military Aviation Authority and BALPA was recently undertaken, it was concluded that in a mid-air collision significant damage could be caused to a helicopter or aircraft.

I return to Schedule 10—subject to what has happened, but that was beyond my control. Under “Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft”, it states:

“The constable may give … a fixed penalty notice in respect of the fixed penalty offence if Condition A and Condition B are met.”


Condition A states that that includes: endangering another aircraft; causing any harm, harassment or alarm or distress; causing nuisance or annoyance; disturbing public order; or damaging property, all of which the accused could very easily deny. The only one that may be provable could be the undermining of good order in a prison, which is why we have the paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8 confiscation provisions which I have already referred to. Nearly all the others can be denied by the accused, and it will be very hard for anyone to prove otherwise. If the police officer gives the offender within the zone the benefit of the doubt, the offender will receive only a fixed penalty notice. Furthermore, if the person is under 18, they will not even receive a fixed penalty notice—effectively, an open invitation for the adult offender to lay responsibility on minors to hide their guilt and penalty. In other words, “Not me guv, it was the kids that did it”. They will effectively run rings round the drone code, with its hyped registration, responsibility and distance control requirements.

16:00

What is meant by the fixed penalty notice? Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 10, a fixed penalty notice is

“a notice offering the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of the offence to which the notice relates by payment of a fixed penalty in accordance with”

the schedule. That is not good enough. Offenders will run rings round the law, particularly the kind of offenders that we are talking about.

For a start, we need to ask ourselves: will they actually pay the fines? Let us examine the stats on the payment of fines. I take my source from the quarterly returns of criminal court statistics from England and Wales. In the first quarter of 2018—the last stats period available—47% of fines were not paid within 18 months. In other words, nearly half of those fines were not paid in 18 months. For many, fines are completely irrelevant.

Are we to further clog up our courts with defaulters? In my experience, after 40 years in this institution, Parliament only too often legislates without any reference to what is going on in the real world. This is a particular example. If we really want to put a block on illegal drone flying, confiscate the equipment—just as we do with other potentially dangerous items, such as knives, guns, illegal drugs and stolen goods. That will concentrate the minds of potential offenders.

Then we have the cost of the items—that will be an important consideration in the mind of offenders—which have the potential to be used for recreational and even commercial purposes. The cost can be anything between £100 and £15,000. I went on the internet today to look at the prices of these drones. They are pretty expensive. Many of the more effective ones cost at least £500.

As I said, confiscation will concentrate the mind. Just ask police officers who know the impact of confiscation. We need to be firm and uncompromising with those who wish to play fast and loose with the law and who are prepared to endanger life by acting in such a way as threatens to bring down an aircraft, intentionally or not.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I will speak to my probing Amendment 27 and to Amendment 30. I follow the strong words that we have just heard from the noble Lord.

As I and many others stressed on Second Reading, the risk of a mid-air collision involving unmanned aircraft being operated illegally is very serious and even catastrophic. It would be remiss not to reflect the seriousness of that danger in the punishment awarded. Indeed, it might also be worth considering whether some form of third-party compulsory insurance should be acquired by all operators of unmanned aircraft.

The misuse of an unarmed aircraft should be liable not only to a fine, or imprisonment if the misuse were to be catastrophic, but should invariably include the forfeiture of the unmanned aircraft and its associated kit for any misuse that falls outside a single instance of the fixed penalty range of misbehaviour. A deterrent to misuse before flight is of potentially greater value than just a monetary punishment as the result of an airborne offence. Even in the fixed penalty range of misuses, a persistent offender should face the risk of forfeiture, or at least confiscation for a period of time.

It is too early to delve deeply into the secondary legislation that will introduce the fixed penalty arrangements. However, as with fixed penalty notices for car drivers, is it intended that a points system will be set up, so that an individual who repeatedly offends and amasses a number of penalty points within a set time will then face the confiscation of their unmanned aircraft and associated kit, either completely or at least for a period of time as the consequence of their repeated misbehaviour? The deterrent value of such a scheme is well worth considering, although I recognise that the administrative details for it will need careful thought and could even be deemed excessive.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 25, and again, I had hoped to see my name attached to it. I am not sure whether the Committee fully appreciates the sheer scale and numbers that we are dealing with. My judgment, as someone who has been keeping some track of what is happening, is that probably 2 million drones have now been sold and presumably are being flown. I have had the privilege of serving on the Public Accounts Committee with the noble Lord opposite, and on a number of occasions he and I would probe into issues in depth. I therefore say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the probing which the noble Lord has done should be listened to and assessed very carefully.

Yesterday I went to a briefing on the importation of illegal tobacco. I have never smoked so I have no real personal interest other than ensuring that the revenue that should legitimately go to Her Majesty’s Government does so. There is little doubt that the people behind the illegal importation of tobacco are incredibly creative and show enormous genius, with the result that huge quantities are coming into this country. Allied to that is illegal drug importation, to which the same applies. I have just renewed my shotgun licence. The police are exceedingly careful about the renewal of such licences, not least by those of the older generation, in which I put myself. I am not surprised about that. The police checked thoroughly into where the guns are kept and whether they are properly locked away, and that we had security arrangements to ensure that if someone did break in, alarms would be set off.

We are absolute beginners in this field of activity and its implications. My friend the noble Lord on the Benches opposite is right to say that we are dealing with the rogue element but—as I have demonstrated by giving just two examples in drugs and illegal tobacco importation, and there are others—the rogue element is there in great profusion. Moreover, drones themselves provide a wonderful facility for illegal importation activities. Even if my noble friend on the Front Bench is not able to accept the wording of the amendment, I hope that she will think about it seriously and possibly come back at Report either to accept it or to table it with some minor modifications.

I will say to noble Lords that if we do not take action at this point in time, we will rue the day.

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made an interesting comparison between drug and tobacco smuggling and the action of a drone. The difference is that a drone can do monumental damage, if a rogue operator gets in the way and starts doing things that they should not be doing. I saw an instance of drug smuggling in the Isles of Scilly a few years ago; not only was the boat being used to smuggle confiscated, but the man who was single-handedly bringing these drugs into the country was so frightened of being caught that, when the yacht was tied up in St Mary’s harbour, he decided that the best way to get away was to climb the mast. He fell to his death on the quay, which was very sad. He was desperate not to get caught, but the boat would have been confiscated, and I cannot see why a drone cannot be confiscated.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours gave some wonderful examples of the numbers involved. The drones should obviously be confiscated, and anyone who wants to get their equipment back should have to apply to a magistrate. The amendment seems very reasonable to me.

[Lord Glenarthur]

Is there any requirement for those who operate drones to ensure that they are fitted with transponders, which can be interrogated by other types of aircraft conducting their operations perfectly legally within the same airspace? Might some mechanism be found to ensure that those who operate drones without transponders are breaching the rules, to which the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have referred?

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

This, again, is an aspect of the Bill where there is unanimity across all sides of the House—we are all trying to achieve the same purpose. The question is how best to do so, especially in an environment where technology is moving extremely fast. I am certainly sympathetic to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other Members of the Committee.

When the Minister comes to reply to this very interesting debate, perhaps she might describe the other sanctions that a rogue operator may be subject to in addition to the fixed penalties outlined in Schedule 10. We are talking about a broad variety of potential consequences, from annoying the neighbours on a sunny summer’s afternoon to deliberately trying to destroy an aircraft containing hundreds of passengers over central London. What sanctions could have faced the operator or the person in control—to use the phraseology of the noble and gallant Lord—who caused the disruption to Gatwick only a short while ago whose extremely irresponsible actions could have resulted in a high degree of disruption to the whole travel system of the United Kingdom?

It may be more convenient to discuss my second point in a later group of amendments, but there is a real issue around promulgation of the law. Because these devices can be bought over the internet and from shops by people who I suggest may not be familiar with the Air Navigation Order, they are probably not aware of the rules and how dangerous this activity can be and its consequences. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I am eternally grateful for this thought-provoking debate on confiscation and forfeiture. A number of issues have been raised. I will endeavour to cover as many as I possibly can, but I am aware that a number of noble Lords have made some very thoughtful points, so I will go away and read Hansard to make sure I have covered everything. At times, some very good points that I think we can address were made. At other times, there may have been some slight misconceptions as to the different types of offences and penalties being placed on people.

16:15

To start with, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned the number of drones out there. He will possibly agree with me that a fair few of them are under people’s beds, never to see the light of day again. It is rather like me with a jet ski; it gets a bit boring after a while—too much information. At the moment, the CAA registration scheme, which went live in November last year, has 80,000 people registered on it. That is higher than we had anticipated. We have no further information than that, but that is where we are at the moment. That number is probably a couple of weeks old. It could well be that there are a lot under people’s beds.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does that include all drones—commercial and recreational?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes, it includes all unmanned aircraft. Various bulk uploads will come from model aircraft clubs, so we expect that number to climb. Over the course of this Bill, perhaps when we get to Report, I am happy to look for an update on that and to give some indication of where we think more people registering their drones will come from.

Setting out the background to this, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned a number of offences to which he assumed a fixed penalty notice could be attached. I believe they may not be given for those more serious offences to which he referred. Subsequent to this, I hope to be able to set out precisely what will be given to each level of offence, because there is perhaps a little confusion. I will go through my explanation, because there are opportunities for confiscation and forfeiture, which I hope will mean that the noble Lords are content to withdraw their amendments. Let us just see how we go.

Amendment 25 would give the police the power to confiscate an unmanned aircraft if a constable has required it to be grounded. Amendments 27 and 30 would require somebody to forfeit the unmanned aircraft as the penalty for unlawful use. I reiterate that my department has worked closely with the Home Office to ensure that the powers in this Bill are proportionate—that is an important word here—because we do not want to stifle a nascent, growing and potentially very useful drone industry. We do not want to discourage or alienate those who seek to use the unmanned aircraft sector lawfully, because it should be very useful as we go forward. We have also worked with the police, who are confident that they have the powers in this Bill to provide effective enforcement.

The amendment on confiscation, Amendment 25, would provide a potentially disproportionate power to the police, in addition to the existing powers in the Bill for them to require an unmanned aircraft, rather than an unmanned vehicle, to be grounded.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Why should a drone that goes into one of these restricted zones, which could potentially cause huge damage, not be confiscated?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

If the noble Lord will bear with me, that drone would probably be confiscated by a constable for a different reason.

In our opinion, the amendment on forfeiture would also provide a potentially disproportionate penalty for those who commit most likely very minor offences of failing to ground an unmanned aircraft when asked to do so by police, or failing to comply with a constable’s request to inspect that small unmanned aircraft. While we feel that it would be disproportionate to insert these powers of confiscation and forfeiture regarding these two offences, it should be noted that the police have powers of confiscation elsewhere in the Bill and already in law.

Under the Bill, the police will have the power to stop and search a person or vehicle where they have reasonable grounds to suspect they will find an unmanned aircraft that is or has been involved in the commission of one of the offences specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 8. This is for more serious offences, such as interfering with aircraft. This stop and search power gives the police constable the power to seize anything they discover in the course of a search if they have reasonable grounds to believe it is evidence relating to one of those offences.

The summary of all the stop and search offences was given out at the all-Peers meeting and I am very happy to send round this ready reckoner, which shows which offences fall under stop and search if there is suspicion of them. They are, for example, flying above 400 feet or within an exclusion zone of an airport. If there was a stop and search in that case, that item could be seized as evidence. Similarly, when entering and searching a premises under warrant using the powers in the Bill, a constable might seize an unmanned aircraft or any article associated with it if they have reason to believe it has been involved in the commission of one of the offences set out in paragraph 7 of Schedule 8.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

The noble Baroness said the constable has the power to seize, but has he powers to retain and make forfeit, or would it be just a temporary seizure until such time as the courts had dealt with the circumstances? The point of my amendment, and I believe that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that of a deterrent for illegal use. Seizure or forfeiture would be a very good deterrent. As we mentioned earlier, we are dealing not with people who are behaving and who we are trying to encourage to grow their legal use of drones, but with people who might be or are operating them illegally. Those are the people I want to deter.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a very interesting and valid point about deterrence, which is probably quite separate from the line I sought to convince him of. Noble Lords have mentioned that a very good drone might cost, say, £500, but the penalties we are talking about for some of the offences that could have been committed are fines up to a maximum of £2,500.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If they are paid.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

If, indeed, they are paid, which I will come on to—perhaps in the letter—because there are some very significant deterrents. If we are after a deterrent, we have those deterrents. Do we feel it is proportionate for property to be forfeited for fairly minor contraventions? We do not.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but on a minor thing, as I said in my opening remarks a single misbehaviour under what would be a fixed penalty notice would not be a cause for forfeiture, but repeated misbehaviour that might individually be at the level of the fixed penalty notice should be taken into account. That is why I suggest that, under those circumstances, forfeiture, at least for a period if not completely, should be part of that penalty.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I suspect that in those circumstances, the person would just go out and buy another drone. We are between a rock and a hard place: drones are not so expensive that forfeiture is a huge issue, versus a fixed penalty notice, which may also be significant. We do not feel that forfeiture would make a significant difference to the deterrents. The penalties already in place are good ones. However, for the sake of completeness, I will mention that under current law, if a person has refused to ground their unmanned aircraft and has been arrested for an offence, the police officer has the power, under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to search the arrested person and to seize anything that is evidence.

[Lord Naseby]

I understand where my noble friend is coming from, but what she perhaps does not fully comprehend is that to those of us who have been involved in this industry for years, this is a highly dangerous area—far worse than motorbikes. The Government have the opportunity to lay down clearly that anybody who transgresses will be hit hard. This does not affect the genuine operators, who will take great care. However, quite frankly, listening to my noble friend, I can see this being abused. I see drones every weekend where I live. Half of them, perhaps, are being flown correctly, but a significant proportion are not, hence the two in my shed that crashed in the last six months.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My noble friend makes a very interesting statement. This Government recognise that in certain circumstances, when drones are not being flown correctly, it is literally a life and death situation. This is why the penalty for the most significant offences—recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person in an aircraft—is an unlimited fine or up to five years in prison.

My noble friend suggested that only half of those drones are flying within the rules. That is why we have introduced the competency and registration system. People are taking the competency test. If the Bill is passed and the police have the powers, they will be able to stand in my noble friend’s garden, identify those who may not be operating within the law and do something about it. Without the Bill, they could not.

[Lord Naseby]

I support the Bill.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am aware that my noble friend supports the Bill, and I appreciate his support. The Government are just saying “proportionality”. The Government’s role is not to come down hard across the entire sector, but to be proportionate. Those guilty of a minor contravention will get a fixed penalty notice; for something more serious, it is up to five years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Turning to a couple of points I have not covered, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made an important point about electronic conspicuity, or remote ID. This is being introduced into drones. Although it is not ubiquitous at the moment, electronic conspicuity for all aircraft was consulted on in the Aviation 2050 consultation. We will be looking at how we take that forward but, as part of EU retained law, the EU-delegated Act is already within domestic law. It contains remote identification requirements. This delegated Act came into force on 1 July 2019. We are currently in a transition period; within three years, electronic conspicuity and remote ID will be a requirement for all drones.

16:30

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister referred to consultation. Could she refresh my memory as to when that consultation took place, when it was completed and when the results were published?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. I would be remiss if I tried to remember, so I will write to the noble Baroness. I think that was a consultation for all aircraft. She will be aware that the Government are looking at general aviation and, as we move forward, the interplay between unmanned and manned aircraft in a unified traffic management system. That is some way off but we have to start thinking about it now. The electronic conspicuity of drones comes from EU regulation and is now in domestic law. We are in the three-year period during which all drones will have to have conspicuity.

My noble friend Lord Goschen mentioned other penalties and I hope I have given him some idea of their level. I will send this note around because it is useful in setting out exactly what happens if you contravene certain of the regulations.

As for getting people to understand what is required of them, we work with the retailers and the manufacturers—the CAA has the drone code—to make sure that we get the message out as much as possible. This is particularly important around Christmas, when there is a great deal of activity, so that when people get a drone—are given one or buy one—they know that it is not a responsibility-free activity and exactly what their rights and responsibilities are.

I feel a letter coming on on this one. There is quite a bit to cover about proportionality, deterrence and the different levels of penalty for different offences.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am pleased that the noble Baroness will write a letter. It might be a long one, but that is good. In this debate we have swung between saying, “Most people are just doing it in the garden. They might have the drone under their bed. If they go up, they do not fly hard, it is not going high and it won’t hurt anyone much,” to the other extreme when it could bring down an aeroplane or worse. My noble friend and others commented on the number of drones that may be flying and wondered how many will be flying illegally—in other words, without notification, without a licence or whatever. The question of proportionality is therefore quite serious; for some offences confiscation may be too strong a penalty and for others nothing like enough. In her letter, will the Minister give us some idea of how many constables or whatever we are to call them—the enforcement agency—will be trained to do this work and how many offences might they have to follow up each year? I have not a clue. You can think of every policeman in the country being able to do this—which is stupid—or of it all being done centrally. However, it would be good to have some idea of how enforcement might take place so that people like me, who have no great experience of this, can compare it to what happens on the roads or anywhere else. I will be glad to hear the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I hope he will be able to stick around until we get on to later amendments dealing with police resourcing and how the training will work.

Let me go back to first principles. The Bill is about giving the police the powers they need to put in place the penalties that already exist. It is very much about filling in that gap. We are working closely with the police and this is what they have asked us to do to give them the powers to clamp down on illegal drone use. The situation is in flux as people register but, for people who have not registered and are flying illegally, the police now have these powers. Without the Bill, they would not have the powers. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend please include me in the list of addressees for the important letter she is going to write?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I will certainly do so.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I shall say just one or two words. The Minister has offered to write us a letter. It is not a letter we want. We want it in the law. The letter will interpret the law in a way that she believes will satisfy the concerns we have expressed. I am worried about the guy out there with a drone. He is not going to read the law. He wants very simple principles established that he can understand. In the light of the interpretation that the Minister has put on the law during the interventions, I do not understand the law, and the other day I spent more than an hour going through these clauses to try to work out what was applicable in what circumstances. I put it to the Minister that the law is badly drafted. I have never said that in this House before. It is badly drafted, and we need far greater clarity in the clauses that Parliament is required to clear.

I predict that in the Commons, when MPs with airports in their constituency get their hands on the Bill, they will rubbish this clause because they will be dissatisfied with the provisions as explained to us. I say to the civil servants now that they should think in advance, before the Bill gets to the Commons, about how they will deal with the objections that will inevitably arise.

The Minister says that the role of government is to be proportionate. I agree. However, a small drone of 250 grams within a restricted zone can bring down a jumbo jet, with hundreds of lives lost. I think I am being proportionate and the Government are not in not understanding that that is the danger we are considering. The Minister has laid words on the record today that, in the event of a disaster, people will pore over and wonder what the hell she was talking about. I shall no doubt come back to this on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

28: Schedule 8, page 66, line 24, at end insert—
“Annual statement on stop and search demographics
2A(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many times the police have exercised the stop and search powers under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person searched, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish details of the demographics of those who have been stopped and searched.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, there are three matters in this group: Amendments 28 and 29 and whether Schedule 8 should stand part of the Bill. I shall address Amendment 28. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 sets out the powers of a constable to stop and search persons or vehicles and includes the conditions that have be met in order to do so. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish details of the demographics of those who are stopped and searched. The purpose of the amendment is to find out what the Government intend in this regard.

The amendment refers to the Equality Act 2010 and the nine protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race, religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. At Second Reading the Government said that stop and search demographics would be available for those subject to a stop and search under these powers, and that

“they will be published by the Home Office in the usual way.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1295.]

What does “published by the Home Office in the usual way” mean in relation to this amendment and the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?

How did the Government come to the decision to enact these stop and search powers under Schedule 8? In autumn 2018, the Home Office ran a public consultation on

“Stop and Search: Extending police powers to cover offences relating to unmanned aircraft … laser pointers and corrosive substances.”


The Government indicated in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, if I have read them correctly, that responses to the consultation were broadly unsupportive of proposals relating to unmanned aircraft, with many respondents feeling that the intrusive nature of stop and search powers would be disproportionate to the likely threat.

Since that consultation, we have had the incident at Gatwick Airport at the end of 2018. Following that incident, in response to the consultation, the Home Office committed itself to developing a stop and search power for offences related to flying an unmanned aircraft in the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome. The Home Office also indicated its intention to keep the further expansion of stop and search powers in relation to other unmanned aircraft offences under review.

The Bill now provides the police with the power to stop and search any person or vehicle, subject to certain conditions. At Second Reading, in response to the point that the Home Office consultation was completed before the Gatwick incident, the Minister said:

“I reassure noble Lords that we have of course been in touch with members of the police force around Gatwick and, indeed, all over the country to make sure they are content with the powers in the Bill. We believe that they are. We have a close relationship with them, so they have been involved since Gatwick in making sure these powers are appropriate. Of course, we still meet with the police and other stakeholders to discuss these matters in general.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; cols. 1291-92.]


Bearing in mind that, in the public consultation prior to Gatwick, responses were broadly unsupportive of proposals on stop and search powers in relation to unmanned aircraft, were any meetings or other forms of contact had with those who had been broadly unsupportive of the proposals, to check that their views had changed since the Gatwick Airport incident? Did the Government make an assumption that views would have changed, or did they not intend anyway to take any notice of the broadly unsupportive responses to the stop and search proposals, so that it did not really matter whether views had changed as a result of the Gatwick incident? A government response on this would be helpful.

The second item in this group relates to Schedule 8 standing part. I want to talk about paragraph 5(11) of Schedule 8, which inserts a power at new subsection (4B) into Section 93 of the Police Act 1997. This enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove an offence from the definition of “relevant offence” set out in subsection (4A), also inserted by this Bill. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 deals with

“authorisations to interfere with property”

or interference with wireless telegraphy. This is a Henry VIII power. In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government said that it was necessary to ensure that the list of relevant offences remained up to date

“if the evolution of technology results in unmanned aircraft being used in new or different types of offence.”

I note that they used the word “if”, not “as”, in relation to the evolution of technology; clearly the Government do not actually know whether they will need this power to add, by regulations, additional or even completely new offences.

In the same memorandum, the Government say:

“The power to interfere with property or wireless telegraphy is a significant power which entails the possibility of interferences with, for example, people’s property rights.”


Further on, the Government refer to

“any expansion of the power to interfere with property and wireless telegraphy”.

Yet the Government want to have this “significant power” and this “expansion of the power to interfere” with “people’s property rights” by adding additional new offences that they do not know they will need and appear unable to describe, and to do so not by primary legislation but by regulations that cannot be amended.

16:45

Even though the Government do not know whether they will need the power to add new offences by regulations, their case for wanting this not inconsiderable power is that

“otherwise it could be necessary to regularly introduce new primary legislation each time an offence is created”.

I hope the Government can provide a rather more convincing explanation of why this power to add new offences, unknown in both content and number, by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation is deemed so crucial, and indeed unavoidable, as opposed to simply suiting the administrative convenience of the Government of the day.

I may well be wrong, but the provisions of Schedule 8 on the power of a constable to stop and search people or vehicles appear to cover the suspicion of not just serious crime but non-serious crime. Is that the case? If so, could the Government indicate in specific terms the lowest level of offence or suspected offence against which the stop and search powers in Schedule 8 could be exercised by a police officer?

The final item in this group is Amendment 29, which is about police and prison resources. It proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether the police and prisons are sufficiently resourced to carry out the new functions in Schedules 8 and 9 to the Bill. Introducing the Bill at Second Reading, the Government said, and this is a fairly long quote but it is about the additional powers that the police will have:

“The police will be given the necessary powers to require an unmanned aircraft to be grounded, to stop and search persons and to enter and search premises under warrant. They will also be given powers to: require a person to produce documentation or evidence of the permissions or exemptions required under the ANO 2016, such as permission to fly in the flight-restricted zone of a protected aerodrome; require a person to produce evidence of remote pilot competency and operator registration … and issue a fixed penalty notice for less serious unmanned aircraft-related offences. The Bill will also enable interference with property or wireless telegraphy in order to prevent or detect certain offences involving the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1268.]

The Bill also provides powers to address the issue of drones being used to smuggle drugs, weapons, mobile phones and tobacco into prisons. It is clear from that that the Bill places additional powers and responsibilities on the police in particular but also on the Prison Service. In her letter of 4 February 2020, the Minister acknowledged that questions had been raised at Second Reading about police resources. She said in her letter that

“Government, primarily through the Home Office, are working closely with the Police to ensure they have access to the people, technology and powers needed to combat the threat of malicious drone use”,

and that

“development of new training and guidance to support police officers is already underway.”

Could the Government say what the additional cost will be of ensuring that the police have access to the people, technology and powers needed, and whether that additional cost includes the training and guidance to support police officers that is already underway? Could they also say roughly what percentage of police officers would require access to the people, technology and powers needed, and what percentage of police officers will require the training and guidance referred to in the Minister’s letter of 4 February 2020? The letter also referred to

“new tactical advisors or subject matter experts to support officers’ decision making across the United Kingdom”.

How many such tactical advisers will be needed, and will they be new permanent posts or simply existing posts renamed?

Finally, what additional training and resources will be provided to the Prison Service arising from the provisions of the Bill? This is not just about what resources the Government currently think the police and Prison Service will need when taking on the functions in Schedules 8 and 9, it is about whether that assessment proves to be correct so that we do not end up with the police, in particular, being even more stretched; hence the reference in my amendment to the Secretary of State’s report being published within 12 months of Section 12 coming into force. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s comments, particularly in relation to Amendments 28 and 29. Our experience of the use of stop and search powers over the years has revealed that the police have to perform a very careful balancing act in their use of those powers. The idea of ensuring that they are looked at carefully after a period of time would therefore certainly assist in avoiding the misuse of powers.

This is particularly complex because the leisure use of drones is about a lot more than a group of people standing in a field and having a little fun. There are a lot of brilliant commercial uses of drones, along with some very important uses by the military and in our emergency services generally. But there is a complex, unofficial use of drones nowadays and it is not all innocent fun. They are widely used in the drugs trade. It is therefore important that the use of stop and search powers is exercised with a view to looking at potential criminality, beyond whether a drone is being used in the wrong place or flown too high and so on. However, that has to be done proportionately and carefully. Our experience over many years in this country is that there is nothing quite like a little transparency in the way in which a power is exercised, to ensure that it is done properly and fairly.

I support Amendment 29, too, because of the obvious fact that the Prison Service is greatly overstretched. It can be argued logically that if you used these resources to control the misuse of drugs in prisons, you would actually make the life of the Prison Service rather easier. Unfortunately, when a service of any kind—we have had this all the time with the NHS—is as badly stretched as the Prison Service, it has a hand-to-mouth existence. It is very important that the impact of this additional responsibility is looked at carefully in the months following the introduction of these powers.

We will investigate a lot of other issues in debating the next group of amendments, which emphasise the complexity of the situation now with drugs. However, the two amendments in this group draw out two important threads.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing this group of amendments, which gives us the opportunity to discuss the stop and search powers and the resourcing of police, and to dip our first toe in the water on delegated powers.

We recognise that stop and search is a significant power and that it is essential that we use it appropriately and proportionately. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly recognised that the consultation on the use of stop and search for drones reported before Gatwick. Therefore, the powers in this Bill were included as a result of a significant amount of consultation after Gatwick to make sure that we got it right. Since that consultation concluded, officials have had various meetings with stakeholders to discuss the consultation response both within and outside government. Those consulted include the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and BEIS, as well as the National Police Chiefs’ Council and CT Policing. The Department for Transport has also met groups such as BALPA and the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers, who in general support the police powers proposed in the Bill.

It is important that the powers be used only where proportionate, so there are a number of limits in the Bill. In the first instance, a constable must have grounds for suspecting that they will find an unmanned aircraft or something associated with an unmanned aircraft, such as a controller, and that the unmanned aircraft or article has been involved in the commission of one of the offences specified in the Bill. I shall send the schedule to noble Lords.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister referred to BALPA. Is she saying that BALPA has expressed no reservations whatever about the police powers?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am not aware that BALPA has any reservations about the stop and search powers under discussion.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

So it has no reservations.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am afraid that I cannot recall exactly what BALPA’s reservations are—whether it has reservations about other police powers—but it was certainly one of the stakeholders that we spoke to regarding stop and search. As a consequence of the conversations that we had, we believe that introducing the powers in this Bill is proportionate and appropriate.

The more serious offences that could be liable to stop and search go towards the higher end of the penalty range and might involve transferring articles into or out of prisons et cetera. The Bill also sets out further conditions that need to be met. For offences that could be considered less serious, the conditions are more stringent. For example, in relation to Article 95 of the Air Navigation Order, flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft too close to people, or Article 239(4), flying within a prohibited area, where it is more likely that somebody has committed an offence unintentionally —which again goes back to proportionality—stop and search can be used only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the commission of an offence using an unmanned aircraft or associated article was for one of the following purposes: endangering an aircraft, which I think noble Lords would all agree should be top of the list; causing any person harm, harassment, alarm or distress; undermining security, good order or discipline in any prison or institution where people are lawfully detained; damaging property, or threatening national security. So, there are many offences where stop and search does not apply—for example, Article 94, including flying beyond visual line of sight without permission and flying commercially without permission. Here, stop and search would not be applicable.

We also recognise that it is very important to minimise the potential for discrimination in the exercise of police powers. In addition to the limitations written into the Bill, the conduct and recording of the Bill powers will be subject to Sections 2 and 3 of PACE, for which there is already guidance for police in Code A, the code of practice for police in the exercise of statutory powers of stop and search. Code A will apply to the Bill powers to ensure that they are being exercised appropriately.

17:00

Transparency is important. The Home Office already publishes national statistics on police powers and procedures annually, including on the use of stop and search powers. It is our intention that the use of stop and search powers under the Bill will be incorporated as one or more datasets in that report. This will help us to ensure that the data is collected in one place in a manner that is consistent and therefore comparable to the exercise of stop and search powers under other legislation. We will look to add this data to the next round of the annual data requirement—ADR—collection from April 2021.

I turn to Amendment 29 and the report on police and prison resourcing. During the drafting and preparation of the Bill, officials in the Department for Transport worked very closely with the Home Office, the police and the Ministry of Justice to obtain operational advice and ensure that the powers contained in it can be effectively utilised. Following this involvement, the Government do not expect the burden on the police as a whole generated by these new powers to be significant. The Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, published in October 2019, committed to a new national police counterdrone unit. The Home Office has already committed £1.28 million to the police to develop this unit, which will provide a national capability to respond to unmanned aircraft incursions.

The Government are also working with the police to ensure that the new counterdrone unit has access to the people, technology and powers it needs to combat the threat of malicious unmanned aircraft use. The unmanned aircraft elements of the Bill are key to this, but ensuring an effective response is not just about establishing a new national capability, although of course that is part of it. As unmanned aircraft become part of everyday life, countering the threat from unmanned aircraft must become part of day-to-day community policing. As such, the counterUAV strategy commits to the provision of new training and guidance for police officers. The police have existing mechanisms with the Home Office to ensure that they have sufficient resources to deliver what is required without the legislative requirement to report this.

Turning to prisons, over the last few years, prisons in England and Wales have made considerable improvements to their security regimes and have been given funds to invest in a range of technologies to stem the flow of contraband entering them. Currently, the industry that provides counterunmanned aircraft measures that would be appropriate for the needs of prisons is very small, but we are looking into it and it is evolving rapidly. The provisions of the Bill will allow prisons to make use of counterunmanned aircraft measures in future. Future investment will allow us to evaluate this sector and invest where appropriate. Any additional investment would then be reflected as expenditure in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s published annual report and accounts.

Turning to Schedule 8, the delegated powers contained in paragraph 5(11) were noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I shall open the discussion about delegated powers by putting on record that the Government have very carefully considered all the delegated powers in the Bill, and we are satisfied that their use is necessary and justified. Every effort has been made to limit the number and the scope of the delegated powers in the Bill, and they have been included only where it is not appropriate or practical to make provision in the Bill itself. A full explanation and justification of all the delegated powers in the Bill is set out in the published delegated powers memorandum and I encourage all noble Lords to read it if particular concerns still exist. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report on the delegated powers in this Bill on 21 July. I was delighted to see that it concluded that there was nothing in the Bill which it wished to draw to the attention of your Lordships’ House.

Each of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers has been included only when absolutely necessary, and often the reason for using a Henry VIII power has been to ensure that the Bill’s provisions remain fit for purpose in light of future legislative and technological developments such as developments in drone technology. The department has carefully considered the parliamentary procedure for all the Bill’s Henry VIII powers to ensure that they receive an appropriate level of scrutiny.

The delegated power mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the list of relevant offences in relation to which a chief constable or other body listed in Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 can authorise interference with property or wireless telegraphy for the purpose of detecting or preventing the commission of those offences. Adding offences to this list is a key power; we take very seriously the powers it gives the Government and therefore the police to counteract malicious use in that regard. However, technology will change. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a distinction between the words “if” and “as”. My notes say “as”, so the “if” he noted could also have been an “as”—so 1-0 to him today.

This power is necessary because technology may emerge which could result in unmanned aircraft being used for new or different types of offences about which we currently have no proper understanding or idea. It is essential that the law stays up to date. The way we do that is by adding offences to Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, and because that is adding an offence to a piece of primary legislation it is necessarily a Henry VIII power.

However, we agree that it is a very significant power and therefore in this case we have mandated that the affirmative resolution procedure be used so that noble Lords have the opportunity to discuss the new offences that are being added to this piece of primary legislation. Noble Lords may ask why a Henry VIII power is necessary in this case. It is key that we keep these offences together, and therefore Section 93 of the Police Act is the right place for them. I am sure that our legal eagles could have come up with a structure that would have meant that the Henry VIII powers would not have been needed, but then we would have had two different pieces of legislation containing offences which apply to the same central core—the ability to interfere with wireless telegraphy and property.

With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for her response to the amendments on which I and others have spoken. I will of course withdraw my amendment, but am not entirely convinced on her point about police resources. I asked some fairly specific questions about the percentage of police officers who would be required to have the training; I still do not know whether it is envisaged that all police officers will have this knowledge or whether it will be a much smaller grouping. I also asked about the tactical advisers; I suspect on that one it will be a case of waiting to see what happens—whether the Government’s view of the extent to which it will involve an additional responsibility or duty on the police materialises or whether it will prove somewhat greater than the Government anticipated. But for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Schedule 8 agreed.

Clause 13 agreed.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Schedule 9: Police powers relating to requirements in the ANO 2016

Amendment 30 not moved.

Schedule 9 agreed.

Clause 14 agreed.

Schedule 10: Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft

Debate on whether Schedule 10 should be agreed.

[Lord Rosser]

I have written down an item about Schedule 10 and I will speak in particular to paragraph 6 of Schedule 10, which allows for supplementary provision to be made by regulations with respect to fixed penalty notices, including to the extent of amending or repealing provisions by an Act of Parliament. Paragraph 6(1)(b) of Schedule 10 also states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make

“provision about the consequences of providing false statements in connection with fixed penalty notices, including provision creating criminal offences.”

In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government’s justification for this power to create criminal offences through regulations, which cannot be subject to amendment, appears to be at least in part that there is a precedent in Section 54 of the Space Industry Act 2018. That Act was in essence a skeleton Act, which the Government told us was needed on the statute book before it could be properly fleshed out—hence so much being left to subsequent regulations—to provide assurance or comfort to the emerging UK space industry that the Government were prepared to give it the legislative backing and certainty it required. I suggest that the same consideration hardly applies here in relation to fixed penalty notices and the creation of criminal offences.

The Government say that the powers in paragraph 6(1)(b) to create criminal offences are needed to ensure that provision can be made for the consequences of providing full statements in connection with fixed penalty notices. But what kind of criminal offences are we talking about which are apparently so unique that the Government cannot formulate them now and put them in the Bill? Alternatively, since the Government refer only to the

“possibility of creating criminal offences in relation to false statements,”

why not first determine what those new criminal offences are that need creating and then include them in the next suitable Bill, where they can be fully debated and amended?

The Government clearly regard this Henry VIII power to be of some significance, since they state in their memorandum to the DPRR Committee that

“the regulations may create criminal offences and make provision about the process around appeals, and there is therefore the potential for significant impact to the public, police and judicial system.”

However, despite that potential for significant impact, the Government think it appropriate to use Henry VIII powers and regulations rather than primary legislation, which is invariably more fully debated and which, unlike regulations, can be amended. So can the Government give a somewhat fuller explanation of why having the powers to which I have referred in Schedule 10 is so crucial and, in their view, unavoidable, as opposed to them being powers, frankly, of administrative convenience to the Government?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing a specific part of Schedule 10: notably, paragraph 6, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations for the provisions about fixed penalty notices, the form of and the information included, and the consequences of providing false statements in connection with fixed penalty notices, including the provision of creating criminal offences, as the noble Lord noted. It is important to note that within all this there is the affirmative resolution, and the consequences need to be proportionate and appropriate to the fixed penalty notices themselves. So proportionality will certainly come into this.

Should the regulations be used in future, the key consideration will be whether they are proportionate. The noble Lord mentioned that the consequences could be put in other legislation, but there could be no other suitable legislation coming down the track. As he noted, there is precedent for making regulations in the manner set out in the Bill. This would be a perfectly reasonable way to provide the flexibility that the Government need in this area as the entire sector develops. We need the flexibility not only for the information required in fixed penalty notices; it must therefore be the case that the consequences of providing false statements in relation to fixed penalty notices must also be needed. That is why we have taken this power in the Bill.

I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able not to oppose the schedule.

Schedule 10 agreed.

Clause 15 agreed.

Schedule 11 agreed.

Clause 16 agreed.

17:15

Amendment 31

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

31: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of existing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the protections surrounding unmanned aircraft in existing legislation, and whether those protections are sufficient.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether existing privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether existing criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and(ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in light of its findings.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to undertake a review of existing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and to recommend whether further legislation is required to ensure sufficient protections.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lord, when I became Lords Transport spokesman in 2015, the first major piece of work I participated in related to drones. Work had already been done on that by one of the European Union sub-committees and a good report published. Then, and ever since, I have urged the Government to grasp this issue. Despite many opportunities, they have refused stubbornly to do so. They have refused to be hurried. Above all, they have refused to look ahead at rapidly developing technology.

Since 2015, a range of Ministers has been sitting opposite us answering on transport issues, but from one after another we have heard the phrase, “We lead the world in drone technology.” They have failed to grasp that if you are going to lead the world in the technology, you need to lead it in its regulation too. In preparation for today, I looked again at briefings we had a couple of years ago on legislation on drones. Then, a couple of weeks ago, we received a briefing from DJI, a leading UK drone manufacturer, which specified what its drones can now do. I compared that with what we were told drones could do a couple of years ago. In that short period of time, there has been a leap in technological capability. Here we have a Bill to update the law, yet the government response is limited to falling back on a few long-established police powers.

I cannot emphasise enough that that is a huge missed legislative opportunity. The Government should be looking at what drones can do now and indeed be anticipating what they will be able to do in a few months’ time, not even in a few years’ time, because it takes that long to get legislation on to the statute book and in that time there will be another step forward in drone technology. I argue that we owe it to pilots and passengers, whose safety is at risk. We owe it to airport operators who, at great cost, have to deal with the threats from drones, and we owe it to drone manufacturers and users to provide the framework for safe drone usage. I take issue with what the Minister said earlier about being proportionate, not overreacting and so on. Rather, drones need a good reputation. To achieve that, they need a good, modern and strong legal framework, which this Bill does not provide. Nothing could be worse for the drone manufacturing industry and for our technological base in it than to suffer disasters associated with drones which happened as a result of the fact that we have inadequate legislation.

Modern, adequate legislation does not have to be draconian, it just has to look at the ways in which drones operate and to take them into account. Amendment 31 is designed to open up the discussion and to encourage the Minister to go back to her department and press for firm measures to be incorporated in the Bill on Report. We are asking for a review, which is the very least that is needed. I would prefer some action now. I would like a much tighter legal framework, but to help the Minister I have specified some of the key issues that those in the industry— whether BALPA representing pilots, those in the drone manufacturing industry or those in the aviation industry—believe need to be addressed urgently.

For example, a recent opinion poll showed that 60% of people are concerned about the privacy implications of drones. Earlier, the noble Viscount referred to the issue of drones being flown over gardens, and there are other issues associated with the use of drones being used to spy on neighbours in a very unpleasant manner. Is the current legislation comprehensive enough to deal with the invasion of privacy implications of drone use? I doubt it.

The issue of the minimum age also needs to be addressed. In the wrong hands, a drone can bring down a plane, so it is only sensible to set a minimum age for flying them. They are not children’s toys, although they are often bought as such by badly informed parents. Last Christmas I noticed that one or two retailers stated that they were ceasing to sell drones because they realised the level of responsibility that goes with them.

The technology now exists for the remote identification of drones, something the Minister referred to earlier, but setting that aside, as some would have it and some would not, all should now have remote identification. It is reasonable to expect that it should always be switched on. It was explained to me that it should work like registering a car. I am registered as a driver and my car is registered as my property. If I drive badly, the police can take note of that, take the number plate, trace the car to me and rightly approach me to ask whether I was driving that car on that day and, if not, who was.

The same principle should apply with drones. Remote identification is an inexpensive way for the police and airport authorities to monitor drone usage. If a drone is flying too low or too close to an airfield and it has remote ID, the authorities can identify who owns it, find the owner and stop it flying there. If the drone’s ID is switched off, they know immediately that the incident is much more serious. They know that it is not a case of a youngster, or even a middle-aged person, behaving carelessly, but someone is deliberately intending to avoid being caught, leading to a potentially serious incident.

It should be an offence to switch off the remote identification of drones. There must of course be exceptions, which should be allowed as part of a regular process by the CAA. There are organisations and people who have very good reasons not to obey this identification process. Obviously, it should also be an offence to modify or to weaponise—that is, to arm—a drone. I do not know whether the current legislation would cover that. It was put to me that it would not.

Geofencing also needs to be widely rolled out. That would involve updating drone software regularly. It could be done with the annual registration process, just as with an electric or an automated vehicle in years to come, when software will need to be regularly updated. It also needs to be done for drones.

I have been talking about airports but all of this applies to prison authorities as well. If it were to be applied to drones through legislation at this time, it would help prison authorities considerably, as well as assisting in the safety of airports. I beg to move.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s words were tempting in some ways because ever since drones first appeared, we have been way behind the game in dealing with their potential dangers. They should never have been made available for the general public to buy and should have required a licence from the very beginning. All those things should have been done early on. So there is a temptation to support the noble Baroness in what she said, but when you think about it a little more, you realise that if we legislated in the way she asks for we would almost certainly be behind the game again. It is better that we leave things as they are drafted in the Bill so that we can take action much more easily in those circumstances when we see what is happening.

We cannot go back and undo those mistakes made at the very beginning because most people thought that they were toys. I remember that I in particular warned against the dangers of them being used, for example, as weapons launched at this building from a boat going up or down the river outside this place on to the Terraces, where people sit outside. That danger is still there. We need, all the time, to make sure that our powers are as flexible as possible—in the Bill now, I believe that they are—to deal with those threats as they arise.

17:30

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had been here during earlier proceedings on the Bill because we dealt with the issues that he referred to.

I wonder whether Ministers have considered the 22nd report of the Commons Select Committee, entitled Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK, and its recommendation. I want to read that recommendation out because it is at the heart of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The committee said that they are

“concerned that there are differing accounts within the aviation community about the likely severity of damage of a drone collision with an airplane. Furthermore, there are differing accounts of the number of near misses and the reliability of airprox reports has been disputed. The Committee is concerned that there is no agreed position on the likely consequences of a drone-airplane impact. The Government should complete a substantive risk assessment”—

exactly what the noble Baroness said—

“by the end of 2020.”

That is the end of this year. The report went on:

“If it is not possible to publish the result of this assessment due to security concerns, the Government must provide this Committee with evidential assurances that this work has been done.”


Well, it has not been done. The Select Committee recommendation has been ignored.

To go back further in the committee’s evidence, the CAA said that

“It is considered unlikely that a small drone would cause significant damage to a modern turbo-fan jet engine”.


I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be interested in what the report then states because he was a BALPA airline pilot, if I recall correctly:

“Captain Tim Pottage, representing BALPA, voiced caution about the CAA’s position. Captain Pottage said that he was … ‘Concerned that the CAA had that view. There has been no testing of a drone against a large commercial high bypass jet engine—none at all. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it would cause a catastrophic failure, causing a blade to shed and not to be contained within the engine cell.’”


That is what is worrying us in the House. We will have a lot of people telling us not to worry about it and that it will not happen, but if it does happen, who will be held to blame? I believe that it will be this Government.

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, the House should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for introducing her amendment and enabling a discussion about, essentially, attempting to future-proof this legislation, which is extremely difficult to do.

I am afraid that I follow my noble friend Lord Tebbit’s analysis of the situation. We have to draw the line somewhere. It is important to move ahead with the legislation more or less as drafted—that is, as it appears before the Committee. It is difficult to legislate for future technical solutions, such as geofencing and reliable, low-cost, low-weight but high-power transponders that would have to be developed to be included in every single drone. Lightweight transponders exist at the moment—light enough to be put into gliders, for example—but they have relatively high power requirements. There is also the requirement for them to have very high integrity. If these drones are carrying a transponder and giving false information because the transponder costs £5, for example, air traffic control could be disrupted perhaps worse than by the original offence relating to where the device is being flown.

While I welcome the debate that the noble Baroness has facilitated through her amendment, I am sympathetic with my noble friend the Minister in trying to produce legislation that, as far as technologically we can, tackles the situation as it prevails at the moment while attempting to future-proof—often through the use of Henry VIII powers, which was the subject of the previous debate on Schedule 10. We need that flexibility. Some compromise is required to achieve that, and I suggest that that compromise is the use of delegated powers. It seems entirely clear that we will have to revisit this in the not too distant future, even after this Bill becomes law.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment. Even taking on board the reservations that two of my noble friends on this side have expressed, proposed new subsection (1)—a continual review each six months—certainly ought to be incorporated somewhere in this Bill. I do not know whether this is the right place, but that is for the Minister—not to respond to tonight, but certainly to take on board and come back to us on Report.

I see absolutely nothing wrong in having a minimum age. For heaven’s sake, it was done for motorcycles and other vehicles on the highway, and this is no different—it just happens to be in the air—so it seems absolutely right to have a minimum age.

I have worked with my noble friend on the Opposition Benches on many things. Having flown light aircraft in Pakistan and Canada and in the Royal Air Force, I am deeply worried that something will happen. I see a responsibility to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I do not think has had the privilege of doing either of those things, that there needs to be forestalling of a potential huge accident. I very much hope that the department takes that on board in this legislation.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am not without sympathy for the thoughts behind the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, but there are some important complications, which were referred to by my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Goschen. For example, electronic identification for each and every drone would be a considerable undertaking. It may in the end prove necessary, but it is not straightforward.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, unnecessary conflict has developed in this debate. I declare that I am the vice-president of BALPA, whose position, broadly speaking, is to support this Bill as far as it goes and strengthen it where we can, but also to recognise that there will be subsequent information and knowledge, and that regulation will be required as the impact of the technology changes. The noble Baroness’s amendment—building into this legislation the fact that we continuously review the specifics that she outlines, but also any other changes in technology—is the most sensible way to do it. We are not going to complete in the next few days a Bill that will last very long in its totality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with whom I sat on the same committee, knows that five years ago the technology was very different. Some of the concerns were the same; some have been overcome. Hopefully, we can develop a situation in which we have a continuous review, but the request that that should be built into this Bill does not seem to me unreasonable. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spelled out, and as I spoke about at Second Reading, we already know about the lack of testing on the effect of drones going into jet engines. We need that testing before we can effectively legislate. It is a potentially serious issue. We need a next stage built into the legislation. If the noble Baroness’s amendment is not accepted in total, I hope that its spirit will be taken on board by the Government.

[Lord Rosser]

My Amendment 35 in this group is on much the same theme as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, except that it calls for the Secretary of State to,

“prepare a strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft.”

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, referring to the rate at which technology surrounding drones has developed, said:

“It is possible that this legislation already falls behind recent developments. It seems to ignore the dangers that could arise from drones that fly beyond lines of sight. Ultimately, this legislation must be prepared to deal with the drone technology of the future”.—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1270.]


My noble friend Lord Whitty referred at Second Reading to the Select Committee report from 2015 on drones—or, as I think they were known then, remotely piloted aircraft systems—and said that a range of issues raised in the report had “not been fully addressed” and were not really addressed in the Bill. Some related to the safety of other users in the air and on the ground, but there were also issues of insurance, licensing, privacy and liability and the question of how far the multiple operation of drones by one programme and one operator is compatible with our current regulations. He also spoke about changes in the air traffic control regulations to ensure adequate separation; strengthening the enforcement and checking system; removing built-in safety features from drones; the deliberate weaponisation of drones; and licensing of individual machines. The Airport Operators Association has called for mandatory geofencing software in drones and the mandatory identification of drones to help airports to identify genuine threats to safety.

I am sure that the Government recognise the need to keep reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft. The incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018 and other incidents and the subsequent emergence of the Bill suggest that someone or somebody had not kept their eye fully on the ball regarding the relevance of legislation by ensuring legislation continues to reflect current realities and technological developments. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a strategy should be drawn up for reviewing legislation to ensure that that does not happen again. At Second Reading, the Minister, speaking for the Government, said:

“Of course, the world of drones and airspace change never stops, so we will continue to review the legislation to ensure it remains fit for purpose, particularly for drones.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1292.]


As I said, I am not sure that that has been the case in the light of the Gatwick incident in the sense of updating the legislation in time.

Will the Government’s strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft be conducted in a piecemeal manner, responding to problems and issues as they come to light, or will we have a comprehensive review of all aspects of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, as some have called for? The Airport Operators Association says in its briefing—which I am sure a number of noble Lords will have received—on Part 3 of the Bill on unmanned aircraft: “We are, in addition, disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to include other elements called for by the majority of the industry and achieve one comprehensive piece of legislation on drone safety and usage.”

The piecemeal approach would appear to be in vogue at the moment. Even with this Bill, the Government have taken the line—and it has been repeated today—that this is about police enforcement powers and that, in their view, it is inappropriate to use this Bill for further unmanned aircraft regulation. There are also the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, which we have discussed. They provide for the creation of new offences by the Secretary of State, by regulation on an ad hoc basis, and for the addition of offences by the Secretary of State by regulations on an ad hoc basis. That again suggests a piecemeal approach by the Government to their continuous review of the legislation on unmanned aircraft to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. If legislation affecting unmanned aircraft is reviewed on a piecemeal basis, then when a problem or deficiency is exposed, we risk the equivalent of a second Gatwick incident.

This amendment calls for a strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft—a strategy which, based on the evidence, frankly, is needed—and for that strategy to be prepared by the Secretary of State. I await the Government’s response.

17:45

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very interesting debate. It has been more wide-ranging than I anticipated.

The Government are listening to everybody contributing to this debate—within this Chamber and beyond—about what they should be doing. Something needs to be done, but there is no silver bullet. Standing here now, I can absolutely say that there is no magic bullet, no single solution. We cannot legislate our way out of the issue facing us unless we completely ban drones. There was mention that perhaps we should have had a registration system at the outset, but we have had model aircraft for years. They have not had anything, and they too have been involved in incursions over airports. We cannot lull ourselves into a false sense of security. We cannot say that the Government are not doing enough, that something must be done and that this is all so terrible, because what in this Bill would have prevented Gatwick, for example?

[Lord Naseby]

A transponder.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Potentially, a transponder, but we knew where the drones were. We could see them flashing above the runway. What could we do about it? All the legislation in the world could not have done anything about that. It comes down to technology, and the work that we are doing with the CPNI to develop the counter-UAV technology. That is what we need to spend money on, and we intend to. The legislation before us is a series of things that have already been put in place under the air navigation order. The noble Baroness may criticise the approach as piecemeal, but essentially, it is keeping up with technology.

[Baroness Randerson]

Does the Minister accept that Gatwick was an outlier in a range of events, and that it would have been caught by noticing that, “They’ve switched off their electronic ID, so we have a real problem here”? That would not have caught the drones but it would have alerted the authorities. Does she accept that most of these potentially dangerous incursions are accidental or careless, and that having some form of compulsory electronic ID would enable the authorities to act quickly and easily? We are not talking about new technology that is way over the horizon. It is here now.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Baroness makes a couple of very interesting points, including that in many cases, people do not intend to commit these offences and if given a slap on the wrist and a fixed-penalty notice, they probably would not do it again. When the noble Baroness asked if I wanted to make an intervention, I was listening intently because I want to hear ideas about what we should be doing that we have not done already, and where the deficiencies are.

Let me address some of the ideas of noble Lords; others we will take away and look at further. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that there must be a minimum age. There is a minimum age: you must be over 18 to operate a drone. You must also pass a competency test to be a remote pilot, but the operator of the drone is the person responsible. I think we can agree that the minimum age issue has been dealt with.

On remote ID and electronic conspicuity, the delegated Act is in UK law. The noble Baroness suggested demanding that every drone has electronic conspicuity. We do not want to favour one drone manufacturer over another. We want to ensure that the technology we receive can develop naturally. It was agreed among EU members that a three-year transition period would be appropriate, but electronic conspicuity is in British law. It will be coming over the transition period, as we agreed with our colleagues in the EU.

The noble Baroness also asked why the process is not like car registration. It already is. One must register a drone, and it has a number on it, like a car number plate. So we already have registration and competency testing; these things are already part of UK law. I am therefore still looking for what it is we should be doing better. Geo-awareness and geo-fencing, like electronic conspicuity, are in the EU delegated Act, so they are in UK law.

Forgive me—I cannot recall which noble Lord mentioned BVLOS, but we already have drones that can fly beyond the visual line of sight. It is illegal to do so; that is already within our legislation. It cannot be done without permission.

I am slightly at a loss as to where we can take this further. Noble Lords mentioned areas that stray into other parts of the law, but on privacy, for example, which the Government take extremely seriously, we want to stop invasions of people’s privacy, but we consider the existing legislation sufficient. Article 95 of the air navigation order specifies that equipment must not be flown over or within 150 metres of a congested areas or an organised open area assembly of more than 1,000 people, within 50 metres of any third person, or within 30 metres during take-off and landing. The 50-metre limit also applies to structures, including houses. Capturing an image from over 50 metres away is possible, I suppose, but then the GDPR regulations and the Data Protection Act come in to protect people’s privacy. Other criminal legislation which noble Lords considered more recently around voyeurism includes the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So, there is existing legislation which protects privacy. Again, I am happy to listen to opinions on where the legislation is deficient and how it specifically relates to drones, rather than just general privacy information.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I can answer the Minister’s question. She asked what can be done. Very simply—if she has listened to the debate she will know—confiscate any drone that enters one of these zones.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am aware that that is the noble Lord’s position, but I am not sure that evidence exists that if confiscation becomes part of the Bill, it automatically means that nothing bad will ever happen to drones—or that it will make any difference at all—given that the penalties are already far higher than the cost of a drone.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I come back to the point that the purpose is its deterrent value. It would also have a public relations value. Rather than telling the owner of a drone that he or she may not fly it in a particular way, confiscation would have a deterrent value. This would encourage good behaviour and be a public relations exercise to show that the Government are taking seriously the possibility of a catastrophic accident if a drone were to hit a civilian airliner.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. The Government obviously take seriously the potential of a catastrophic accident. For those kinds of offences, the deterrent is far greater than having one’s drone taken away: it is a lengthy prison sentence and an unlimited fine. I remain unconvinced at this time that the confiscation or forfeiture of a drone is an additional means of deterrent.

I am trying to think of an example of an item being forfeited purely to provide that kind of deterrent effect. I will ask my officials to look at the issue and perhaps that will produce more convincing evidence.

[Viscount Goschen]

One can think of the example of the seizure and destruction of untaxed vehicles by public authorities. The specific deterrent is the loss of the vehicle in addition to any financial penalty.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for that good example. I am not against this; I just wonder what the evidence is. I shall ask my officials to look for more examples and to see whether it is likely to be proportionate and a deterrent, and whether the existing penalty system is sufficient to deter not only minor offences but the most serious.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Viscount referred to seizure as against confiscation. Perhaps we should simply substitute confiscation for seizure.

[Lord Naseby]

Perhaps I may be of help. It was pointed out to me that if I did not re-licence my shotgun within the statutory time limit I was given, the gun would be taken away from my premises. I do not know whether that would be for ever, but it would certainly be taken away for a long time.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for his additional data, to be added to the information I will be collecting before too long.

[Lord Rosser]

It is a sobering thought that, as I understand it, the Government have said that no legislation could prevent what happened at Gatwick happening again or even reduce its likelihood. That seems to be the Government’s stance. I apologise for my ignorance in advance, but can the Minister confirm that there is a report into the incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018, and can it be made available?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

What I said about Gatwick is that there is no silver bullet; there was not one piece of legislation that would have stopped Gatwick.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

As a result of what happened at Gatwick, steps have been taken. So, it is not a case of just legislation stopping or not stopping it. Additional measures have been taken which make it less likely that the problems at Gatwick will arise again. At least, I hope that is the intention of the steps that have been taken.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble and gallant Lord is right; a number of steps have been taken. On the legislative side, we have looked carefully at what we can include. One of the steps taken as a result of Gatwick is that we asked CPNI to step up its work on counter-UAV technology and it has been carrying out tests. It did a call-out to industry; industry sent it whatever it had in detect, track and identify technology; and CPNI has been methodically working its way through it to see whether the technology works. Some of it does not.

We are looking carefully at providing a catalogue for airports to say to them, “This is the technology that works. We at CPNI, since Gatwick, have checked this technology and it works.” Those are the kinds of things we have been doing.

18:00

On the legislative side, what we heard from the police post Gatwick was that they needed the police powers to put into place the offences that are already in regulation. That is what I am trying to tease out from this: what is missing from the regulations that will make our entire nation safer? We will look at that.

[Baroness Randerson]

Looking at what would make us safer, when the Minister has had the opportunity to read the record, will she write to us to clarify the position? I believe she said to us categorically that you have to be 18 to operate a drone. The CAA has pages and pages about how to register as the flyer of a drone if you are under 13. An operator of a drone has to be 18-plus, but it is quite clear that an operator of a drone is not a flyer. The CAA states that you are an operator if

“you’re the adult responsible for an under 18 who owns a drone”—

under-18s cannot just fly a drone or a model aircraft, they can own them too—

“you’re responsible for a drone that someone else will fly”

or

“you already have a flyer ID, or an exemption, and you only need an operator ID at the moment.”

It is very lax. The point I am making is that there are things the Government can do—with all due respect, my amendment asks only for a review—without breaking new ground. The idea of registration is pretty straightforward and well established in other situations.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just repeated back to me what I have already said. There is a registration system. It is in existence and it is very straightforward. There are two types of people who can use the registration system. The first is a person who is over 18 and is the operator of the drone. That person is responsible. The second person might be, but does not have to be, a remote pilot. Why did we do this? Why does the remote pilot thing exist? It is to make sure that people aged under 18 can fly drones. How are we going to get our young people interested in aviation and in flying model aircraft? This is not just about drones.

Sometimes I am very struck. The Liberal Democrats sometimes come across as being very illiberal and on other points they come across as being very liberal indeed. I am slightly confused because the noble Baroness has literally just said back to me what I said to her earlier: that is already in place. The operator of a drone is the person who is responsible for it. That person has to register that drone, just like a car, with the CAA. I do not want to stop young people who are competent. Every young person has to take the test. I took the test; they have to take the test. At that point, they can fly a drone.

I do not want to prolong the discussion today, but perhaps afterwards the noble Baroness will describe to me exactly what she thinks is missing from that system, because it comes from the EU regulations. I believe the Liberal Democrats like the EU. Those are the EU regulations. They are agreed with the EU and therefore they are consistent across Europe. They make sure that there is responsibility for the drone and that young people can fly if somebody else is responsible. The noble Baroness shakes her head and says no, but I really do not want to detain the Committee any longer on something which is not wholly relevant to this amendment. We can perhaps discuss it in later groups.

I believe that I have gone into some of the details, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that we are listening. We want to hear about what specifically we can do to make things better. The noble Baroness mentioned DJI. We, too, have been in touch with DJI and I believe it has sent a briefing to several noble Lords. It is very clear that the Bill should remain a means of ensuring safety and compliance with existing regulation because that regulation includes the EU’s implementing and delegated regulations, which UK officials helped shape. These have come into force and are in UK law.

The Government will continue to review the effectiveness of all the legislation on unmanned aircraft. It is critical to us. We will always listen to new ideas from noble Lords and stakeholders. It is important.

The Science and Technology Committee’s report Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK was mentioned. I note for the record that my department stands ready to provide a response to the report—we have not yet responded—which will include references to the applicability of legislation. We will do that once the committee is reappointed.

On the basis of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I emphasise that my amendment simply asks for a review of the current situation. While the debate has been going on, I have looked through the specifications of modern drones; they include geofencing, altitude limits, return to home, sensor-avoid technology and ADSB in all drones weighing more than 250 grams. There are various ways of controlling them, including not just an app or traditional remote controllers but even hand gestures. We are at a very important point in the development of drones.

On the analogy with registering a car, which I initiated and the Minister took me up on, looking through the CAA’s pages there does not appear to be a requirement for the registered operator to be present when a drone is flown by a child. With all due respect, larger drones, as the noble Lord said earlier, are not toys and have a huge potential impact. I think the Government are guilty of some complacency; they are certainly guilty of being behind the curve. A review would provide a good opportunity for them to come up to speed. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Amendment 32

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

32: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Additional requirements for drones
(1) The Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765) is amended as follows.(2) After article 94(5) insert—“(6) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft unless its geo-fencing equipment is in operation and up-to-date.(7) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft unless it is remotely identifiable and this identifier is linked to the person in charge through the Drone and Model Aircraft Registration and Education Service.(8) The requirements for geo-fencing equipment and remote identification do not apply to a person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft with a permission granted by the CAA to operate without these restrictions.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places additional requirements on drones, so that they must have up-to-date geo-fencing equipment and mandatory remote identification.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 32 follows similar lines to Amendment 31 but is much more specific. It amends the Air Navigation Order 2016 to introduce an obligation for geofencing equipment to be up to date and working. It provides that persons in charge who have electronic identification must not switch it off, and must have that identification on a register linked to their name. Currently, we still have drone users without registered drones. As I said earlier, there are good reasons why some people do not, and should not, have to register; the amendment allows for exceptions.

Basically, I have selected some simple steps that can be taken now. They do not anticipate future technological developments; they deal with what exists now. I accept that one might debate many things about how we control and use drones in the most sensible way, but these are simple, basic improvements to the control of drones by government legislation which benefit the whole of society, as I stated in my previous amendment. I do not wish to repeat what I said then. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I have an almost identical amendment to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am sure that nobody wishes to hear me deliver virtually the same speech as the one delivered by the noble Baroness. I support what she has said and hope we will find that the Government do too.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am very pleased that this group came immediately after the previous one because I too will probably be saying pretty much what I said before. Obviously, geo-awareness and electronic conspicuity are important parts of the delegated regulation. Even though the noble Baroness would perhaps like these to be introduced sooner, I am sure she would accept that, while we are in our transition period, we have to follow EU law. The two items identified in this amendment are already in UK law; there is a three-year transition period in which they will come into effect. The noble Baroness mentioned that new drones can be purchased with all these things. There are people in the model aircraft community who will be very quick to write to all noble Lords to tell them why the transition period of three years is required. I have been at the receiving end of one their campaigns; it involves a lot of letters.

There are many reasons for the three-year transition period. While we were a member of the EU we could not change it, as the noble Baroness, being a Liberal Democrat, well knows. Those two requirements are already there so, from the point of view of the amendments, we can put them to one side. I have been through the registration issue several times: there is an operator and there is a remote pilot; the remote pilot is under the responsibility of the operator and can be under 18. It is nobody’s interest to stop people under 18—a 16 year-old, for example—flying these vehicles.

On remote identification, once electronic conspicuity is ubiquitous, we will be able to link the identifier to the registration system. At the moment, there is literally a physical number on a drone; that will change over to electronic conspicuity once the transition period is over. The model aircraft people will have put electronic conspicuity into all their aircraft by then and the entire system should be ready to go. I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Amendment 33A

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

33A: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Unmanned aircraft safety features
After article 94(5) of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765) insert— “( ) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft if its inbuilt safety features are inoperable or have been disabled.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that a drone should not be flown if its inbuilt safety features, such as geo-fencing, lights, transponder etc, are broken or have been deliberately disabled.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 33A, I will speak also to Amendments 33B and 33C in this group. I declared earlier that I am vice-president of BALPA. It will come as no great surprise that these amendments emanate largely from BALPA. It supports the general direction of the Bill and wishes to see it enacted. It recognises that there are additional issues that will have to be addressed by the Government subsequently, but in the immediate term some of the enforcement measures, and the description of what needs to be enforced, can be clearer and more effective, and these three amendments pick out three of those. They do so in a way that does not leave to secondary legislation a description or an invention of another criminal offence. They would put it in primary legislation in the context of this Bill and of the various Acts, such as the Air Navigation Order and the police powers Acts, that already exist.

18:15

The whole approach is that drones, small though they are, can cause serious safety issues, damage and, potentially, injury to aircraft, people and property. They are a new and significant part of the use of airspace. Those who operate them should therefore be subject to similar requirements and restrictions, and therefore potential offences, as are those who operate traditional aircraft. That means, in the case of registration and licensing, that both the machine and its operator have to be identifiable, qualified and trained; and, in the case of the machine, must not be inoperable or broken down; and, in the case of the pilot, cannot be incapable or capable of being incapable. The amendments address those features.

Amendment 33A is about a situation where the inbuilt safety features—these have been referred to specifically in relation to geofencing but they go wider than that—are not operable or have been deliberately or otherwise disabled. That applies specifically to the transponder and the interrelationship between it and the geofencing, which we discussed earlier, but also to the requirements on lighting and the signalling process, which could have been either deliberately or accidentally damaged. If that is the case, there needs to be an offence related to deliberately damaging such equipment, whether for mischief, by neglect or with criminal or terrorist intent. That covers everything from kids playing around with them to a deliberate terrorist plot.

Amendment 33B deals with who is the identifiable controller. With the current technology, at least, it is important that there is a single controller of a single aircraft. Clearly, the technology is not far off from having a single controller of multiple aircraft, but that is a very dangerous step because if we are worrying about the damage that a particular aircraft causes, that has to be related to the person controlling it. We could envisage a situation where the technology has developed sufficiently for a single operator to be operating a swarm of aircraft, either legitimately for inspection purposes or for other purposes, or illegitimately in order to maximise the damaging effect and interruption of systems. For the moment, at least, it is important that every aircraft has an identifiable single controller, and that is what this amendment would deal with.

In a sense, Amendment 33C would bring into the drone world the restrictions that apply to almost every other area of transport. It applies particularly to aviation because in aviation circles it is effectively an offence to be in control of, or indeed a member of the crew of, an aircraft if you are incapable as a result of drink or drugs; you are not allowed to pilot the aircraft, to be a member of the cabin crew of the aircraft or indeed to be a ground controller, through air traffic control, of the aircraft. Those same provisions should apply explicitly to the drone world so that we do not have drunken or drug-induced people operating from the ground unmanned aircraft that could be damaging to systems, aircraft and property in the same way that small aircraft, and indeed any form of ground transport, could be.

The amendment would sharpen up the definition of the offences and therefore the ability of the police to prosecute people and prevent those offences happening and deter others from engaging in such activity. They are relatively limited but they are important because they give a signal that operating drones is a potentially dangerous, malevolent and damaging form of transport. The fact that the operator and the machine are at a distance does not mean we can do without the restrictions that other controllers of machines in the air, at sea or on land already operate under. I beg to move.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my apologies as I was not able to be here for Second Reading, which I know traditionally one is before one speaks. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register, which lists me as the president of BALPA, an office that I am very pleased to fulfil.

I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. These are basically safety amendments. We are looking for a positive statement from the Government, which I am sure will be forthcoming. Amendment 33A, as the noble Lord has said, is about the safety features being inoperable. We are particularly concerned if they are disabled deliberately. Of course, sometimes they are inoperable because they just do not work but on other occasions they can be deliberately disabled, and clearly that should not be allowed.

Amendment 33B says a single person can operate only a single drone at any one time. That we see as a matter of basic safety, and we hope it will find favour. On Amendment 33C, as the noble Lord has said, regulations concerning drugs and alcohol are fairly common in industry and in all these situations. I hope the Minister will feel able to give a positive response to the amendments and read into the record the Government’s support for at least the intention of what we are seeking to do.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I too support the thrust of these three amendments. On the first of them I would need to be quite clear, though, whether the requirements of particular safety features are a legal requirement. If they are not, I believe that they should be; but I assume that they are, which is why they are mentioned in this way. I also note in passing that the phrase

“in charge of a small unmanned aircraft”

is used. We have been talking about various ways in which those aircraft are managed. Is there somebody controlling them or are they being operated? For the sake of clarity, if we are going to use a word such as “controlling”—or any other word—it should be part of the legislation to define what is meant by the phrase or phrases that are used in it.

The amendment regarding one single unmanned aircraft could be restrictive but, to start with, that is perhaps the right way to go—not to immediately talk about allowing two or more, or even a swarm, of small unmanned aircraft to be flown. In passing, if such an arrangement were allowed would the collective weight of the swarm be taken into account, rather than just the weight of an item within that swarm? That could affect it, bearing in mind the weight limitations that are already in legislation.

On the point of the third amendment, alcohol, I know that the Minister talked about alcohol in the letter that she wrote. She said that if it were necessary, it would be a matter for an air navigation order because alcohol and drugs are of such significance in the safety of aviation. The Explanatory Notes refer to anybody fulfilling an aviation function, but surely the operator or controller—the man, woman or child in charge of a small, unmanned aircraft—is performing an aviation function. The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 seems a very appropriate place for alcohol and drugs to be covered, rather than leaving it to an air navigation order.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support for these amendments, particularly Amendment 33C. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister needs to go no further than to look at the provisions and requirements in the armed services for those who are engaged in the use of drones. Although the rules here will presumably apply to civilians, those provisions are sensible in regard to the questions of alcohol and drugs, and of control. Maybe she could find the precedent that she needs if she looks at the service agreements for those involved with operating drones in the services.

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, I certainly support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seeks to achieve with his series of amendments but there are perhaps dangers in them as well, considering how these aircraft might be utilised in the future. We are back to the central difficulty with the Bill: how to future-proof it. There could be circumstances in the future where a system of small, unmanned aerial vehicles is used for inspecting pipelines, patrolling beaches—looking for those who are smuggling or bringing in illegal immigrants—or monitoring weather conditions. All sorts of things could require a system of small UAs to be operated. It is entirely conceivable and technologically possible that they could be operated at the moment by computer systems: by algorithms with a single, nominated person in charge of a system of multiple vehicles. That might be much safer than having someone with little experience looking out of the window and trying to control a single aircraft. While I sympathise with the thrust of the amendments, when my noble friend comes to her response perhaps she might care to address that point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, might think about it as well.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I support these amendments. There is a contradiction at the heart of all the discussion here. Where the Minister sees youngsters having fun and flying a modern version of a model aircraft, others across the House see drones as highly technologically advanced and hugely important to our economy. We see all sorts of aspects of safety and security for the country, as drones are already misused on a fairly wide scale in certain circles. The clue is in the name. The Government call them “small unmanned aircraft”—I would rather they had used “uncrewed aircraft” as going back to the concept of “manning”, which we got out of legislation some years ago, is rather depressing, but that is beside the point. The point here is that the Government are calling them “small unmanned aircraft” and, therefore, the rules associated with aircraft need to apply. That you might have had too much to drink or might be high is now considered totally unacceptable in respect of other functions, so the noble Lord is drawing attention to some basic, sensible rules about how drones should be used. That is not to be overly onerous, because one person’s risk is another’s terrible danger. We have to be sensible about the implications for safety in this field.

18:30

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these important safety amendments. I will take a moment to rebut the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who seems to imply that, for some reason, the Government do not care about safety. Continually her remarks seem to imply, “Well, we see the danger and the Government do not.” The Government do see the danger and are looking at all ways to mitigate it, while not crushing an industry that could be incredibly important to our nation and its future.

I shall address in detail the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, but I want to reassure him and noble friends on the Benches behind me that the Government feel that maintaining the highest standards of safety is a top priority, in relation to both manned and unmanned aircraft. That is why failing to meet requirements such as being reasonably satisfied that a flight can safely be made are already offences under the Air Navigation Order. More serious offences such as endangering the safety of an aircraft could also apply.

For example, Amendment 33A refers to “inbuilt safety features”. They are not necessarily defined, but I take it that we should talk about the thrust of the amendment rather than the detail. As has been covered several times today, the EU regulations being transposed into UK law cover much of what is covered by the noble Lord’s first amendment. The inbuilt safety features to which I think he is referring, such as electronic conspicuity, are within that. The noble Lord mentioned that they could not be turned off—indeed they cannot, because should they be turned off that would be illegal, as the devices would then not have electronic conspicuity. Under the regulations in place—we are in the transition period—those things would have to be on and functioning. Turning them off would not be an option, because that would then be illegal.

On being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, again, this is a really important area. Under the Air Navigation Order, for any remote pilot—that is, the person flying it rather than the person who takes responsibility for it or owns it—who flies a small unmanned aircraft without being reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made, perhaps because they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, there is a potential fine on conviction of up to £2,500. For further, more serious cases of unsafe flying, a pilot found guilty of recklessly or negligently causing an aircraft to endanger a property or person could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, which is quite a significant sentence for being over the limit.

However, I want to bring to noble Lords’ attention more specific regulation: that is, the implementing regulations. I have talked a lot today about delegated regulation today; there is also the implementing regulation, which is also coming from the EU. That states specifically that a remote pilot must not fly an unmanned aircraft when under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol.

Therefore, while I accept that the noble Lord’s intention is to make safety changes—and safety is our highest priority—I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Lord, at least for the time being, that we already cover the issues that he hoped to raise.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her support for the intention of the amendments. On the third amendment, on alcohol and drugs, whether or not the matter is covered by EU regulations in one sense, it is important that operators of drones understand that they should be under the same degree of discipline and self-control as pilots. It is therefore important that it appears in the same place in primary legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out that there is implementing legislation as well as the initial transposed EU legislation, which may make that clearer—but, even so, it is important that people on the ground do not regard themselves as being in a different category from those in control of aircraft in the air. I do not therefore completely accept that the matter is already covered.

On the first amendment, I say in reply to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that, clearly, we are talking about the legally required safety regulations. Again, I hope that the Minister’s assurance that this matter is already covered stands up and I would welcome that being spelled out in letters that I could share with my colleagues. We will see whether we need to come back on that.

On single operatives, I accept, as I said in opening, that technology may get us to a situation where, for certain specific purposes, there is a single controller of a number of machines. I think that that should be dealt with as an exception, however, so that if an inspection company for a pipeline or a navigation, or for land management purposes, wants to use a single controller for several drones that are all doing the same task, or different aspects of the same task, that should probably be dealt with under an exceptional licence.

The principle should be that there should be one pilot for one machine, which is what this would require. The Minister did not comment in great detail on that: no doubt she can have another look at it. I am pleased that there seems to be general support for the principle, even if some of it may already be indirectly on the statute book through European legislation. I am very grateful, of course, for the Government’s endorsement of retaining that European legislation, in this field at least. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33A withdrawn.

Amendments 33B and 33C not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

34: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Strategy on managing risks from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the strategy no later than twelve months after this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must keep the strategy under review and revise it if appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish any revised strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment is primarily to ascertain whether the Government believe that there is a risk arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas and, if they do, what their strategy is for dealing with it.

At Second Reading, I referred to the power, which we know is in the Bill, allowing a police officer to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft. I asked if there were powers available if the unmanned aircraft were being controlled by a person operating it from outside the United Kingdom or, indeed, from within our coastal waters. It would be helpful if the Government would say whether there is a strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas. Do they consider there is a risk from this source at all?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for raising this very important point. Certainly, the Government are well aware of a wide range of risks relating to unmanned aircraft and the fact that they may, in due course, be operated from overseas. That is one of the risks we are considering.

The Government published the UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy in October 2019. That strategy aims to safeguard the potential benefits of unmanned aircraft—because they can bring substantial benefits to the UK—by setting out our approach for countering the threat posed by their malicious or negligent use. I stress that this is very much work in progress. As all noble Lords have commented today, this technology moves very quickly, but the focus of this strategy is on keeping the UK public safe and protecting our critical national infrastructure, prisons and crowded places, irrespective of where the threat originates, in the UK or externally. It is therefore not necessary to prepare and publish an additional strategy specifically for managing a threat from overseas; it is something that is under consideration and was considered as we prepared the strategy.

As I have said many times today, the strategy recognises that there is no silver bullet: we must look at all the threats and at mitigating them all, both through the Bill before your Lordships today and through more practical elements, such as training the police, making sure that airports have access to the technology, as I explained earlier, and making sure that everybody using the technology or putting these powers in place has the training and guidance needed to respond effectively to the threat. I hope that, based on that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Amendment 35 not moved.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed.

Clause 20: Commencement

Amendment 36

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

36: Clause 20, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to the other amendment to Clause 20 in the names of Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe.

[Lord Rosser]

The two amendments in this group would require the Secretary of State to consult those involved in or affected by the incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018 and to report on the consultation to both Houses of Parliament. What has driven these amendments more than anything else is that I am still not clear about the extent to which the Government went back to consult those who took part in the original consultation, to see whether they had anything useful to add in light of their experience of what happened at Gatwick in December 2018 that might have had relevance for what appears in the Bill we are considering today. As we know, two public consultations took place prior to this Bill and, indeed, prior to the incident in December 2018.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe referred to this at Second Reading, when he asked whether there had been any consultation on the legislation with those involved in the Gatwick incident. The Government’s response was less than explicit. They said only that there had been contact with the police force

“around Gatwick and … all over the country”

and meetings with

“other stakeholders to discuss these matters in general.”

The Government also said that

“a cross-government working group … looked at stop and search powers”

and

“agreed that the focus of the powers should not only be directed towards aviation and airports but be applicable to other areas such as prisons”.—[Official Report, 27/1/20; cols. 1291-2.]

In conclusion, they said they could not “delay any longer”. One might draw an inference from that comment that few of those organisations or individuals involved or affected by the Gatwick incident were consulted so that their potentially useful recent information or experience could be taken into consideration when determining the provisions that should be in this Bill or what provisions of a non-legislative function might be taken.

18:45

Amendment 37 lists a number of bodies and organisations which it is suggested should be consulted. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate in response which of those bodies and organisations were or were not included in any consultation that took place. I hope the Minister can give a clearer response than we have had so far on whether the Government went back to people who had been consulted in the first two consultations to see whether their experience of what happened at Gatwick had either changed their view or enabled them to put forward helpful suggestions or ideas on how a similar situation might be avoided, or at least the risk of it minimised, in future.

I add a further question I asked earlier when the issue of Gatwick was raised by the Minister: is there a report in existence on the December 2018 Gatwick incident, and is it available to Members of this House? I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for giving me the opportunity to share as much information as I have with him. I will certainly share more if he is still yet to be convinced. As to whether there is a report on Gatwick—my apologies for not covering this earlier—I do not know but will investigate and return to it in a letter to him.

This amendment is on consultation. Ministers and officials from the Department for Transport and the Home Office have engaged with a range of stakeholders throughout the development of this Bill, including but not exclusively those listed in the amendment, and will continue to do so to make sure that our legislation remains fit for purpose, ensuring that lessons learned from those directly involved in responding to unmanned aircraft incidents, whether Gatwick or others, are considered and acted upon.

In the aftermath of the Gatwick incident, the Government worked with the police, the airport and other relevant organisations to learn lessons from the response. There were debriefs, workshops and future planning meetings so that we could look at and extrapolate from the event. Since Gatwick, the counter-drone community has moved forward at pace. We have a broader understanding of the threat posed by drones—hence our work with the CPNI on detecting, tracking and identifying equipment and how that might be deployed. We also continue to consult widely. For example, the UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, our main focus following Gatwick and prior to this Bill, was published in October 2019 and followed ongoing engagement with both those on and not on the list because we wanted the widest input we could get.

I turn to some of the specific bodies: first, the police. For the first few months after the Gatwick incident, the counter-drone unit in the Home Office, which worked jointly with my department on this Bill, had an embed in its team from Sussex Police who was involved with Gatwick. That was extremely helpful. Since May 2019, a chief inspector from the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been embedded in this team with the national police lead for counter-drone systems, providing operational advice on how the provisions in the Bill will be put to use on the ground.

We see Gatwick Airport regularly and seek regular input from all airports because it is often the case that the larger airports will be able to react in a very different way to the smaller airports—something we have not really touched on today.

[Baroness Randerson]

At the time, a key issue revealed by Gatwick was the question of who was responsible for the operation of equipment. That has been clarified, as the Minister has indicated, in relation to the larger airports. Have the Government yet reached agreement with smaller airports, police services and the Army throughout Britain on who is responsible for ensuring that appropriate equipment will be deployed at smaller airports if such an incident happens there?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Baroness has hit a particular nail on the head. That is why the catalogue of equipment is being developed by the CPNI. It is encouraging the leasing of equipment. Airports are responsible for safety and security within their boundaries, so they are being encouraged, where they feel it is appropriate, to lease appropriate equipment. Not all airports are the same, because of different sized sites and all sorts of different reasons. There is always ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Defence and the police. Every incident is dealt with on a case-by-case basis because, interestingly, no two incursions are the same. Some can be dealt with extremely easily and others require a different approach. We are well aware of the difference.

It is not just the different sizes of airports. There are various other bits of critical national infrastructure that fall under this entire threat picture. We are cognisant of that; it is part of the work on the strategy to make sure that we have the appropriately flexible response to make sure that we can deploy resources in the best way.

We have also been engaging with the Ministry of Defence. Along with the Home Office, my department works closely with the Ministry of Defence to share learning from its military work overseas and how best to work with the counter-drone industry. We work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority, including on the development of the drone code and drone registration scheme. Since Gatwick, the code has been reviewed and the drone registration scheme has come into existence.

We have regular meetings with BALPA, which is always a pleasure, and we are very interested in what it has to say. We also see a wide range of other bodies, either regularly or on an ad hoc basis, which includes the drone and counter-drone industries, regulatory bodies, airports and other critical national infrastructure sites, academia, and in particular international partners— this is not just a UK issue, and we speak to our international colleagues about it. I had a meeting with people from the States just a couple of weeks ago; they are facing the same problems, and we should not think that we are behind the curve, because we are certainly not.

I hope that, based on that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clause 21 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Algorithms: Public Sector Decision-making

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:55

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to assess the full implications of decision-making and prediction by algorithm in the public sector.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, first, a big thank you to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate this evening.

Over the past few years we have seen a substantial increase in the adoption of algorithmic decision-making—ADM—and prediction across central and local government. An investigation by the Guardian last year showed that some 140 of 408 councils in the UK are using privately developed algorithmic “risk assessment” tools, particularly to determine eligibility for benefits and to calculate entitlements. Data Justice Lab research in late 2018 showed that 53 out of 96 local authorities and about a quarter of police authorities are now using algorithms for prediction, risk assessment and assistance in decision-making. In particular, we have the Harm Assessment Risk Tool—HART—system used by Durham police to predict reoffending, which was shown by Big Brother Watch to have serious flaws in the way the use of profiling data introduces bias and discrimination and dubious predictions.

Central government use is more opaque, but HMRC, the Ministry of Justice and the DWP are the highest spenders on digital, data and algorithmic services. A key example of ADM use in central government is the DWP’s much-criticised universal credit system, which was designed to be digital by default from the beginning. The Child Poverty Action Group, in its study, Computer Says “No!”, shows that those accessing their online account are not being given adequate explanation as to how their entitlement is calculated.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, looked at our universal credit system a year ago and said in a statement afterwards:

“Government is increasingly automating itself with the use of data and new technology tools, including AI. Evidence shows that the human rights of the poorest and most vulnerable are especially at risk in such contexts. A major issue with the development of new technologies by the UK government is a lack of transparency.”


These issues have been highlighted by Liberty and Big Brother Watch in particular.

Even when not using ADM solely, the impact of an automated decision-making system across an entire population can be immense in terms of potential discrimination, breach of privacy, access to justice and other rights. Last March, the Committee on Standards in Public Life decided to carry out a review of AI in the public sector to understand its implications for the Nolan principles and to examine whether government policy is up to the task of upholding standards as AI is rolled out across our public services. The committee chair, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said on publishing the report this week:

“Demonstrating high standards will help realise the huge potential benefits of AI in public service delivery. However, it is clear that the public need greater reassurance about the use of AI in the public sector. Public sector organisations are not sufficiently transparent about their use of AI and it is too difficult to find out where machine learning is currently being used in government.”


It found that despite the GDPR, the data ethics framework, the OECD principles and the guidelines for using artificial intelligence in the public sector, the Nolan principles of openness, accountability and objectivity are not embedded in AI governance in the public sector, and should be.

The committee’s report presents a number of recommendations to mitigate these risks, including greater transparency by public bodies in the use of algorithms, new guidance to ensure that algorithmic decision-making abides by equalities law, the creation of a single coherent regulatory framework to govern this area, the formation of a body to advise existing regulators on relevant issues, and proper routes of redress for citizens who feel decisions are unfair.

It was clear from the evidence taken by our own AI Select Committee that Article 22 of the GDPR, which deals with automated individual decision-making, including profiling, does not provide sufficient protection for those subject to ADM. It contains a right to explanation provision when an individual has been subject to fully automated decision-making, but few highly significant decisions are fully automated. Often it is used as a decision support; for example, in detecting child abuse. The law should also cover systems where AI is only part of the final decision.

The May 2018 Science and Technology Select Committee report, Algorithms in Decision-Making, made extensive recommendations. It urged the adoption of a legally enforceable right to explanation that would allow citizens to find out how machine learning programs reach decisions that affect them and potentially challenge the results. It also called for algorithms to be added to a ministerial brief and for departments to publicly declare where and how they use them. Subsequently, a report by the Law Society published last June about the use of Al in the criminal justice system expressed concern and recommended measures for oversight, registration and mitigation of risks in the justice system.

Last year, Ministers commissioned the AI adoption review, which was designed to assess the ways that artificial intelligence could be deployed across Whitehall and the wider public sector. Yet the Government are now blocking the full publication of the report and have provided only a heavily redacted version. How, if at all, does the Government’s adoption strategy fit with the publication last June by the Government Digital Service and the Office for Artificial Intelligence of guidance for using artificial intelligence in the public sector, and then in October further guidance on AI procurement derived from work by the World Economic Forum?

We need much greater transparency about current deployment, plans for adoption and compliance mechanisms. In its report last year entitled Decision-making in the Age of the Algorithm, NESTA set out a comprehensive set of principles to inform human/machine interaction for public sector use of algorithmic decision-making which go well beyond the government guidelines. Is it not high time that a Minister was appointed, as was also recommended by the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, with responsibility for making sure that the Nolan standards are observed for algorithm use in local authorities and the public sector and that those standards are set in terms of design, mandatory bias testing and audit, together with a register for algorithmic systems in use—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Could the noble Lord extend what he has just asked for by saying that the Minister should also cover those areas where algorithms defeat government policy and the laws of Parliament? I point by way of example to how dating agencies make sure that Hindus of different castes are never brought together. The algorithms make sure that that does not happen. That is wholly contrary to the rules and regulations we have and it is rather important.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I take entirely the noble Lord’s point, but there is a big distinction between what the Government can do about the use of algorithms in the public sector and what the private sector should be regulated by. I think that he is calling for regulation in that respect.

All the aspects that I have mentioned are particularly important for algorithms used by the police and the criminal justice system in decision-making processes. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation should have an important advisory role in all of this. If we do not act, the Legal Education Foundation advises that we will find ourselves in the same position as the Netherlands, where there was a recent decision that an algorithmic risk assessment tool called SyRI, which was used to detect welfare fraud, breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is a problem with double standards here. Government behaviour is in stark contrast to the approach of the ICO’s draft guidance, Explaining Decisions Made with AI, which may meet the point just made by the noble Lord. Last March, when I asked an Oral Question on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, ended by saying

“Work is going on, but I take the noble Lord’s point that it has to be looked at fairly urgently”.—[Official Report, 14/3/19; col. 1132.]


Where is that urgency? What are we waiting for? Who has to make a decision to act? Where does the accountability lie for getting this right?

19:04

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on securing this important debate. It is a topic that I know is close to his heart. I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence which he so elegantly and eloquently chaired.

Algorithmic decision-making has enormous potential benefits in the public sector and it is therefore good that we are seeing growing efforts to make use of this technology Indeed, only last month, research was published showing how AI may be useful in making screening for breast cancer more efficient. The health sector has many such examples but algorithmic decision-making is showing potential in other sectors too.

However, the growing use of public sector algorithmic decision-making also brings challenges. When an algorithm is being used to support a decision, it can be unclear who is accountable for the outcome. Who is the front-line decision-maker? Is it the administrator in charge of the introduction of the Al tool, or perhaps the private sector developer? We must make sure that the lines of accountability are always clear. With more complex algorithmic decision-making, it can be unclear why a decision has been made. Indeed, even the public body making the decision may be unable to interrogate the algorithm being used to support it. This threatens to undermine good administration, procedural justice and the right of individuals to redress and challenge. Finally, using past data to drive recommendations and decisions can lead to the replication, entrenchment and even the exacerbation of unfair bias in decision-making against particular groups.

What is at stake? Algorithmic decision-making is a general-purpose technology which can be used in almost every sector. The challenges it brings are diverse and the stakes involved can be very high indeed. At an individual level, algorithms may be used to make decisions about medical diagnosis and treatment, criminal justice, benefits entitlement or immigration. No less important, algorithmic decision-making in the public sector can make a difference to resource allocation and policy decisions, with widespread impacts across society.

I declare an interest as a board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. We have spent the last year conducting an in-depth review into the specific issue of bias in algorithmic decision-making. We have looked at this issue in policing and in local government, working with civil society, central government, local authorities and police forces in England and Wales. We found that there is indeed the potential for bias to creep in where algorithmic decision-making is introduced, but we also found a great deal of willingness to identify and address these issues.

The assessment of consequences starts with the public bodies using algorithmic decision-making. They want to use new technology responsibly, but they need the tools and frameworks to do so. The centre developed specific guidance for police forces to help them trial data analytics in a way that considers the potential for bias—as well as other risks—from the outset. The centre is now working with individual forces and the Home Office to refine and trial this guidance, and will be making broader recommendations to the Government at the end of March.

However, self-assessment tools and a focus on algorithmic bias are only part of the answer. There is currently insufficient transparency and centralised knowledge about where high-stakes algorithmic decision-making is taking place across the public sector. This fuels misconceptions, undermines public trust and creates difficulties for central government in setting and implementing standards for the use of data-driven technology, making it more likely that the technology may be used in unethical ways.

The CDEI was pleased to contribute to the recently published report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s AI review, which calls for greater openness in the use of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector. It also is right that the report calls for a consistent approach to formal assessment of the consequences of introducing algorithmic decision-making and independent mechanisms of accountability. Developments elsewhere, such as work being done in Canada, show how this may be done.

The CDEI’s new work programme commences on 1 April. It will be proposing a programme of work exploring transparency standards and impact assessment approaches for public sector algorithmic decision-making. This is a complex area. The centre would not recommend new obligations for public bodies lightly. We will work with a range of public bodies to explore possible solutions that will allow us to know where important decisions are being algorithmically supported in the public sector, and consistently and clearly assess the impact of those algorithms.

There is a lot of good work on these issues going on across government. It is important that we all work together to ensure that these efforts deliver the right solutions.

19:10

[Lord Giddens (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have six minutes, let me also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on having introduced this debate so ably and say what an excellent and, if I might say so, affable chairman he was of the AI committee.

AI and machine learning are on the front line of our lives wherever we look. The centre for disease control in Zhejiang province in China is deploying AI to analyse the genetic composition of the coronavirus. It has shortened a process that used to take many days to 30 minutes. Yet we—human beings—do not know how exactly that outcome was achieved. The same is true of AlphaGo Zero, which famously trained itself to beat the world champion at Go, with no direct human input whatever. That borders on what the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, said. Demis Hassabis, who created the system, said that AlphaGo Zero was so powerful because it was

“no longer constrained by the limits of human knowledge.”

That is a pretty awesome statement.

How, therefore, do we achieve accountability, as the Commons report on algorithms puts it, for systems whose reasoning is opaque to us but that are now massively entwined in our lives? This is a huge dilemma of our times, which goes a long way beyond correcting a few faulty or biased algorithms.

I welcome the Government’s document on AI and the public sector, which recognises the impact of deep learning and the huge issues it raises. California led the world into the digital revolution and looks to be doing the same with regulatory responses. One proposal is for the setting up of public data banks—data utilities—which would set standards for public data and, interestingly, integrate private data accumulated by the digital corporations with public data and create incentives for private companies to transfer private data to public uses. There is an interesting parallel experiment going on in Toronto, with Google’s direct involvement. How far are the Government tracking and seeking to learn from such innovations in different parts of the world? This is a global, ongoing revolution.

Will the Government pay active and detailed attention to the regulation of facial recognition technology and, again, look to what is happening elsewhere? The EU, for example—with which I believe we used to have some connection—is looking with some urgency at ways of imposing clear limits on such technology to protect the privacy of citizens. There is a variety of cases about this where the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has expressed deep concern.

On a more parochial level, noble Lords will probably know about the furore around the use of facial recognition at the King’s Cross development. The cameras installed by the developer at the site incorporated facial recognition technology. Although limited in nature, it had apparently been in use for some while.

The surveillance camera code of practice states:

“There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible”.


That is not the world’s most earth-shattering statement, but it is important. The code continues by saying that clear justification must be offered. What procedures are in place across the country for that? I suspect that they are pretty minimal, but this is an awesome new technology. If you look across the world, you can see that authoritarian states have an enormous amount of day-to-day data on everybody. We do not want that situation reproduced here.

The new Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation appears to have a pivotal role in the Government’s thinking. However, there seems to be rather little detail about it so far. What is the timetable? How long will the consultation period last? Will it have regulatory powers? That is pretty important. After all, the digital world moves at a massively fast pace. How will we keep up?

Quite a range of bodies are now concerned with the impact of the digital revolution. I congratulate the Government on that, because it is an achievement. The Turing Institute seems well out in front in terms of coherence and international reputation. What is the Minister’s view of its achievements so far and how do the Government see it meshing with this diversity of other bodies that—quite rightly—have been established?

19:16

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, went for the big picture; I will, rather unashamedly, go back to a very small part of it.

Bias in an algorithm is quite clearly there because it is supposed to be there, from what I can make out. When I first thought about the debate, I suddenly thought of a bit of work I did about three years ago with a group called AchieveAbility. It was about recruitment for people in the neurodiverse categories—that is, those with dyslexia, dyspraxia, autism and other conditions of that nature. These people had problems with recruitment. We went through things and discovered that they were having the most problems with the big recruitment processes and the big employers, because they had isometric tests and computers and things and these people did not fit there. The fact is that they processed information differently; for example, they might not want to do something when it came round. This was especially true of junior-level employment. When asked, “Can you do everything at the drop of a hat at a low level?”, these people, if they are being truthful, might say, “No”, or, “I’ll do it badly or slowly.”

The minute you put that down, you are excluded. There may be somewhere smaller where they could explain it. For instance, when asked, “Can you take notes in a meeting?”, they may say, “Not really, because I use a voice-operated computer and if I talk after you talk, it’s going to get a bit confusing.” But somebody else may say, “Oh no, I’m quite happy doing the tea.” In that case, how often will they have to take notes? Probably never. That was the subtext. The minute you dump this series of things in the way of what the person can do, you exclude them. An algorithm—this sort of artificial learning—does not have that input and will potentially compound this problem.

This issue undoubtedly comes under the heading of “reasonable adjustment”, but if people do not know that they have to change the process, they will not do it. People do not know because they do not understand the problem and, probably, do not understand the law. Anybody who has had any form of disability interaction will have, over time, come across this many times. People do it not through wilful acts of discrimination but through ignorance. If you are to use recruitment and selection processes, you have to look at this and build it in. You have to check. What is the Government’s process for so doing? It is a new field and I understand that it is running very fast, but tonight, we are effectively saying, “Put the brakes on. Think about how you use it correctly to achieve the things we have decided we want.”

There is positive stuff here. I am sure that the systems will be clever enough to build in this—or something that addresses this—in future, but not if you do not decide that you have to do it. Since algorithms reinforce themselves, as I understand it, it is quite possible that you will get a barrage of good practice in recruitment that gives you nice answers but does not take this issue into account. You will suddenly have people saying, “Well, we don’t need you for this position, then.” That is 20% of the population you can ignore, or 20% who will have to go round the sides. We really should be looking at this. As we are looking at the public sector here, surely the Government, in their recruitment practices at least, should have something in place to deal with this issue.

I should declare my interests. I am dyslexic. I am the president of the British Dyslexia Association and chairman of a technology company that does the assistive technology, so I have interests here but I also have some knowledge. If you are going to do this and get the best out of it, you do not let it run free. You intervene and you look at things. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out another area where intervention to stop something that you do not want to happen happening is there. Surely we can hear about the processes in place that will mean that we do not allow the technology simply to go off and create its own logic through not interfering with it. We have to put the brakes on and create some form of direction on this issue. If we do not, we will probably undo the good work we have done in other fields.

19:21

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the CDEI and a member of the Ada Lovelace Institute’s new Rethinking Data project. I am also a graduate of the AI Select Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for this important debate.

Almost all those involved in this sector are aware that there is an urgent need for creative regulation that realises the benefits of artificial intelligence while minimising the risks of harm. I was recently struck by a new book by Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, entitled Tools and Weapons—that says it all in one phrase. His final sentence is a plea for exactly this kind of creative regulation. He writes:

“Technology innovation is not going to slow down. The work to manage it needs to speed up.”


Noble Lords are right to draw attention to the dangers of unregulated and untested algorithms in public sector decision-making. As we have heard, information on how and where algorithms are used in the public sector is relatively scant. We know that their use is being encouraged by government and that such use is increasing. Some practice is exemplary, while some sectors have the feel of the wild west about them: entrepreneurial, unregulated and unaccountable.

The CDEI is the Government’s own advisory body on AI and ethics, and is committed to addressing and advising on these questions. A significant first task has been to develop an approach founded on clear, high-level ethical principles to which we can all subscribe. The Select Committee called for this principle-centred approach in our call for an AI code, and at the time we suggested five clear principles. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has now affirmed the need for this high-level ethical work and has called for greater clarity on these core principles. I support this call. Only a principled approach can ensure consistency across a broad and diverse range of applications. The debate about those principles takes us to the heart of what it means to be human and of human flourishing in the machine age. But which principles should undergird our work?

Last May the UK Government signed up to the OECD principles on artificial intelligence, along with all other member countries. The CDEI has informally adopted these principles in our own work. They are very powerful and, I believe, need to become our reference point in every piece of work. They are: AI should benefit people and the planet by driving inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; AI systems should be designed in a way that respects the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and diversity; AI should be transparent so that people understand AI-based outcomes and can challenge them; AI systems must function in a robust, secure and safe way; and organisations and individuals developing, deploying or operating AI systems should be held accountable for their proper functioning.

In our recent recommendations to the Government on online targeting, the CDEI used the OECD principles as a lens to identify the nature and scale of the ethical problems with how AI is used to shape people’s online experiences. The same principles will flow through our second major report on bias in algorithmic decision-making, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, described.

Different parts of the public sector have codes of ethics distinctive to them. Developing patterns of regulation for different sectors will demand the integration of these five central principles with existing ethical codes and statements in, for example, policing, social work or recruitment.

The application of algorithms in the public sector is too wide a set of issues for a single regulator or to be left unregulated. We need core values to be translated into effective regulation, standards and codes of practice. I join others in urging the Government to work with the CDEI and others to clarify and deploy the crucial principles against which the public-centred use of AI is to be assessed, and to expand the efforts to hold public bodies and the Government themselves to account.

19:26

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this timely and important debate. It is over only the last 20 years that we have seen the meteoric growth of artificial intelligence. When I was discussing this with a friend of mine, his response was: “What, only 20 years? I’ve got socks older than that.” That is probably too much information—I accept that—but there is no doubt that the use of this kind of AI-driven data is still very new.

The use of such technologies was still the stuff of science fiction when I was first elected as a district councillor in the West Midlands. When I was chancellor of Bournemouth University, the impact of data analytics was very apparent to me. It was my privilege in 1996 to present the Bill that established the use of the UK’s first ever DNA database. As vice-president of the British film board for 10 years, I saw the way in which AI simply transformed what we all see on our computer and cinema screens.

I was recently honoured to chair the Westminster Media Forum conference looking at online data regulation. A major theme of the conference was the need to balance—it is a difficult balance—the opportunities provided by these new technologies and the risks of harming the very people this is supposed to help.

The next decade will be like a “Strictly Come Dancing” waltz between democracy and technocracy. There has to be a partnership between government leaders and the tech company executives, with ethics at the centre. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, one in three councils uses this AI-driven data to make welfare decisions, and at least a quarter of police authorities now use it to make predictions and risk assessments.

There are examples of good practice. I was born and raised in a part of the world universally regarded as paradise. It is called Birmingham—just off the M6 motorway by the gasworks.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Taylor of Warwick]

I see there is a consensus there, and I am grateful.

I am pleased that all seven local authorities in the West Midlands Combined Authority have appointed a digital champion and co-ordinator, but in other areas evidence is emerging that some of the systems used by councils are unreliable. This is very serious, because these procedures are used to deploy benefit claims, prevent child abuse and even allocate school places.

Concerns have been raised by campaign groups such as Big Brother Watch about privacy and data security, but I am most worried about the Law Society’s concerns. It has highlighted the problems caused by biased data-based profiling of whole inner-city communities when trying to predict reoffending rates and anti-social behaviour. This can cause bias against black and ethnic minority communities. The potential for unconscious bias has to be taken very seriously.

As far as the National Health Service is concerned, accurate data analysis is clearly a valuable tool in serving the needs of patients, but according to a Health Foundation report of only last year, we are not investing in enough NHS data analysts. That surely is counterproductive.

I would like the Minister to answer some questions. Who exactly is responsible for making sure that standards are set and regulated for AI data use in local authorities and the public sector? Will it be Ofcom, as the new internet regulator, the Biometrics Commissioner or the Information Commissioner’s Office? Who will take responsibility? What protection is there in particular to safeguard the data of children and other groups, such as black and ethnic minorities? What are the Government planning to do about facial recognition systems, which are basically inaccurate? That is really quite frightening when you think about it.

AI and data technology are advancing so fast that the Government are essentially reactive, not proactive. Let us face it: Parliament still uses procedures set down in the 18th century. It took the Government three and a half years to pass the Brexit Bill, whereas it can take less than three and a half seconds for somebody to give consent, by the click of a mouse, to their personal data being stored and shared on the world wide web.

I do not think we should be in awe of AI, because ai is also the name of a small three-toed sloth that inhabits the forests of South America. The ai eats tree leaves and makes a high-pitched cry when disturbed.

Seriously, it is vital that there is co-ordination between national government, local authorities, academic research, industry and the media. At the heart of government data policy must be ethics. Regulation must not stifle innovation, but support it. We are at the start of an exciting new decade of 2020 vision, where democracy and technocracy must be in partnership. You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.

19:31

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. At the heart of his speech he made a point that I violently agree with: the pace of science and technology is utterly outstripping the ability to develop public policy to engage with it. We are constantly catching up. This is not a specific point for this debate, but it is a general conclusion that I have come to. We need to reform the way in which we make public policy to allow the flexibility, within the boxes of what is permitted, for advances to be made, but to remain within a regulated framework. But perhaps that is a more general debate for another day.

I am not a graduate of the Artificial Intelligence Select Committee. I wish I had been a member of it. When its very significant and widely recognised as great report was debated in your Lordships’ House, I put my name down to speak. I found myself in a very small minority of people who had not been a member of the committee, but I did it out of interest rather than knowledge. It was an extraordinary experience. I learned an immense amount in a very short time in preparing a speech that I thought would keep my end up among all the people who had spent all this time involved in the subject. I did the same when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had secured this debate, because I knew I was guaranteed to learn something. I did, and I thank him for his consistent tutoring of me by my following his contributions in your Lordships’ House. I am extremely grateful to him that he secured this debate, as the House should be.

I honestly was stunned to see the extensive use of artificial intelligence technology in the public services. There is no point in my trying to compete with the list of examples the noble Lord gave in opening the debate so well. It is being used to automate decision processes and to make recommendations and predications in support of human decisions—or, more likely in many cases, human decisions are required in support of its decisions. A remarkable number of these decisions rely on potentially controversial data usage.

That leads me to my first question for the Minister. To what extent are the Government—who are responsible for all of this public service in accountability terms—aware of the extent to which potentially controversial value judgments are being made by machines? More importantly, to what degree are they certain that there is human oversight of these decisions? Another element of this is transparency, which I will return to in a moment, but in the actual decision-making process, we should not allow automated value judgments where there is no human oversight. We should insist that there is a minimum understanding on the part of the humans of what has promoted that value judgment from the data.

I constantly read examples of decisions being made by artificial intelligence machine learning where the professionals who are following them are unable to explain them to the people whose lives are being affected by them. When they are asked the second question, “Why?”, they are unable to give an explanation because the machine can see something in the data which they cannot, and they are at a loss to understand what it is. In a medical situation, there are lots of black holes in the decisions that are made, including in the use of drugs. Perhaps we should rely on the outcomes rather than always understanding. We probably would not give people drugs if we knew exactly how they all worked.

So I am not saying that all these decisions are bad, but there should be an overarching rule about these controversial issues. It is the Government’s duty at least to know how many of these decisions are being made. I want to hear an assurance that the Government are aware of where this is happening and are happy about the balanced judgments that are being made, because they will have to be made.

I push unashamedly for increased openness, transparency and accountability on algorithmic decision-making. That is the essence of the speech that opened this debate, and I agree 100% with all noble Lords who made speeches of that form. I draw on those speeches and ask the Government to ensure that where algorithms are used, this openness and transparency are required and not just permitted, because, unless it is required, people will not know why decisions about them have been made. Most of those people have no idea how to ask for the openness that they should expect.

19:38

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Unlike many noble Lords who have spoken, I am not a member of the Select Committee. However, I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. On Monday, it published its report, Artificial Intelligence and Public Standards. The committee is independent of government. I commend the report to the noble Lord, Lord Browne; he would find many of the questions he posed formulated in it, with recommendations on what should be done next.

The implications of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector for public standards, which is what the Committee has oversight of, are quite challenging. We found that there were clearly problems in the use of AI in delivering public services and in maintaining the Nolan principles of openness, accountability and objectivity. The committee, the Law Society and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism concluded that it is difficult to find out the extent of AI use in the public sector. There is a key role for the Government—I hope the Minister is picking this point up—to facilitate greater transparency in the use of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector.

The problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others is what happens when the computer says no? There is a strong temptation for the person who is manipulating the computer to say, “The computer made me do it.” So, how does decision-making and accountability survive when artificial intelligence is delivering the outcome? The report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life makes it clear that public officials must retain responsibility for any final decisions and senior leadership must be prepared to be held accountable for algorithmic systems. It should never be acceptable to say, “The computer says no and that is it.” There must always be accountability and, if necessary, an appeals system.

In taking evidence, the committee also discovered that some commercially developed AI systems cannot give explanations for their decisions; they are black box systems. However, we also found that you can make significant progress in making things explainable through AI systems if the public sector which is purchasing those systems from private providers uses its market power to require that.

Several previous speakers have mentioned the problems of data bias, which is a serious concern. Certainly, our committee saw a number of worrying illustrations of that. It is worth understanding that artificial intelligence develops by looking at the data it is presented with. It learns to beat everyone in the world at Go by examining every game that has ever been played and working out what the winning combinations are.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made an important point about facial recognition systems. They are very much better at recognising white faces correctly, rather than generic black faces—they all look the same to them—because the system is simply storing the information it has been given and using it to apply to the future. The example which came to the attention of the committee was job applications. If you give 100 job applications to an AI system and say, “Can you choose suitable ones for us to draw up an interview list?”, it will take account of who you previously appointed. It will work out that you normally appoint men and therefore the shortlist, or the long list, that the AI system delivers will mostly consist of men because it recognises that if it puts women forward, they are not likely to be successful. So, you have to have not only an absence of bias but a clear understanding of what your data will do to the system, and that means you have to have knowledge and accountability. That pertains to the point made by my noble friend Lord Addington about people with vulnerabilities— people who are, let us say, out of the normal but still highly employable, but do not happen to fit the match you have.

So, one of our key recommendations is new guidance on how the Equality Act will apply for algorithmic systems. I am pleased to say that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has offered direct support for our committee’s recommendation. I hope to hear from the Minister that that guidance is in her in tray for completion.

The question was asked: how will anyone regulate this? Our committee’s solution to that problem is to impose that responsibility on all the current regulatory bodies. We did not think that it would be very functional to set up a separate, independent AI regulator which tried to overarch the other regulators. The key is in sensitising, informing and equipping the existing regulators in the sector to deliver. We say there is plenty of scope for some oversight of the whole process, and we very much support the view that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation should be that body. There is plenty of scope for more debate, but I hope the Minister will grab hold of the recommendations we have made and push forward with implementing them.

19:45

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this topical and very important debate, and I am delighted that we have been given six minutes rather than the previously allotted three.

As the Science and Technology Committee in the other place reported in Algorithms in Decision-making, algorithms have been used for many years to aid decision-making, but the recent huge growth of big data and machine learning has substantially increased decision-making in a number of sectors, not just in the public sector but in finance, the legal system, the criminal justice system, the education system and healthcare. I shall not give examples because of the lack of time.

As every speaker has mentioned, the use of these technologies has proven controversial on grounds of bias, largely because of the algorithm developers’ selection of datasets. The question and challenge is how to recognise bias and neutralise it. In deciding upon the relevance of algorithmic output to a decision by a public sector body, the decision-maker should have the discretion to assess unthought of relevant factors and whether the decision is one for which the algorithm was designed. Clearly there is a need for a defined code of standards for public sector algorithmic decision-making. In this regard, I refer to the recommendations of NESTA, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It recommended that every algorithm used by a public sector organisation should be accompanied by a description of its function, objectives and intended impact. If we are to ask public sector staff to use algorithms responsibly to complement or replace some aspects of their decision-making, it is vital that they have a clear understanding of what they are intended to do and in what context they might be applied.

Given the rising use of algorithms by the public sector, only a small number can be reasonably audited. In this regard, there is a recommendation that every algorithm should have an identical sand-box version for auditors to test the impact of different input conditions. As almost all noble Lords have mentioned, there is a need for more transparency about what data was used to train an algorithm, identifying whether there is discrimination on a person’s ethnicity, religion or other factors, a point most poignantly made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. By way of example, if someone is denied council housing or a prisoner is denied probation, they need to know whether an algorithm was involved in that decision. If it is proven that an individual was negatively impacted by a mistaken decision made by an algorithm, a recommendation has been made by NESTA that an insurance scheme should be established by public sector bodies to ensure that citizens can receive appropriate compensation.

I shall keep it brief. In conclusion, I do not want to give the impression that I am opposed to the use of algorithms in the decision-making processes of the public sector. The report on AI by our Select Committee, which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I was lucky enough to be a member—highlighted the huge benefits that artificial intelligence can provide to the public and private sectors. Can the Minister elaborate on the Government’s adoption strategy? With the vast majority of investments in AI coming from the United States as well as from Japan, I believe the UK should focus its efforts to lead the way in developing ethical and responsible AI.

19:50

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register and congratulate my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on securing the debate. The only difficulty in speaking at this stage is that we are rightly and rapidly running out of superlatives for him. I shall merely describe him as the lugubrious, fully committed, credible and convivial noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

AI has such potential and it is absolutely right that it is held to a higher standard. In this country—somewhat oddly, I believe—we currently allow thousands of human driver-related deaths on our roads. It is right that any autonomous vehicle is held to a kill rate of zero. But what does this mean in the public sector, in areas such health, welfare and defence? As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out, over a third of our local authorities are already deploying AI. This is not something for the future. It is absolutely for the now. None of us can afford to be bystanders, no matter how innocent. Everybody has a stake, and everybody needs to have a say.

I believe the technology has such potential for the good, not least for the public good—but it is a potential, not an inevitability. This is why I was delighted to see the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life published only two days ago, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred. I support everything set out in that report, not least its reference to the three critical Nolan principles. I restrict my comments to what the report said about bias and discrimination. Echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I agree that there is an important role for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, alongside the Alan Turing Institute and the CDEI, in getting to grips with how public bodies need to approach algorithmic intelligence.

When it comes to fairness, what do we mean—republican, democratic, libertarian or otherwise, equality of opportunity, equality of outcomes? On the technical conception of fairness there are at least 21 different definitions which computer scientists have come up with, as well as mathematical concepts within this world. What about individual, group or utility fairness and their trade-offs? If we end up with a merely utilitarian conclusion, that will be so desperately disappointing and so dangerous. I wish I could channel my inner noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, who speaks far more eloquently on this than me.

The concepts and definitions are slippery but the consequences, as we have heard, are absolutely critical—in health, in education, in recruitment, in criminal profiling. We know how to make a success of this. It will come down to the recommendations of the committee’s report. It will come down to the recommendations—and not least the five principles—set out by the Artificial Intelligence Select Committee. Yes, mea culpa, I was a member of that committee, so excellently chaired, I say again, by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

We need to consider the approach taken by the EHRC to reasonable adjustments for public bodies and the public sector equality duty; this is really about “CAGE”—"clear, applicable guidance: essential”. The prize is extraordinary. I shall give your Lordships just one example: in health, not even diagnostics but DNA is currently costing the NHS £1 billion. A simple algorithmic solution would mean £1 billion saved and therefore £1 billion that could go into care.

I am neither a bishop nor a boffin but I believe this: if we can harness all the positivity and all the potential of algorithms, of all the elements of the fourth industrial revolution, not only will we be able to make an incredible impact on the public good but I truly believe that we will be able to unite sceptics and evangelists behind ethical AI.

19:55

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I first came into this whole area when I was a Lords Minister in the Cabinet Office seven years ago, when we were struggling with the beginnings of Whitehall going through the digital transformation. I am struck by just how much things have moved since then, mostly in a highly desirable direction, but we are all concerned that we continue to move with the right safeguards and regulations.

I am not an expert, but I have learned a lot from my son-in-law who is a financial quantitative analyst looking for when patterns do not hold as well as when they do, and from my son-in-law who is an systems biologist working on mutations in RNA and DNA, not that far away from the current Chinese virus. So I follow what the experts do without being an expert myself.

I am also struck by how very little the public are aware, and how little Parliament has been involved so far. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, referred the other week to us returning to the “normal relationship” between Parliament and government, by which I think he meant Parliament shutting up more and allowing the Government to get on with things. I hope that is not what will happen in this area, because it is vital that the Government carry Parliament and then the public with them as they go forward.

A study for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation by MORI showed very little public awareness of what is going on in the sector. As the public learned, so they got more sceptical; I think the word used was “shocked”. We know that there are major benefits in the public sector from the greater use of artificial intelligence, if introduced with appropriate safeguards and regulations. This is evidence-based policy-making, which is what we are all interested in, so we need to make sure that we get it right and carry the public with the expansion of artificial intelligence.

There is a real danger of provoking a tabloid press campaign against the expansion of AI. We have seen what happened with the campaign against the MMR vaccine and how much credibility that got among the popular media, so transparency, regulation, education and explanation are important.

We need a clear legal framework. In 2012, one of the problems was that different Whitehall departments had different legal frameworks for how they used their data and how far they could share it with other departments. We need a flexible legal framework because, as we manage to do more things with mass data and mass data sharing, we shall need to adapt the framework—another reason why Parliament needs to be actively engaged.

We need ethics training for those in the public sector—and in the private sector interacting with the public sector—using artificial intelligence, so that they are aware of the limitations and potential biases and aware also that human interaction with the data and the algorithms is essential. One of the things that worries me at present, as an avid reader of Dominic Cummings’ blog, is the extent to which he believes that scientists and mathematicians should be allowed to get on with things without anthropologists, sociologists and others saying, “Hang on a minute. It’s not always as simple as you think. Humans often react in illogical ways, and that has to be built into your system.”

My noble friend Lord Stunell talked about public/private interaction. I think we understand that, while we are concentrating here on the proper public sector, one cannot disentangle private contractors and data managers from what goes on in the public sector, so we also need to extend regulation and education to the many bright private suppliers. I had a young man come to see me this afternoon who works for one of these small companies, and I was extremely impressed by how well he understood the issues.

We also need to engage civil society. Having spent a few weeks talking to university research centres, I am very impressed by how on top of this they are. There are some very impressive centres, which we also need to encourage. The richness of the developing expertise within the UK is something which the Government certainly need to encourage and lead.

My noble friend Lord Addington suggested that we may need to put the brakes on. We have to recognise that the pace of change is not going to slow, so we have to adapt and make sure that our regulatory framework adapts. I was pleased to listen to a talk by the director of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Data Analytics last week. It is a very good innovation, but it needs to expand and to have a statutory framework. Is the Minister able to tell us what progress is being made in providing the CDEI with a statutory framework?

There are alternative approaches for the Government to take. One, the Dominic Cummings approach, would be to use speed and impatience in pushing innovation through and dismissing criticism. The second would be to go at all deliberate speed, with careful explanation, clear rules and maximum transparency, carrying Parliament and the public with it. The young man who came to see me this afternoon talked about having digital liberalism or digital authoritarianism—that is the choice.

20:01

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am only too glad to add my word of thanks to the humble, ordinary, flesh-and-blood noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for our debate this evening. So many points have been raised, many of them the object of concern of more than one contributor to the debate. I am reminded a little of what happened when we had the big bang in the 1980s: finance went global and clever young people knew how to construct products within the financial sector that their superiors and elders had no clue about. Something like that is happening now, which makes it even more important for us to be aware and ready to deal with it.

I take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, about legislation. He said that it had to be flexible; I would add “nimble”. We must have the general principles of what we want to do to regulate this area available to us, but be ready to act immediately—as and when circumstances require it—instead of taking cumbersome pieces of legislation through all stages in both Houses. The movement is much faster than that in the real world. I recognise what has been said about the exponential scale in the advance of all these methodologies and approaches. We heard ample mention of the Nolan principles; I am glad about that.

On the right of explanation, I picked up an example that it is worth reminding ourselves of when we ask what it means to have an explanation of what is happening. It comes from Italy; perhaps other Members will be aware of it too. An algorithm was used to decide into which schools to send state schoolteachers. After some dubious decision-making by the algorithm, teachers had to fight through the courts to get some sort of transparency regarding the instructions that the algorithm had originally been given. Although the teachers wanted access to the source code of the algorithm—the building blocks, with all the instructions —the Italian Supreme Court ruled that appropriate transparency constituted only an explanation of its function and the underlying legal rules. In other words, it did not give the way in which the method was evolved or the algorithm formed; it was just descriptive rather than analytical. I believe that, if we want transparency, we have to make available the kind of its nuts-and-bolts aspects that lead to the algorithms that are then the object of our concern.

On accountability, who can call the shots? The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, was one of those who mentioned that. I have been reading, because it is coming up, the Government’s online harms response and the report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. I am really in double-Dutch land with it all as I look at how they interleave with each other. Each says things separately and yet together. In the report that I think we will be looking at tomorrow, it is recommended that we should continue to use the good offices of the ICO to cover the way in which the online harms process is taken forward. We have also heard that that may be the appropriate body to oversee all the things that we have been discussing. While the Information Commissioner’s Office is undoubtedly brilliant and experienced, is it really the only regulator that can handle this multiplicity of tasks? Is there a need now to look at perhaps adding something in to recognise the speed at which these things are developing—to say nothing of appointing, as the report suggests, a Minister with responsibility for this area?

I am so glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, arrive in his new guise as Chief Whip, because, in a previous incarnation, we were eyeball to eyeball like this. He reminds me of course that it was on the Data Protection Bill, as it then was—an enormous, composite, huge thing—that I cut my teeth, swimming against the tide and wondering whether I would drown. It was said then that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation was something we should aim at. It needs to happen. Here we are, two years later, and it still has not happened; it is still an aspiration. We must move forward to a competent body that can look at the ethical dimensions of these developments. It must have teeth and it must make recommendations, and it must do so speedily. On that, I am simply repeating what others have said.

Let me finish with one word—it will go into Hansard; it will go against my reputation and I will be a finished man after saying it. When I put my computer on with certain of the things that I do—for example, the Guardian quick crossword, which is part of my morning devotions—the advertising that comes up presumably has been put there by an algorithm. But it suggests that I want to buy women’s underwear. I promise noble Lords that I have no experience in that area at all, and I want to know, as a matter of transparency, what building blocks have gone into the algorithm that has told my computer to interest me in these rather recondite aspects of womenswear.

20:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I am lost for words. I am really not sure how one follows that disclosure.

I echo other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this important and interesting debate. I think that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, in being the only outcasts who were not on any of the committees—the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, indicates that he was not either—so we are an elite club.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly highlighted the widespread and rapidly growing use of algorithms, which underlines the importance of this debate. As noble Lords are aware, the UK is a world leader in relation to artificial intelligence, in terms of attracting investment, attracting talent and, crucially, in thinking through the practical and ethical challenges that the technology presents.

While driving forward innovation, we need to ensure that we maintain the public’s trust in how decisions are made about them and how their data is used, thus ensuring fairness, avoiding bias and offering transparency and accountability—which are all aspirations that noble Lords have expressed.

We want to maximise the potential that artificial intelligence offers, while ensuring that any negative implications of its use are mitigated. The Government have introduced a number of measures and interventions to ensure that we maintain public trust, something underlined by my noble friend Lady Rock, in the use of these technologies in the public sector. These include setting up the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation; developing a data ethics framework and a guide to using artificial intelligence; and creating a draft set of guidelines for AI procurement. To be successful, we need practice to become standardised, consistent and accountable. If so, public services have the potential, as my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out, to become much fairer than they have been historically. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who said—forgive me if I have got this wrong—that we have to realise that potential.

Several noble Lords talked about the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Artificial Intelligence and Public Standards. The Government have noted the recommendations on greater transparency by public bodies in the use of algorithms; new guidance to ensure that algorithmic decision-making abides by equalities law, which obviously applies in just the same way as in any other context; the creation of a single, coherent regulatory framework to govern this area; the formation of a statutory body to advise existing regulators on relevant issues; and proper routes of redress for citizens who feel that decisions are unfair. The Government will respond to these recommendations in due course, and that may offer another opportunity to reflect on these issues.

We also welcome the committee’s recommendation relating to the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. We were very pleased to see the committee’s endorsement of the centre’s important role in identifying gaps in the regulatory landscape. We are discussing with the centre the statutory powers it thinks it will need—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—to deliver against those terms of reference. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford expressed the need for a set of principles and an ethical basis for all our work. Noble Lords will be aware of the development of the data ethics framework, which includes a number of those principles. We are currently working on refreshing that framework to make it as up to date as possible for public servants who work with data.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life report, and others, have raised the issue of multiple frameworks. The Government are currently looking into developing a landing page on GOV.UK to enable users to assess the different frameworks and direct them to the one that is most appropriate and relevant to their needs. A number of noble Lords raised the importance of any framework staying agile and nimble. That is absolutely right. There is a lot more work to do on this, including looking at defining high-stakes algorithms and thinking through the mechanisms to ensure that decisions are made in an objective way. In that agility, I think all noble Lords would agree that we want to stay anchored to those key ethical principles, including, of course, the Nolan principles.

One of the foundations of our approach is the work being done on having a clear ethical framework, but we also need sound ways of implementing in practice the principles expressed in the framework. Part of our work in trying to increase transparency and accountability in the use of algorithms in AI has been the collaboration between the Office for Artificial Intelligence and the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution to codesign guidelines for AI procurement to unlock AI adoption in the public sector.

We published the draft guidelines for consultation in September 2019. The Office for Artificial Intelligence is now collaborating with other government departments to test those findings and proposals and has launched a series of pilots of the guidelines, including with four or five major government departments. Following the pilot and consultation phase, we will update the guidelines and work to design what only government could call an “AI procurement in a box” toolkit to provide other Governments and our public sector agencies with the tools they need to have the highest standards of procurement.

In an effort to bring coherence across central government departments, my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and Broadband and my right honourable friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation wrote a letter earlier this week to all Secretaries of State reminding them of and highlighting the work of the AI Council and the support it can give government departments.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about the Alan Turing Institute. The Government value its work greatly, particularly some of the work being done around skills development, which is so critical in this field.

I think every noble Lord spoke about algorithmic bias. My noble friend Lord Taylor spoke about facial recognition and issues particularly among police forces. Other noble Lords referred to the work of DWP and child protection agencies. It is important that our work in trying to avoid bias—I think all noble Lords recognise that bias exists potentially within algorithms but also in more traditional decision-making—is guided by independent and expert advice. Again, we are grateful to the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which as part of its current work programme is conducting a review into the potential for bias, looking particularly at policing, financial services, recruitment—this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I note how lucky it is that my noble friends Lady Rock and Lady Chisholm and I managed to beat the recruitment algorithm to get here—and local government. These sectors were all selected because they involve significant decisions being made about individuals. The report will be published in March and we very much look forward to its recommendations, which will inform our work in future.

I fear that I will have to write on some of the points raised, but I will do my best to cover as many as I can in the remaining time. The noble Lord, Lord St John, asked about having a duty on public bodies to declare where they are using algorithms. We hope the Centre will be looking at all of these things in the transparency aspect of its work. We are also currently reviewing the future work plan with the Centre, and obviously a number of the issues around accountability will be discussed as part of that.

In closing, I will go back to two points. One is on the potential of the use of artificial intelligence, which PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated could contribute almost $16 trillion to the global economy; obviously the UK is one of the top three countries providing that, so that would be a huge boost to our economy. However, I also go back to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said about what it means to be human. We can harness that potential in a way that enhances, rather than erodes, our humanity.

House adjourned at 8.20 pm.